Actually, the reason that is done it hold off the convict's eligibility for parole. If there is one life sentence, they could be eligible for parole in say, 10 years. But with two, the time runs consecutive, so they won't be eligible for parole for 20 years. Basically, it's a way to make sure they stay behind bars for a good, long time.
Also, you see 2 life sentences when the person has committed two, separate crimes. Say, murder and assault with a deadly weapon (no brainer, but.....). It just makes sure they stay in jail. Perhaps they get the murder conviction overturned. Well, they'll still be in jail on the other life sentence for whatever the other crime was, perhaps rape.
2007-03-22 06:56:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by cyanne2ak 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The sentences are set by the legislature. The judge can only impose sentences within the range set by the legislature.
But there is a valid reason. Say one of the convictions is overturned on a technicality, but the others remain valid. In that case, the multiple concurrent sentences mean the convict stays in jail.
2007-03-22 06:30:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
A life sentence isn't really like "life" literally, it's 70 years or so. So if a person is sentenced at 30, and they get two consecutive life sentences, then if they're still alive at 100 they begin their second life sentence.
It's also a way to impart the seriousness/heinousness of the particular crime on the convicted.
2007-03-22 06:20:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by witchiebunny 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
It's a complicated situation and i'am no lawyer but here is my understanding.
If you are serving a life sentance there is a chance you will actually get out early for good behavier or what not. with the extra life sentance if insures that they will actually spend the rest of their life in jail with no chance of early parol.
Once again this is just my understanding and i could be wrong.
2007-03-22 06:23:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by ian 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
What if one sentence is overturned due to new evidence? Would you then assume that a judge could just reinstate a previously revoked sentence on the grounds of "keeping it real?"
What is gained is consistency, without which law would be rendered arbitrary and therefore meaninless in society...
2007-03-22 06:29:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by a_man_could_stand 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Actually it is done to prevent the chance of parole on a serious crime. It has nothing to do with bonuses.
You sound a little angry. If a member of your family was the victim of a serious crime you would probably want to make sure the offender stayed behind bars
2007-03-22 06:20:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Bill in Kansas 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
consecutive life terms keep criminals off the street forever. Nowadays a single life term might let the criminal out after 10-15 years. consecutive sentence will double the time he has to serve. which is good for the people on the outside who coud easily become his victims.
2007-03-22 06:22:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by happygael 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
A life-term, unless attached to a clause of no chance for parole is defined as a twenty year term or other number of years depending on the State statute. That's why.
2007-03-22 06:21:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by scottyurb 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
If one of the convictions is overturned, the other(s) will still keep them in prison. Also, having more than 1 life sentence will adversely affect their ability to be paroled.
2007-03-22 06:19:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
I wondered about this in American law. In the UK life usually means a term of 15-20 years. I would presume that it it to make sure that they NEVER get out.
2007-03-22 06:25:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋