When the average human being only lives up to 70? Heres an example; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251242,00.html
Wouldn't it make more sense to sentence the criminal to life in prison instead of hundreds of years?
2007-02-11 04:25:49 · 8 answers · asked by D.O... 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Even lifers have been paroled. In many state cases, inmates are paroled after they have served two-thirds of their sentences, and that would mean that an inmate who is sentenced to one hundred years in the slam, must serve sixty six years, which is much the same as a life sentence.
This is a judges way of circumventing state penitentiary's from taking the law into their own hands and offering amnesty to criminals, without judicial approval.
2007-02-11 04:35:08 · answer #1 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because life sentences and life w/o the possibility of probation or parole do not mean that anymore. That is why in mostly federal, but sometimes states, you see sentences like 100 + years. This is to ensure that the defendant will die in prison. A life sentence is now generally accepted to mean you serve about 10 years or longer. Life w/o possibility of probation or parole, usually means just that. However I did run across an "inmate" who was under the supervision of the Missouri Department of Corrections. The older guy had killed his wife and brother because he thought they were fooling around, killed them both with a hammer. Was sentenced to death, had the death penalty reversed on appeal and sentenced to Life WOPP. He served 24 years and was on a work release program.
If this killer had been sentenced to 100 years instead, then he would have had to spent the minimum of 40 years behind bars before he was even eligible to go in front of the parole board.
2007-02-11 05:31:40 · answer #2 · answered by mktk401 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe the longer the sentence the longer before they are eligible for parole. Usually a life sentence has parole after 20 years.
2007-02-11 04:34:14 · answer #3 · answered by krafto8 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because of the fact a existence sentence does no longer propose existence, till somebody dies. there is often a huge gamble for parole and particularly some human beings sentenced to existence can get out in 20-30 years. If somebody gets a hundred years, regardless of time without work for good habit, they are incredibly lots set to spend something of their organic lives in reformatory.
2016-10-01 23:21:21 · answer #4 · answered by minick 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no point in this type of sentencing, its a huge number to make the public feel like the system has done its job, yet it is going to cost more money keeping this guy locked up than it would to just put him to death. Life in prison or extreme sentences like this should not exist they are just a drain to the tax payers and they should just be put to death.
2007-02-11 04:35:37 · answer #5 · answered by Kenneth W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, u know how this world is getting. everyone keeps making up ideas like, OH, A PILL THAT WILL MAKE YOU LIVE 20 YEARS LONGER! and so on. of course they don't work, but in case the prisoner takes pills like that, you get the picture.
2007-02-11 04:35:15 · answer #6 · answered by jilly babe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you can get paroled on a life imprisonment sentence.
the individual charges in this case will ensure he'll never live to come up for parole
2007-02-11 04:30:40 · answer #7 · answered by chumpchange 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
life w/o parole would solve that problem. i guess parole itself might be the culprit.concurring sentences would add up to a true life sentence
2007-02-11 04:30:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋