Too little information. You focus on the victim, but not on the criminal. The type of person Sean Kennedy was doesn't have much bearing on whether Moller deserves parole; the type of person Moller is now, and what has happened since his conviction, matters much more.

You either believe that people can be rehabilitated or you don't. If you do, then the relevant question is has Moller been rehabilitated?

But it sounds like you don't. Your quest for "justice" sounds to me more like a thirst for vengance. It's attitudes like that that have helped elevate the U.S.'s incarceration rate to historic proportions.

Michael;
Let's look at the elements of the crime:
Michael Moller confronted Sean Kennedy and did, without provocation, strike him intending to cause him grievious injury and pain.

Did he intend to kill him? Probably not, based upon the attack.

Cause greivious injury? Without question.

Did he kill him, whatever his intention? Yes.

There are multiple components to sentencing: only one is rehabilitation. Another component is to deter recividism. Wil an eight month sentence effectily deter Moller from recividism, from futher attacks upon gays? Perhaps, but probably not.

The third element of sentencing is deterrent value. Will an eight month sentence have any value in deterrence of further attacks upon gays and Lesbians that could result in death? No.

Five years minimum in my view, given the actual intent of the offense.

What has actually elevated the population in US prisons to historic levels are mandatory minimums for drug crimes. The statistics speak eloquently to this. Rockefeller-type rules for multiple offenders add to the problem.

Mr. Moller ought to sit a bit longer.