Quote:
Originally Posted by fredr123
I understand and completely respect that sentiment. At some point, though, multiple life sentences becomes a bit silly. Look at this list of the longest prison sentences. Someone in the USA got 30,000 years in prison? One guy was sentenced to 21,250 years in jail, but on appeal he had it successfully lowered by 500 years. Arial Castro plead guilty to over 900 counts and got a sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole (which I'm fine with)... plus 1000 years. What's the point of that?
And some of these guys are still eligible for parole! (although I doubt they would ever be let out)
I suppose this is one way of really emphasizing the seriousness and brutality of these crimes. If you want to say someone needs to go to jail forever and never be let out, I get that. Arguing over 21,250 years in jail or 19,750 is completely pointless. Giving someone 30,000 years in jail? Waste of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ison_sentences |
FWIW, when I was in law school in the US, I took a Sentencing survey course as an elective. We studied the development of sentencing in the US, death penalty, constitutional challenges, etc. I do remember one lecture/discussion on this topic of multiple life sentences and "damning a person to prison for years beyond their reasonable life expectancy".
One of the reasons for the multiple life sentences (where one on its own would suffice to keep the criminal locked up until he/she died) was acknowledgement of each victim in the form of sentencing. Apparently, this developed out of victim's families being upset when a person would be sentenced to life in prison for multiple murders since it appeared to only acknowledge one crime/victim/death. Handing out multiple life sentences (one for each victim) was to help the victims' families have a better connection with justice.
As for the "+1000" years, we really didn't get a solid understanding of how/when/why it developed. Assuming this isn't for other crimes committed during murder (ie. defendant is found guilty of murder but also guilty of armed robbery, kidnapping, evading and tampering with evidence) a few discussion points (from my memory) were: acknowledging especially heinous/multiple crimes in comparison to "regular crimes" of the same crime family, judges appearing tough on crime for re-election purposes, the justice system as a whole appearing tough on crime stemming out of the 80s Reagan era, a sense of "blood lust" and revenge for victim's families (even if the ultimate sentence could never be carried out - ie. life in prison +250 years).
Honestly, I've never been a fan of sentences for multiple serious crimes that run concurrently (that's a whole different kettle of fish). Obviously a person only has one life and therefore can never serve multiple life sentences, but when you look at it from the victims' family point of view, I support multiple life sentences for each victim. Even if it is duplicative, if it helps the family identify the justice for their loved one separate and apart from other victims (of a single or multiple acts), why not?
As for the "+1000", I can't see how it is effective as a deterrent or any other benefit (aside from being related to other crimes committed requiring sentencing). For me it's not so much a waste of time, but almost makes a mockery of the severity of a life (or multiple life) sentences.