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
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.
Latest Answers