Does this mean he will be buried at the prison?

[marplots]

Considering the length of prison sentences of murderers compared to child rapists worldwide I'd say it's really common, if not standard, for murder to be considered much more serious except in the most brutal and violent cases of sexual rape and sexual abuse against children (or people in general).

There's also a cumulative element, so that multiple offenses add up. I'm just guessing, but I'd predict that multiple offenses (and hence, added time) is more common in child abusers than murderers.

Whether or not adding up is merited is another good question. In this case, although the final number seems a bit silly, the crime was over-the-top terrible. But the same mechanism that would get someone a life sentence for multiple sales of stolen property? Harder to justify.

Here's one from last month:

A Marion County jury convicted a Hannibal man on five drug-related felony charges on Monday, July 27, which could lead to a total sentence of 120 years in prison.

During a one-day trial at the Hannibal courthouse before Judge Rachel Bringer Shepherd, Marion County jury members found Jimmy D. Atteberry, of Hannibal, guilty of five drug-related charges: one count of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, two counts of distribution of a controlled substance and two counts of possession of a controlled substance. The drugs included methadone, amphetamines and marijuana.

(http://www.hannibal.net/article/20150730/NEWS/150739877)

 

[Craig4]

Is that for good behavior? A guy could rack up a lot of good behavior in 3,000 years.

I wonder if he'll be able to accept mail. I'd like to send him a custom calendar to keep track of his time served. With a small enough font, I think I could get at least a thousand years to fit.

Maybe a combo calendar and day planner? "I'll pencil you in for sometime in 3145."

Maybe you could send him the game "Twister" to help him make friends.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Forgive me for side tracking on the thread but how does it work for nutters like Manson and his family.

They must have been up for parole years ago

They have to convince the parole board that they're rehabbed and ready to re-enter society. Charlie has had problems with that bit.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Forgive me for side tracking on the thread but how does it work for nutters like Manson and his family.

They must have been up for parole years ago

That’s a little unusual case. The Manson murderers were sentenced to death. In an unrelated case, the California Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional (under the California constitution). As a result, the death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. At the time, California did not have a life without parole sentence. So they became eligible for parole after 7 years. The California constitution was later amended to allow for the death penalty, and life without parole was also later instituted, but he sentences for the Manson murderers had already bet set by the previous court ruling. (The only one released on parole so far has been Steve Grogan in 1985, who was actually only sentenced to life after his death sentence was overturned by a judge.)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is the question I was answering:

....

You need to go back and look at the post I was responding to..


You said there was a problem with the justice system when a child rapist gets more time than a murderer...


I don't happen to agree. (... not that there aren't problems with the justice system. )

 

[marplots]

You need to go back and look at the post I was responding to..


You said there was a problem with the justice system when a child rapist gets more time than a murderer...


I don't happen to agree. (... not that there aren't problems with the justice system. )

The child rapist got 30,000 years and Holmes got about 3,000. This is a ten-fold difference. I found that disparity difficult to accept.

Perhaps it is explained by how sentence lengths are added up when multiple crimes are committed. But, as I mentioned previously, this method leads to absurd outcomes, one of which started this thread.

If you think that either sentence, 3,000 years or 30,000 years is sensible, we merely have a difference of opinion on when things start to become silly.

 

[cullennz]

The child rapist got 30,000 years and Holmes got about 3,000. This is a ten-fold difference. I found that disparity difficult to accept.

Perhaps it is explained by how sentence lengths are added up when multiple crimes are committed. But, as I mentioned previously, this method leads to absurd outcomes, one of which started this thread.

If you think that either sentence, 3,000 years or 30,000 years is sensible, we merely have a difference of opinion on when things start to become silly.

I think anything over 50-100 is a bit stupid

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

It look like the 30,000 year sentence for Robinson was basically just a stunt to “send a message”, which appears to be not uncommon in Oklahoma. Robinson was not eligible for a sentence of life without parole. Convicts are eligible for parole after completing 1/3 of a sentence. But the jury wanted to make sure he never got out. So they recommended a sentence of 5,000 years (not sure how they came up with that number). The judge made the 6 sentences consecutive. Therefore, 30,000 years. The intent was to get around the fact that they couldn’t sentence him to life without parole. It didn’t work.

The Department of Corrections treated the sentence as a life sentence, which for purposes of parole is considered to be 45 years, so Robinson became eligible for parole after 15 years. The jury could have sentenced him to 5 billion years for all it mattered. It was still, for all purposes, a life sentence. He is still in prison. The Oklahoma DOC site lists the terms as 999 years (I guess that is probably the maximum for their software), but he still gets his parole hearing the same as a life sentence. The OK DOC only has parole dockets going back the past three years, and he did not have a parole hearing in any of those years. I presume he has previously had a parole hearing. His next hearing is December 2017.

The 30,000 year sentence is stilly because it is actually just a life sentence (or 6 life sentences, if you will). The Holmes sentence is not silly because it the years (in addition to the 12 life sentences) are just an accumulation of normal sentences (about 23.5 years) for each of the 141 other charges on which he was convicted. That serves the practical purpose of recording the sentence for each charge.

 

[marplots]

(some good info snipped)
The 30,000 year sentence is stilly because it is actually just a life sentence (or 6 life sentences, if you will). The Holmes sentence is not silly because it the years (in addition to the 12 life sentences) are just an accumulation of normal sentences (about 23.5 years) for each of the 141 other charges on which he was convicted. That serves the practical purpose of recording the sentence for each charge.

It isn't the logic that got to the outcome that I find silly, it's the outcome. The court is imposing a sentence it does not have the ability to enforce. There is the very real and practical limit on human lifespan.

To me, it would be akin to a rule that added 500 feet to an exclusion zone for every offense against children. Molest one and you have to stay 500 feet from any place children congregate. Two, and you get 1000 ft.

In this hypothetical, a logical outcome might be sentencing someone to live on the moon. Logical and silly sometimes find themselves on the same bus.

Now I'm wondering if grounds for appeal (in the Holmes case) might arise from arguing that the jury could not have given just and due consideration to 141 counts in whatever time it took them to decide. With luck, a savvy lawyer might get the sentenced reduced to only a thousand years.

 

[cullennz]

It isn't the logic that got to the outcome that I find silly, it's the outcome. The court is imposing a sentence it does not have the ability to enforce. There is the very real and practical limit on human lifespan.

To me, it would be akin to a rule that added 500 feet to an exclusion zone for every offense against children. Molest one and you have to stay 500 feet from any place children congregate. Two, and you get 1000 ft.

In this hypothetical, a logical outcome might be sentencing someone to live on the moon. Logical and silly sometimes find themselves on the same bus.

Now I'm wondering if grounds for appeal (in the Holmes case) might arise from arguing that the jury could not have given just and due consideration to 141 counts in whatever time it took them to decide. With luck, a savvy lawyer might get the sentenced reduced to only a thousand years.

Was thinking the same thing. $100 of thousands dollars to reduce the ridiculous to the ridiculous.

 

[marplots]

Was thinking the same thing. $100 of thousands dollars to reduce the ridiculous to the ridiculous.

That's a great turn of phrase.

 

[Arcade22]

That serves the practical purpose of recording the sentence for each charge.

I highly dislike systems where people receive multiple sentences, instead of a single aggregated sentence, since it can easily lead to excessive and unproportional penalties. This is especially the case when there's no limit the culmination of penalties. For example, if possessing a substance is illegal what's going to prevent people from being a separate charge for every single mole or milligram of said substance?

If this took place in Sweden he wouldn't receive over a hundred individual life-imprisonment sentences instead he would have received one single life-imprisonment sentence. That is unless he was sentenced to "forensic psychiatric care", which is basically a separate form of imprisonment for people with "serious psychiatric disorders", for an indefinite period of time (that is, just as long, if not longer than life-imprisonment).

 

[Mudcat]

I think it's cruel and unusual to impose a sentence that long.

As opposed to the death sentence? Really?

 

[cullennz]

Conversation butt in.

Yes

 

[Craig4]

I think it's cruel and unusual to impose a sentence that long. Mandatory minimums have got to go.

Is there some reason he shouldn't be punished for each person he killed or tried to kill? Is there some circumstance where you believe the general public won't need to be protected from this guy?

 

[marplots]

I think it's cruel and unusual to impose a sentence that long.

As opposed to the death sentence? Really?

Yes. I'll assume we can agree it's unusual. Is it cruel?

I think it is. Not only have we (society) said he will remain incarcerated for the rest of his life, but taken all hope away by piling on the years. He's got no escape while remaining in constant danger from other prisoners and without his freedom.

You might say that he could commit suicide, and that's true. But being driven to committing suicide only shows how cruel the sentence really is.

Is it more cruel than a "regular" life without parole? Depends. I assume some "lifers" have hope for a pardon, or new evidence, or some other way they might squeak by. But not Holmes. Even if his sentence is reduced by 90%, he's still looking at 300 years.

 

[marplots]

Is there some reason he shouldn't be punished for each person he killed or tried to kill? Is there some circumstance where you believe the general public won't need to be protected from this guy?

It is not possible to punish him for each person he killed. He won't live long enough. Is the public protected less if he gets "only" 200 years?

What is the point in keeping him alive if all we are going to do - and all we set out to do - is to have him die in prison?

 

[cullennz]

Is there some reason he shouldn't be punished for each person he killed or tried to kill? Is there some circumstance where you believe the general public won't need to be protected from this guy?

Just turn him off

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mudcat]

I think it is. Not only have we (society) said he will remain incarcerated for the rest of his life, but taken all hope away by piling on the years. He's got no escape while remaining in constant danger from other prisoners and without his freedom.

I seem to have difficulty summoning up any amount of sympathy for serial rapists/murders and I'm all for removing them from society by any means necessary.

I'd rather have the death penalty because these 'people' are little more than rabid animals and there is only one way to deal with rabid animals. You put them down as humanely as possible.

 

[Craig4]

It is not possible to punish him for each person he killed. He won't live long enough. Is the public protected less if he gets "only" 200 years?

What is the point in keeping him alive if all we are going to do - and all we set out to do - is to have him die in prison?

The jury couldn't decide on the death penalty so all that's left is life without parole. The sentences ensure that he will never get out of prison. Why do you care if it's 200 or 3000 years?