For example you’re reading about someone convicted of a crime and they get…2 consecutive life sentences.
Or where one guy gets 300 years and another gets 500 years?
I’m not sure of the additional years are meant as a punctuation to a sentence that reflects the crime, or isbthe judge/system trying to cover their bases in case of life extension becoming a thing? (And even if life extension is discovered, that person would be serving a sentence, and probably not eligible or rather able to get/receive whatever the extension would involve)
So, anyone wanna break this down for me?
*Not sure if my flair on this relates to economics, so putting it on other for now*
In: Other
If I don´t forget myself, the reason is to prevent the convicted from getting out early in case if years would be removed from the penalty from good behavior in prison or some sort of apeal with the goal of decreasing the amount of years.
In short it is to make sure someone who has been convicted to life gets to serve the time irregardless of what happens
You can serve time “concurrently” or “consecutively” for multiple convictions. Someone serving concurrent 2-year sentences for burglary and weapons possession should in theory be out of jail in two years. Someone serving a consecutive sentence for the same thing would in theory be out in four years.
Now what people don’t know is that in some areas you get “credit” for every hour you don’t cause trouble in jail. So if you don’t cause trouble for an hour, you get credit for an additional hour of jail time. So in the previous concurrent example the convict would be out in just one year and in the consecutive example he would be out in two years.
How the sentences are handed down is often dictated by state sentencing guidelines. The judge has a series of checks that determine the length of sentence and how it is to be served. If there is a prior criminal past that pushes the sentencing one way and if there is no history then it pushes it the other way. Things like employment, family in the community, job, home ownership, etc. can also play a role in sentencing.
For most serious crimes parole or early release is also possible if a percentage of the sentence has been served (I believe like 75-85%). So after 8.5 years of a 10-year sentence someone could be eligible for early release. In particularly heinous crimes, or frequent convictions, the sentences are designed to prevent early release by assigning more years to a sentence and making it a consecutive sentence rather than concurrent.
So a child rapist who accidentally kills their victim might only have gotten convicted for second degree murder, or maybe even just manslaughter. Those would have significantly fewer years of potential punishment than first degree murder. So for the rape the guy might only get 5-years and for manslaughter he’d get maybe 10-years. All total he could serve as little as just 5-years (remember he gets an hour of credit for every hour he serves with no trouble) and if the 5 and 10 year sentences are served concurrently then he would be out in no time.
By making the sentences consecutive he would serve as little as 7.5 years and as many as 15.
But a lot of it has to do with prior criminal history.
In most jurisdictions, at least in the US “life” doesn’t actually literally mean for the rest of your life. You can be released on parole, unless you were sentenced to life without parole. It varies by jurisdiction, but you can usually apply after 15, 25, or however many years.
When you receive multiple sentences from being convicted of multiple crimes, that sentences are usually served back to back. You get 10 years from one thing, and 2 for something else, and altogether you have 12 years in prison.
So then when you receive multiple life sentences, that can serve to extend how long you need to wait to apply for parole.
Sometimes sentences are served concurrently but I’m not exactly sure how that works.
for the same reason fines get stacked. if you owe 10$ for one thing and 15$ for another, your total debt is 25$ not 15$
if you get convicted of 2 crimes, and later one of the convictions is overturned on appeal, then you still have to serve the sentence on the other crime
Convictions can be overturned so ordering a sentence for separate convictions assures that the criminal stays behind bars for the crimes not overturned. (Usually sentenced criminals will want to appeal their case.)
Stacked sentences are determined by the judge. If the judge wants you in jail longer, they stack them. On the other hand, they also have the discretion to give a single sentence for all convictions committed during a single crime.
Sentencing judges use a variety of methods in deciding how long criminals should be incarcerated: determinate or indeterminate periods, concurrent or consecutive, with or without parole. However, they must work within the prescribed length of punishment determined in the penal code law.
Judges will also take into account such as what the victim and convicted have to say at sentencing, prior history, the convicted person’s background, and threat to society.
Most important take away is that it’s up to the judge and what they feel is proper. Sometimes, it’s like you said, “a punctuation”, to redress the victim. The overall premise of the courts, all lawyers are taught, are about equity, give back what you take: balancing. (Layman’s symbol: lady justice). For criminals, it’s their time for the crime committed.
The short answer: parole eligibility.
The details will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but take for an example a place where a life sentence is eligible for parole after 25 years if the convicted person has had exemplary behavior.
If someone is convicted of two crimes and sentenced to two life sentences to be served concurrently, then after 25 years they are eligible for parole; if one of the convictions is overturned they are still serving the same sentence.
If someone is convicted of two crimes and sentenced to two life sentences to be served consecutively, then they are eligible for parole after *50* years.
Similarly, a 300 year sentence (generally multiple smaller sentences to be served consecutively) might mean parole eligibility after 75 years, which for most people is going to effectively be a life sentence with no possibility of parole.
World perspective: they aren’t in most developed countries. The most severe crime takes precedence and others might tack on to increase the sentencing time within the range specified for the former.
The criminal justice system is based on the tenet of providing a fair hearing to everyone. This means there is a very strict set of rules and procedures that must be followed.
Sometimes these seem slightly absurd – it seems superfluous to be giving someone enough life sentences to last three lifetimes, however those same rules are also used to sentence the person who committed lower grades of crimes and may be looking at multiple convictions of months or years apiece, where how these are combined will make a genuine difference to that person.
So it ends up that the serious crimes do sometimes end up with absurd punishments, but they are just the result of following the same process everyone has the right to.
As for why you might end up with multiple different sentences (running consecutively or concurrently), this will come about where multiple different crimes and offenses have occurred – because these are different crimes, they will need to be considered separately to ensure that they do not influence each other. A serial killer may be suspected and tried for multiple murders – you want to ensure that they are tried and convicted fully for each one, and not have one botched investigation or unproven crime jeopardise a separate case that is a pretty safe conviction.
Latest Answers