Law Sentences

[Terronium-12]

I'm not usually one to get involved in heated debate for obvious, but there's a first time to do everything here. This particular topic has been bothering me for quite sometime, years in fact. What's the problem you ask? The abuse of the consecutive sentence decisions. I mean, really, why the hell would you sentence another person life + life + 20? Who the hell is going to live that long?

To be perfectly honest I can't really think of any way it could be justified. It's erratic, irresponsible and as I said earlier an abuse of punishment. What exactly does it prove?; "I'm going to sentence you to 10 consecutive life sentences!" Couldn't it just be one sentence and be left at that? Or does the judge know something about life expectancy that I (we) do not? It's like an impossible to decipher math equation with no imminent variables just random, inconclusive numbers.

What's your opinion on the matter?

Hopefully there isn't a thread based on this already, I've searched using different terms and didn't get anything and I didn't feel like sifting through pages....

 

[Public'sTwin]

Couldn't it just be one sentence and be left at that?

To quote many a fictionalized gangster,

"Life aint life."

 

[nk4e]

To my belief, I think that the law sentences are like that because of the " possible" and "recovery" time of it for the "victims" of the crime ( depending of what it is).

 

[Richardrfo]

Don't quote me on this, but I remember reading somewhere that a guy was released from a life sentence/death row because he had a heart attack and his heart stopped for several minutes making him legally dead for that period of time, so he had served his sentence. A judge may not be thinking of this reason, but it is a reason for it.

 

[Duke]

It's NOT abusive in many cases.

Understand - a "life" sentence is actually about 20 years, not "until you die". Less, with parole and/or time off for good behaviour. So the point of consecutive life sentences is to stop a really bad person from getting out of prison early due to the way the system actually operates.

Say I'm a 20-year-old who kills 3 people during a bank robbery - that makes it 1st degree murder. I get convicted and sentenced to "life" in prison.

20 years later I get out, having served my 3 "life" sentences concurrently. That leaves me 40, very much alive, and having spent my adult life in jail. What do you think my odds are of trying to do anything better than find another gun and repeat the scenario? I've already shown willingness to kill in cold blood and I've lived for 20 years in a violent system. Puppies and charity work are not going to be high on my priority list.

Besides, if you do multiple penalties at the same time, are you really fulfilling those penalties? When you were little and you broke things, did your mother make you stand in the corner for 5 minutes, but it was OK, you could do the 5 minutes for several different incidents at the same time?

 

[Terronium-12]

It's NOT abusive in many cases.

Understand - a "life" sentence is actually about 20 years, not "until you die". Less, with parole and/or time off for good behaviour. So the point of consecutive life sentences is to stop a really bad person from getting out of prison early due to the way the system actually operates.

Say I'm a 20-year-old who kills 3 people during a bank robbery - that makes it 1st degree murder. I get convicted and sentenced to "life" in prison.

20 years later I get out, having served my 3 "life" sentences concurrently. That leaves me 40, very much alive, and having spent my adult life in jail. What do you think my odds are of trying to do anything better than find another gun and repeat the scenario? I've already shown willingness to kill in cold blood and I've lived for 20 years in a violent system. Puppies and charity work are not going to be high on my priority list.

Besides, if you do multiple penalties at the same time, are you really fulfilling those penalties? When you were little and you broke things, did your mother make you stand in the corner for 5 minutes, but it was OK, you could do the 5 minutes for several different incidents at the same time?

Interesting point, but at the same time I have to ask: If a life sentence is generally 20 years, then what's the deal with sentencing a person 80 years or more? By that logic a life sentence isn't the worse a criminal could get. Mind you, I'm not a law student nor do I have any particular interests in the system as whole, but, there are some things that generally intrigue me - this being the best example of that. How exactly is such a decision made? I can kind of understand the process for a mass murderer or something of that sort (wouldn't it be a particular sentence per every charge or person that was murdered?)

Also, what's the worse sentence you can recall? Mine would be the ten consecutive life sentences which would be one of those erratic sentence to me. 200 years (more or less), really?

 

[wfooshee]

Parole is based on the sentence term. If you are sentenced to 20 years, you might get paroled in 10, even 5, maybe. If you are sentenced to 20+20+life, your parole eligibility doesn't come up for 35 or 40 years.

The judge is basically guaranteeing the guy is not getting out in his lifetime.

Also, the judge can't just make up sentences. They have to apply to a conviction. If he convicted for murder, he's sentenced for murder. If he's convicted for murder, rape, and kidnapping, he's sentenced for all three, and the sentences should run consecutively. What good does it do to run them concurrently? Then the only sentence served is the longest one, and he gets a free ride for the other two.

 

[FoolKiller]

I mean, really, why the hell would you sentence another person life + life + 20?

Three charges, three sentences. It is either done that way or it looks like you were aquitted of two of your crimes on your record.

I believe the reasoning for why it is done concurrently or consecutively has been explained fairly well.

 

[Northstar]

Normally prosecutes will charge a suspect with as many charges as possible. This is to make the chances of a "guilty" verdict greater. If they are found guilty of more than one charge they have to sentence them for that charge. Whether or not is is concurrently or consecutively is up to the judge. There have been people that have been sentenced to thousands of years.

Edit: This is kind of what FoolKiller said, but a little more explanatory.

 

[nk4e]

How many degrees are there within a certain crime? or does it only happen with homicide?

 

[Timppaq]

You should get a sentence individually for each crime you've done. Just like Duke said. Otherwise you get some "freebies", as if by making one very horrid crime, you get away the minor crimes unpunished 👎

 

[Pupik]

Also, what's the worse sentence you can recall?

A couple of states have those death penalties: It kind of takes the life right out of life sentences.

 

[Jay]

Not to mention if someone murdered 3 people, the 3 families would like to see a direct sentence for the crime of murder of their family member. For example if the 3 time murderer got life in prison for his crimes, what would he got if he killed two people? He would get life in prison, no difference. Giving 3 life in prison terms it allows the family to know he got sentenced for each crime (their own loved one included) not just a general sentence, probably would help give some people peice of mind and justice.

The the main reason IMO is what Duke said, 3 life sentences keeps him in jail even if one or two are later turned over.