74 Life Sentences

74 Life Sentences

I dont understand. Why not just one life sentence, your in prison til you die, period. What are these people? cats?

"Mother of god...These people are absolutely dangerous, we better give them more than one life sentence, in case they reincarnate"


Disclaimer: Im not defending this guy or expressing he shouldnt get what he deserves, this guy is a sick ****, I just read the article and found the idea of more than one life sentence ridiculous.

If it was someone who killed 74 people its different because its like justice for each victim.

It's incase he appeals and get's one conviction reversed. He'll still be there for 73 more life sentences.

I would think he'd kind of smell by then though.

Jesse17 said:

It's in case he appeals and gets one conviction reversed. He'll still be there for 73 more life sentences.

Click to expand...

This is one situation where our justice system shines. Each count carries a maximum penalty. If found guilty on multiple counts, multiple sentences can be handed out. In the event that an appeal is successful to reverse one sentence, there's still plenty of time left to serve. Multiple sentences also reduce the possibility of parole. So, VERY generally, the worst criminals have the least chance of getting out early, if at all.

Right. It sounds silly, but has a very sound practical purpose

Must be a state without the death penalty. Like mine.

Okay that all makes sense now, its still ridiculous though.

Yeah, in my state and Texas below us we simply kill you if you kill other people and I am alright with that.

Jesse17 said:

It's incase he appeals and get's one conviction reversed. He'll still be there for 73 more life sentences.

Click to expand...

No, no, no. It's so when he gets reincarnated, he'll have a life in prison for the next 73 lives.

Duh!

mr_stimey said:

Okay that all makes sense now, its still ridiculous though.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Each conviction carries its own sentence, whatever that sentence is. You don't cobble all the convictions up and say "well, altogether, it's worth X years" or "well, altogether, it's worth a life sentence." That's flea market sentencing. Our justice system works a la carte, and I like it that way.


TL

Maybe I'm just an insensative a-hole, but I think that people like this should be killed immediately when declared guilty. It's obvious that he will never see the light of day as a free man again, so why waste taxpayer money on worthless human beings like this guy?

Hmmm, because we're the good guys?

I better stop swinging at this tar baby before I get stuck.


TL

Plus, nowadays in our prison system, a life sentance is only like 7 years on good behavior.

ohiobrewtus said:

Maybe I'm just an insensative a-hole, but I think that people like this should be killed immediately when declared guilty. It's obvious that he will never see the light of day as a free man again, so why waste taxpayer money on worthless human beings like this guy?

Click to expand...

Yeah-- because we've never convicted anyone of a horrible, henious crime only to discover later that we railroaded the wrong man.

So when the state executes an innocent man, who gets to be executed next?

/fwiw - I'm not really an opponent of the death penalty but I'mnot happy with the way our legal system currently handles capital cases. The last thing I want is MORE capital cases before we've fixed the obvious problems with our current system.

//I shoudl never have touched this one-- this is going to get political and messy really fast.

TexLaw said:

Not at all. Each conviction carries its own sentence, whatever that sentence is. You don't cobble all the convictions up and say "well, altogether, it's worth X years" or "well, altogether, it's worth a life sentence." That's flea market sentencing. Our justice system works a la carte, and I like it that way.


TL

Click to expand...

Given I thought a life sentence was a life sentence, and don't know a damn thing about the justice system I understand this stuff a bit better now Tex, I was initially just taking the sentencing literally to have a little fun and a laugh . No harm, no foul.

Because death isn't scary to a guy like this. Dying would be easy. Read the article! he says that he wants to be in the general population in his prison and if someone wants to kill him, so what. If punishment for crimes is to be a deterrent for others, the punishment has to be really scary. A lifetime of solitary confinement is damn scary, even for this heartless bastard!

shafferpilot said:

Because death isn't scary to a guy like this. Dying would be easy. Read the article! he says that he wants to be in the general population in his prison and if someone wants to kill him, so what. If punishment for crimes is to be a deterrent for others, the punishment has to be really scary. A lifetime of solitary confinement is damn scary, even for this heartless bastard!

Click to expand...

And there's the rub.

I personally don't care for a system that is design to 'punish' people who are not redeemable. I think the system should make an effort to save those who can be saved and keep those who are nto redeemable separated from society. I don't think it should be about revenge-- it shoudl be about trying to make everyone a produtive member of society and, failing that, protecting those that are productive from the destrutive ones.

Unfortunately, it is politically easier to propose rules to meet out vengance than it is to propose systems that try to earnestly rehabilitate. Proposing any meaningful rehabilitation process puts the current paradigm of prison profits at risk and the same time it lets your political opponents label you as 'soft on crime'.

kornkob said:

Yeah-- because we've never convicted anyone of a horrible, henious crime only to discover later that we railroaded the wrong man.

So when the state executes an innocent man, who gets to be executed next?

/fwiw - I'm not really an opponent of the death penalty but I'mnot happy with the way our legal system currently handles capital cases. The last thing I want is MORE capital cases before we've fixed the obvious problems with our current system.

//I shoudl never have touched this one-- this is going to get political and messy really fast.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I said my peace... now I'm running away.

ohiobrewtus said:

Agreed, I said my peace... now I'm running away.

Click to expand...

OK I will say it. Texas also has the most people executed or on death row who were later found to be innocent. How horrible would it be to see that needle coming towards you and know that you are innocent?

wortmonger said:

Yeah, in my state and Texas below us we simply kill you if you kill other people and I am alright with that.

Click to expand...

Until of course, the state begins to kill people that actually did not do the crime.

Been following the Duke LaCrosse team issue? The prosecutor continued to prosecute those young people even after knowing they were not quilty.

No, when the state can bring people back from the dead, we are all better off not having the death penality.

Opps does not make it on this one.

Seventy-four life sentences sounds good to me.

kornkob said:

I personally don't care for a system that is design to 'punish' people who are not redeemable. I think the system should make an effort to save those who can be saved and keep those who are nto redeemable separated from society. I don't think it should be about revenge-- it shoudl be about trying to make everyone a produtive member of society and, failing that, protecting those that are productive from the destrutive ones.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of revenge, it's a matter of deterrent. Criminals should'nt be able to say, "Well the worst they can do is send me to life in prison, or kill me and get it over with." They should know that the life in prison is going to be 'a miserable life' in prison.

That being said, I've always been more for the death penalty than for life in prison. I just can't see spending the money/over crowding of prisons on someone who will never get out. On the other hand, I think there should be some sort of waiting period, to give the guy a chance to appeal, etc. But how long do you wait. I've seen stories of people getting found out innocent after 20+ years.

kornkob said:

And there's the rub.

I personally don't care for a system that is design to 'punish' people who are not redeemable. I think the system should make an effort to save those who can be saved and keep those who are nto redeemable separated from society. I don't think it should be about revenge-- it shoudl be about trying to make everyone a produtive member of society and, failing that, protecting those that are productive from the destrutive ones.

Unfortunately, it is politically easier to propose rules to meet out vengance than it is to propose systems that try to earnestly rehabilitate. Proposing any meaningful rehabilitation process puts the current paradigm of prison profits at risk and the same time it lets your political opponents label you as 'soft on crime'.

Click to expand...

98% of the people there are never ever ever going to be productive members of society. Going in and out of jail is just a regular old part of life for them. The only people who "change their ways" from going to prison are the young guys and gals that take one look at the general jail population and decide that they aren't gonna keep going down that road. Jail never turned a criminal around, trust me, it just doesn't happen. Some people may choose to turn themselves around, but it's not because of prison.

Overcrowding isn't an issue as a result of life sentence prisoners. They make up a teeny tiny percent of the jailed population. Overcrowding is a direct result of the criminalization of recreational drugs, mostly marijuana. Even the experts admit that.

shafferpilot said:

.........

Overcrowding isn't an issue as a result of life sentence prisoners. They make up a teeny tiny percent of the jailed population. Overcrowding is a direct result of the criminalization of recreational drugs, mostly marijuana. Even the experts admit that.

Click to expand...

I spent some time as a state policy maker. That whole, "tough on crime" era starting in the 1980's got out of control. A whole special interest industry grew that threw money around resulting in some state policies and prison building that is now coming back to bite us.

You could not discuss crime in a reasonable manner. It was all, "you are soft on crime" any time you wanted to look at alternatives. We can't afford to simply lock everybody up for the smallest of infractions. Punish them yes, but don't punish all of us as you do so.

I like living in states that allow me to defend myself with death if need be. I can and will shoot to kill anyone robbing my home while I am there. Theft of property is one issue, fear of the unknown (intentions of the robber to not get caught by silencing you) is another. I would happily let my property go, but I will not believe a robber saying he just wants my stuff and I won't be hurt. I know we execute people that are innocent of the crime, but they look so guilty given all the other stuff in their life usually. I am not advocating they deserve it based on other crimes, but the jury killed those people, not me. I trust that overall juries are more right than wrong. In the case of the Duke lacrosse team, the prosecutor deserves a prison sentence for using the law to "kidnap a person (s) from society." I hold people of authoritative stature more accountable in my opinion. The courts are not perfect, and in my mind we have too many laws which make more criminals. I will say this about Texas, to my best recollection. If you kill someone in Texas and there are at least 3 unrelated witnesses, you lose your appeals and head straight to the front of the pack. I may be wrong, but this seems right to me. I hate getting into the debate about the death penalty because it has so many "well in this case I woulds." In my mind, if you are pr oven innocent after conviction and people purposely put you there, "they" deserve that sentence. If more people would defend themselves with weapons and deadly force, or if others would come to their aid and kill if necessary, I believe we would have a lot less criminals thinking they could just do whatever they wanted. I will agree that the death sentence doesn't deter as much crime as it should, but that is because of the chance the people might get off, or underage. If it didn't make it to trial, there is just the explanation of why there is a dead guy on your floor. I opened a can of worms probably, so I will say this to show I am not completely stupid. I understand this too would have a bunch of idiots shooting first and then asking later if they could. I am for "only" unquestionable acts stopped by the would be victim. I know it isn't the polices job to protect you, you have to protect you. They show up once called or if they happen to see something happening, because they can't be in two places at once and do not have ESP. It seems no one wants to help another out in today's society, and that is scarier than a prison sentence to me. I am just saying, life in prison for some is better than they had it before, and that is just wrong on so many levels. How many people get free health care, cable, education, etc? If I was convicted and had the choice of life in prison or death, I am secure in my beliefs enough to take the chair.

shafferpilot said:

. Overcrowding is a direct result of the criminalization of recreational drugs, mostly marijuana. Even the experts admit that.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Or at the very least the sentences are incredibly dispraportionate.

cheezydemon said:

Agreed. Or at the very least the sentences are incredibly dispraportionate.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, 25 yrs to life for 1st degree murder in some cases, and life for growing pot in some states.

Jesse17 said:

It's not a matter of revenge, it's a matter of deterrent. Criminals should'nt be able to say, "Well the worst they can do is send me to life in prison, or kill me and get it over with." They should know that the life in prison is going to be 'a miserable life' in prison.

That being said, I've always been more for the death penalty than for life in prison. I just can't see spending the money/over crowding of prisons on someone who will never get out. On the other hand, I think there should be some sort of waiting period, to give the guy a chance to appeal, etc. But how long do you wait. I've seen stories of people getting found out innocent after 20+ years.

Click to expand...

There is limited evidence that 'deterrent' works.

There is evidence that housing criminals together without attempting to reduce recividism creates harder, more effective criminals.

There's even more evidence that housing hardened criminals along side first timers who might be recovered causes increased recividism.




There have been no serious attempts at educating or treating criminals in the past 30 years. Instead we get things like 'truth in sentancing' and 'zero tolerance' kinds of efforts which don't really help reduce crime or recividism.

Jesse17 said:

It's not a matter of revenge, it's a matter of deterrent. Criminals should'nt be able to say, "Well the worst they can do is send me to life in prison, or kill me and get it over with." They should know that the life in prison is going to be 'a miserable life' in prison.

Click to expand...

I think THAT goal is a revealing factor about what is wrong with this situation/culture in the first place. People should not be "deterred" from committing a crime because they will be punished, particularly not something so heinous as murder.

People should have an internal knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, and that's it. THAT should be what deters them.

On a side note, I do wonder whether there have always been this many crazy people (especially parents killing their own children nowadays) and people just didn't hear about it due to lack of media sources, or if something in our culture is causing us to self-destruct.

kornkob said:

There is limited evidence that 'deterrent' works.

There is evidence that housing criminals together without attempting to reduce recividism creates harder, more effective criminals.

There's even more evidence that housing hardened criminals along side first timers who might be recovered causes increased recividism.




There have been no serious attempts at educating or treating criminals in the past 30 years. Instead we get things like 'truth in sentencing' and 'zero tolerance' kinds of efforts which don't really help reduce crime or recividism.

Click to expand...

I will agree with these statements 100%. Deterrents are different for everyone. I am morally deterred.

Consecutive life sentences are handed down to deal with the whole parole issue. Parole is based on the time you have to serve so someone with a single life sentence would be eligible for parole before someone with 2 life sentences.

Personally I think we should do away with parole all together (also the whole 6-10 years thing). You get a sentence, that is how long you stay in jail, end of story.

As for the whole deterrence thing, no it isn't a deterrent, many many studies have shown this. It also costs more to keep an inmate on death-row than to have them incarcerated for life (much of that due to legal costs). Personally, I don't think the death sentence is much of a penalty since once your dead it's all over. I'd rather see life sentences with hard labor and no perks (why inmates get TV, ect... is beyond my capacity).

TheJadedDog said:

Consecutive life sentences are handed down to deal with the whole parole issue. Parole is based on the time you have to serve so someone with a single life sentence would be eligible for parole before someone with 2 life sentences.

Personally I think we should do away with parole all together (also the whole 6-10 years thing). You get a sentence, that is how long you stay in jail, end of story.

As for the whole deterrence thing, no it isn't a deterrent, many many studies have shown this. It also costs more to keep an inmate on death-row than to have them incarcerated for life (much of that due to legal costs). Personally, I don't think the death sentence is much of a penalty since once your dead it's all over. I'd rather see life sentences with hard labor and no perks (why inmates get TV, ect... is beyond my capacity).

Click to expand...

Oh, I am all for work detail, and would be against the death penalty if the people had a hard life in prison. I don't understand why they get it as good as they do. I am for solitary confinement as if I ever had to go I wouldn't feel like I was going to die anyday for a small sentence. They claim solitary is cruel, WTF, try safe. A hard life is doing everything right, and not asking for help. It is not B&E to steal from people who earned their possesions and continueing until you get caught only to have it tun out you get it better than you had it at home. How bought a gerbil wheel electric generator and "contributing" to society once you are locked up?

TheJadedDog said:

.......

Personally I think we should do away with parole all together (also the whole 6-10 years thing). You get a sentence, that is how long you stay in jail, end of story.....

Click to expand...

I think the purpose of parole is so that one can be easily hauled back into jail/prison. If there is not the parole, "hook" then the autorities must treat the person with a new crime and go through the whole legal process again.

I think that is the purpose of parole. Maybe somebody else knows more.

jmulligan said:

On a side note, I do wonder whether there have always been this many crazy people (especially parents killing their own children nowadays) and people just didn't hear about it due to lack of media sources, or if something in our culture is causing us to self-destruct.

Click to expand...

I suspect that has as much to do with increased reporting as it does increase law enforcement training and capability so those kinds of crimes are actually being detected and reported. It was not that long ago that crime reporting was positively dismal. Between the fact that the LEOs were barely trained (and often barely educated) in the first half to 3/4 of the 20th century and the fact that until the late 80s the ENTIRE crime reporting process was a pen and paper exercise (which discouraged both initial reporting and reclassifcation), one has to question the validitity of crime reporting prior to the 80s.

It also has to do with the fact that we have more people--- so if one out of every 10 million is a 'fill in dramatic criminal type here' that means we have 30 of them today but there were only 15 in 1950. It's not that there are nessicarily a higher rate of these kinds of crimes, but we have a lot more people committing them.

Our cuture has also changed. Many crimes in the past went unreported and undetected. Communities and families would bury the bad stuff and never let it out. While some of this is still happening, cities are far less ethnically segregated than they used to be and those ethnic neighborhoods that do exist are far less tightly knit.

And finally we have to remember that news has changed dramatically. Many of the 'rules' of journalism have gone by the wayside and even the old school papers and newsrooms have begun to focus on more 'entertainment' news. Thus lurid, bloody, dramatic events get far more coverage than they used to.

Gammon N Beer said:

I think the purpose of parole is so that one can be easily hauled back into jail/prison. If there is not the parole, "hook" then the autorities must treat the person with a new crime and go through the whole legal process again.

I think that is the purpose of parole. Maybe somebody else knows more.

Click to expand...

The modern function of parole varies based on the area but there are 2 main purposes:

a) budgetary/political: by shifting the nube rof parolees released one can have a direct impact on a prison's budget. Overtime can be drastically reduced if you can clear out a prison for a quarter. You can also bulk up a prison during a budgetary battle by releasing fewer prisoners so you can 'prove' that your organizational unit needs more money.

b) internal carrot: parole is really one of the only big carrots that can be used by the prison, DA or LEO to extract good behavior or information from a prisoner.

Parole is still a form of supervised incarceration. The Parolee is NOT free. They are just one a very lose form of supervision. Their rights are just as curtailed as they are in prison. They are subject to random search, told where they can and cannot live, work and play and are udner severe restrictions as to what they can own, possess or play with. this is why they can be sent back toprison with no due process-- because they are just being transferred from a less restrictive incarceration to a more restrictive incarceration.

kornkob said:

The modern function of parole varies based on the area but there are 2 main purposes:

a) budgetary/political: by shifting the nube rof parolees released one can have a direct impact on a prison's budget. Overtime can be drastically reduced if you can clear out a prison for a quarter. You can also bulk up a prison during a budgetary battle by releasing fewer prisoners so you can 'prove' that your organizational unit needs more money.

b) internal carrot: parole is really one of the only big carrots that can be used by the prison, DA or LEO to extract good behavior or information from a prisoner.

Parole is still a form of supervised incarceration. The Parolee is NOT free. They are just one a very lose form of supervision. Their rights are just as curtailed as they are in prison. They are subject to random search, told where they can and cannot live, work and play and are udner severe restrictions as to what they can own, possess or play with. this is why they can be sent back toprison with no due process-- because they are just being transferred from a less restrictive incarceration to a more restrictive incarceration.

Click to expand...

TY for taking the time to explain it.

wortmonger said:

Oh, I am all for work detail, and would be against the death penalty if the people had a hard life in prison. I don't understand why they get it as good as they do. I am for solitary confinement as if I ever had to go I wouldn't feel like I was going to die anyday for a small sentence. They claim solitary is cruel, WTF, try safe. A hard life is doing everything right, and not asking for help. It is not B&E to steal from people who earned their possesions and continueing until you get caught only to have it tun out you get it better than you had it at home. How bought a gerbil wheel electric generator and "contributing" to society once you are locked up?

Click to expand...

The solitary confinement issue is also one that is easy to be "for". Yet, I would ask you to reconsider.

There are people in prison that will some day get out. They will rejoin society.

If, through solitary confinement we have turned somebody insane, do we want them on the streets? I think there is enough of that already.

Well, "going to school to be a better criminal" seems to be what happens when they can talk and associate. They don't go insane they can entertain themselves through their fricken tv programs. If we locked them up and prevented harm to them isn't that better than hanging out with their buddies and getting shanked? Not to mention the previously said learning experiences they get from more professional crooks. They did the crime, and kids still get sentenced to time out in a corner or grounding.

wortmonger said:

Well, "going to school to be a better criminal" seems to be what happens when they can talk and associate. They don't go insane they can entertain themselves through their fricken tv programs. If we locked them up and prevented harm to them isn't that better than hanging out with their buddies and getting shanked? Not to mention the previously said learning experiences they get from more professional crooks. They did the crime, and kids still get sentenced to time out in a corner or grounding.

Click to expand...

I don't know what this about.

When I talked to prison guards about this type of thing, they encouraged me to not vote to ban smoking in prison. The reason was one I had not thought about. Smoking, televison rights etc are the only hammer the guards can hold over their head. Made sense to me.

If you lock somebody up for 24 hours a day, with no contact with other people many will be driven insane.

Well, then put them all together and let nature take it's course. It is much easier and cheaper for inmates to have killed Dommer than us to. I bet the argument would be moot if the inmates had the choice or solitary confinement with amenities that wouldn't cost a lot (that some get right now anyway) as to their potential lost life. Even gangs kill their own gang members so there is no safe imprisonment. There are people that do nothing but sit at home and talk on the internet, just like we are right now that don't go insane because they do have a connection to the outside world. I don't buy the argument that it makes you go insane. Maybe a solid blacked out room where you have nothing, but with amenities I don't buy it. This is the only case I am for them having entertainment in their cells.

wortmonger said:

Well, then put them all together and let nature take it's course. It is much easier and cheaper for inmates to have killed Dommer than us to. I bet the argument would be moot if the inmates had the choice or solitary confinement with amenities that wouldn't cost a lot (that some get right now anyway) as to their potential lost life. Even gangs kill their own gang members so there is no safe imprisonment. There are people that do nothing but sit at home and talk on the internet, just like we are right now that don't go insane because they do have a connection to the outside world. I don't buy the argument that it makes you go insane. Maybe a solid blacked out room where you have nothing, but with amenities I don't buy it. This is the only case I am for them having entertainment in their cells.

Click to expand...

And maybe you and I are beginning to agree. I base my comments above on yours that indicated solitary confinement was ok. Some background here...

For purposes that I believe were political, a prision was built in Wisconsin. This Super max was built to house the most hardened. It is my understanding that the wardens of the prison system were against this from the beginning.

But it was sited and built.

After it was built it was found out that there were not enough, "hardened" criminals to populate the place. If you read some of the threads above, somebody else told us of the cost/political purposes of prisons.

Anyway. Not having enough hardened criminals to fill the beds, the standards were lowered. Eventually some teenagers and young adults ended up there.

Locked 23 hours a day. Lights on 24 hours a day. No tv. No contact with another person. Do that for a year of two, then get out.

Our prison system does not only have killers and rapists. It is full of people that yes, have committed crimes. But, we tend to only want to think about the most henious of criminals and not those people that did a one time stupid thing, or a crime of passion. They do get out and become our co-workers and neighbors.