5 ms·

> Of course there are scenarios that require 3 life sentences (e.g. serial/psychopathic killers), but they really are rare. No, not of course. The concept of m

> Of course there are scenarios that require 3 life sentences (e.g. serial/psychopathic killers), but they really are rare. No, not of course. The concept of multiple life sentences is farcical. The scenarios which warrant them aren't just rare - they're nonexistent. If you believe someone should be imprisoned for life then fine, you can defend that position. But giving someone multiple life sentences is a mastabutory exercise which has no practical effect. They're only going to live the rest of their one lifetime. Give them the one life sentence and be done with it. Life sentences are idempotent - there is no effect to adding more of them together, so it's entirely spurious to do so.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> But giving someone multiple life sentences is a mastabutory exercise which has no practical effect. That's not necessary true in a system with early release where release eligibility is based on the original sentence. Heck, even in a system without that, if there is a possibility of one the verdicts later being nullified or the associated sentence altered, there is a potentially signficant practical difference.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  My response to that is sentencing - and likewise appeals and nullifications - should be considered holistically according to all related convictions. If we're being honest about the legal zeitgeist, judges are not piling on multiple life sentences because they're trying to shore up a wall of convictions, like some kind of sentencing severability clause. They do it because it's flashy and the mob likes it. That there exists a kernel of grounded benefit in it after the fact doesn't make it less ridiculous, because it's an absurdly inefficient way to handle nullifications.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > My response to that is sentencing - and likewise appeals and nullifications - should be considered holistically according to all related convictions. > If we're being honest about the legal zeitgeist, judges are not piling on multiple life sentences because they're trying to shore up a wall of convictions, like some kind of sentencing severability clause. No, they are doing it for a number of reasons, including early release calculations; which is why they aren't doing it in the US federal system which doesn't have early release on parole, and does use holistic sentencing with the aggregate maximum sentence of crimes in the same proceeding as the outer limit, but sentencing usually determined by a complex holistic formula based on various factors surrounding the crimes under the federal sentencing guidelines.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"The scenarios which warrant them aren't just rare - they're nonexistent." Ok - make 'life sentence' actually 'life' i.e. 80 years, give it out for the most serious crimes, and that might work. "there is no effect to adding more of them together, so it's entirely spurious to do so." For mass murdering psychopaths, there may be 'no difference' in 1 or 80 years. So by your logic 'they won't reform so skip prison'? No - punishment is a perfectly normal and reasonable reason to put people in jail. People who have been transgressed understand this usually better than others.
Nadya 8y ago
>But giving someone multiple life sentences is a mastabutory exercise which has no practical effect. The point of multiple life sentences is that they are sentenced individually for each crime. This is such that in the event one of the crimes is overturned/overruled/evidence shows they didn't do it they'll still be serving life for the other two. It very much has a practical effect. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/why-judges-hand-multiple-life-sentences.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/why-judges-hand-mult...
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  See my response to the other comment.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> But giving someone multiple life sentences is a mastabutory exercise which has no practical effect. That's not necessary true in a system with early release where release eligibility is based on the original sentence. Heck, even in a system without that, if there is a possibility of one the verdicts later being nullified or the associated sentence altered, there is a potentially signficant practical difference.

throwawaymath 8y ago
My response to that is sentencing - and likewise appeals and nullifications - should be considered holistically according to all related convictions. If we're being honest about the legal zeitgeist, judges are not piling on multiple life sentences because they're trying to shore up a wall of convictions, like some kind of sentencing severability clause. They do it because it's flashy and the mob likes it. That there exists a kernel of grounded benefit in it after the fact doesn't make it less ridiculous, because it's an absurdly inefficient way to handle nullifications.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > My response to that is sentencing - and likewise appeals and nullifications - should be considered holistically according to all related convictions. > If we're being honest about the legal zeitgeist, judges are not piling on multiple life sentences because they're trying to shore up a wall of convictions, like some kind of sentencing severability clause. No, they are doing it for a number of reasons, including early release calculations; which is why they aren't doing it in the US federal system which doesn't have early release on parole, and does use holistic sentencing with the aggregate maximum sentence of crimes in the same proceeding as the outer limit, but sentencing usually determined by a complex holistic formula based on various factors surrounding the crimes under the federal sentencing guidelines.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"The scenarios which warrant them aren't just rare - they're nonexistent." Ok - make 'life sentence' actually 'life' i.e. 80 years, give it out for the most serious crimes, and that might work. "there is no effect to adding more of them together, so it's entirely spurious to do so." For mass murdering psychopaths, there may be 'no difference' in 1 or 80 years. So by your logic 'they won't reform so skip prison'? No - punishment is a perfectly normal and reasonable reason to put people in jail. People who have been transgressed understand this usually better than others.

Nadya 8y ago

>But giving someone multiple life sentences is a mastabutory exercise which has no practical effect. The point of multiple life sentences is that they are sentenced individually for each crime. This is such that in the event one of the crimes is overturned/overruled/evidence shows they didn't do it they'll still be serving life for the other two. It very much has a practical effect. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/why-judges-hand-multiple-life-sentences.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/why-judges-hand-mult...

throwawaymath 8y ago
See my response to the other comment.