American Prison Sentences

[Bert45]

Why do American courts pas such ridiculous prison sentences, over 100 years for instance? I just read that D Trump faces a maximum of 136 years in jail. So he'll be 212 when he gets out. Perhaps he'll get a few years knocked off for good behaviour.

[Buenchico]

Worth a read, I think:
https://theconversation.com/why-does-the-us-sentence-people-to-hundreds-of-years-in-prison-120485

[Bert45]

Thanks, Buenchico. I read that piece. It didn't really answer my question, but it seemed to conclude that there is no answer. The last sentence sums it up: "To put it lightly, we do things differently here." And that's all there is to it. It seems that Spain has similar thinking: "The three [found guilty of the 2004 Madrid train bombing] were each sentenced to between 34,000 and 43,000 years in jail." It looks as though Trump will get off lightly compared to those sentences, if he is found guilty and sentenced to the maximum.

[Gromit]

I assume it is because they don’t run sentences concurrently. Face 30 odd offences that are 4 years plus, and you end up with a lot of years.
Our way, you more or less get away with crimes. Get charged with 3 things that are 2 years each, and the sentence will be 2 years, not 6 years. The US system makes more sense, as far as punishment is concerned.

[johnk]

I think relatives can't take the body for re-burial until the sentence is over.

[ichkeria]

Surely the link precisely answers your question

[tomus42]

Gromit is right in that the US system makes more sense, at least when it comes to very serious crime and dangerous people.

It doesn't make as much sense for the type of thing Trump's being accused of here.

[Old_Geezer]

Yeah, but maybe he'll get time off for good behaviour.

[ToraToraTora]

"Why do American courts pas such ridiculous prison sentences" - it's not ridiculous, it makes more sense that what we do. All they are doing is removing human longevity from consideration in the process. I don't see a problem.

[ToraToraTora]

Bert, like many others who have asked this question, get hung up on estimates of longevity. So are you saying that they should first use actuarial tables to estimate how long a person may live? Then presumably tailor the sentence accordingly? See how silly that is? It is us that has the ridiculous sentencing system.

[ToraToraTora]

some crackers here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_prison_sentences
Love this one, Michael Devlin, 74 life sentences and after you have done that, only 2020 years on top, ok ok you can have 50% off for good behaviour! PMSL!

[Ken4155]

[Ken4155]

OOOOOPPPPPSSSSS

[Old_Geezer]

No. That is far too harsh a sentence :-(

[Bert45]

Some states allow the jury to determine the sentence and, if there are multiple offences, to say whether the sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively. I think it is ridiculous to sentence somebody to more than 100 years in jail, because, so far, nobody has lived long enough to serve such a sentence. If they want to sentence somebody to life imprisonment without parole, let them just say that. I think that it is ridiculous to sentence somebody to serve multiple sentences concurrently, as it means that someone who commits 10 offences can serve the same time in jail as someone who commits one offence, though I would hope that the former would get a longer sentence than the latter. But, if someone gets 10 years for one armed robbery and another commits 10 armed robberies, it would be just as ridiculous for the second to get 100 years.

[ToraToraTora]

11:15 woosh!

[Peter Pedant]

from chris' arteecl

an attorney in state criminal courts, I see their purpose as entirely symbolic.

yeah right

[Bert45]

Once the convict has died, do they leave the body to rot (or mummify) in the cell until the rest of the sentence has been served? I think not. It is just ridiculous. They might as well think of a number over 100 and double it. Some crimes deserve a life sentence (well, some would say they deserve capital punishment, but that's a different issue), and that's what the sentence should be. I think sentences over 100 years hold their judicial system up to ridicule.

[fitdarren]

I suppose they are a bit daft, but at least the prisoner knows he's never going to get out alive!!

[tomus42]

As has been said, human lifespan is irrelevant to the case.

They add up the punishments for the crimes committed and arrive at a sentence, whether it be 6 months or 600 years.

If the prisoner dies during the sentence, then oh dear, never mind.