6 ms·

> The ruling voided McGirt’s sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could face a new trial in federal court rather than state court. Not changed by this ruli

by abeppu 6y ago

> The ruling voided McGirt’s sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could face a new trial in federal court rather than state court. Not changed by this ruling, but it strikes me as really odd that you can sentence someone to prison for that long, or that you would bother. Why not just say life in prison? If your state is 103 years old, saying anything about the next 1000 years seems ... lacking in credibility.

travmatt 6y ago
It factors into parole release and other calculations
viggity 6y ago
life in prison is usually reserved for capital crimes. But when someone acts so heinously, then they just tack on year after year. However, AFAIK, rape or even murder aren't federal crimes, unless the crime crossed state/tribal boundaries.
- dharmab 6y ago
  > However, AFAIK, rape or even murder aren't federal crimes, unless the crime crossed state/tribal boundaries. That was at issue in the case; the plaintiff was convicted by the state and argued that the state didn't have jurisdiction.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
seiferteric 6y ago
Pretty sure it is just the sum of all the sentences they received.
sonofgod 6y ago
So let's say fraud has a standard tarriff of ten years. And we agree that committing two frauds is twice as bad, so we add them together. Still makes sense. And someone defrauded a LOT of people. Say sixteen THOUSAND. That's how you sentence someone for 141,078 years... (They served eight.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_prison_sentences#Prisoners_sentenced_to_more_than_1,000_years_in_prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_prison_sentenc...
- abeppu 6y ago
  Thanks for linking that wikipedia page. Some of those examples sound crazy. In particular, I don't understand the motivation in cases where there was a sentence of several thousand years, and later it was reduced by 500. Does that reduction in sentence provide any kind of actual benefit to anyone?
- bonzini 6y ago
  In other words, jail is only for punishment and revenge, and doesn't give a s*it about reeducation.
evgen 6y ago
It is perverse, but there is a method to the madness. Some sentencing mitigations or parole decisions are based upon length of sentence. Someone who is given a 20 year sentence may be eligible for parole when, for example, 1/4 of the sentence has been served. By setting the sentence to a ridiculous length it is effectively denying any possibility for parole without directly stating that the sentence is to served without any chance for parole.
- seebetter 6y ago
  They already do this in LA. Get sentenced to 120 days in jail but due to overcrowding you’d do 5-10 days in jail. Soon local politicians will require you only to do 1% of jail time so you’ll be sentenced to a 100 years in jail for a misdemeanor. This already exists in the California bail system where you pay 1% of astronomically high bails (eg $60,000 bail for 1st time misdemeanor, like if they change a court date and fail to inform you).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- jandrese 6y ago
  I figure it must have been to get around a rule that says "you can't add a no-parole rider for this kind of crime".
- arp242 6y ago
  In the Netherlands life imprisonment means exactly that: imprisonment for life. There is no option for parole, other than by royal decree (which seems to have happened 3 times since 1970) [1] According to Wikipedia[2], there are several countries where this is the case: > In Europe, there are many countries where the law expressly provides for life sentences without the possibility of parole. These countries are England and Wales (within the United Kingdom), the Netherlands, Moldova, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Malta, Cyprus, Albania, Ukraine and the Republic of Ireland. This seems much clearer to me than a 200-year sentence which needs to undergo a calculation to get the actual sentence length. As I understand it, the way trails are done are also a bit different: rather than "two counts of X", people are judged based on "did X two times". In other words, you don't get a separate conviction for both Xs. So if someone killed three people, they're judged based on killing three people, rather than based on every individual killing. In those cases someone can receive a life sentence, rather than "3x30=90 years" or some such. [1]: Details in Dutch: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenslange_gevangenisstraf#Nederland https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenslange_gevangenisstraf#Ne... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Mangalor 6y ago
All these legalistic reponses, and yet none really touches the sheer absurdity of sentencing someone to 1,000 years. Doesn't the lifespan of a human being figure in at any point? Talking this way is dehumanizing.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Yes, it's called a life sentence. Nobody is expected to live a thousand years, and they're not going to keep them in prison after they die.
  - Mangalor 6y ago
    I think you miss the point.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      Let us say that the punishment for murder in the first degree is always a 50 year jail term. A man who is 75 years of age is charged with two murders and convicted. 1. At 75 years of age, he will not live to be 175 2. The law dictates that the punishment per murder must be 50 years 3. He's been convicted of two murders, and must have both charges applied to him unless we are not to expect punishment for one of the victims. Ergo, he must have a term much longer than his lifespan. There are a thousand details I just skipped over (concurrent sentances, multiple crimes commited in the same act, stacking versus non-stacking offenses, etc) but this isn't unusual and is a perfectly rational and sane outcome.
  - ggggtez 6y ago
    In the US, it's possible to be let out of jail for a life sentence in only 7 years, when you account for parole. Judges are elected officials, so sometimes they like to make a nice big show of giving out a 1000 year sentence to appease the masses, when "life in prison without parole" would have done the same job.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    But that's the thing, it's not called a life sentence, and the thing that is called a life sentence, isn't a life sentence. I dunno if I buy the "dehumanizing" argument, but I certainly think it's unnecessarily confusing.
ulucs 6y ago
Application of law is mostly derived from first principles. So you start with two things that are believed by most legal experts: - Sentencing to life without parole is considered inhumane - Criminal sentences should be proportional to the crime - Sentences are supermodular Let's say there is a minimum sentence of two months for some insignificant crimes, start increasing the length for more serious ones. Most serious crimes usually involve several different crimes that are committed while committing the "main" component of the crime. So it starts adding up, and it starts adding up fast due to the supermodularity. So even though the end result is seemingly absurd, trying to make it non-absurd would violate some of the most agreed-upon principles and here we are.

by abeppu 6y ago

travmatt 6y ago

It factors into parole release and other calculations

viggity 6y ago

life in prison is usually reserved for capital crimes. But when someone acts so heinously, then they just tack on year after year. However, AFAIK, rape or even murder aren't federal crimes, unless the crime crossed state/tribal boundaries.

dharmab 6y ago
> However, AFAIK, rape or even murder aren't federal crimes, unless the crime crossed state/tribal boundaries. That was at issue in the case; the plaintiff was convicted by the state and argued that the state didn't have jurisdiction.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

seiferteric 6y ago

Pretty sure it is just the sum of all the sentences they received.

sonofgod 6y ago

So let's say fraud has a standard tarriff of ten years. And we agree that committing two frauds is twice as bad, so we add them together. Still makes sense. And someone defrauded a LOT of people. Say sixteen THOUSAND. That's how you sentence someone for 141,078 years... (They served eight.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_prison_sentences#Prisoners_sentenced_to_more_than_1,000_years_in_prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_prison_sentenc...

abeppu 6y ago
Thanks for linking that wikipedia page. Some of those examples sound crazy. In particular, I don't understand the motivation in cases where there was a sentence of several thousand years, and later it was reduced by 500. Does that reduction in sentence provide any kind of actual benefit to anyone?
bonzini 6y ago
In other words, jail is only for punishment and revenge, and doesn't give a s*it about reeducation.

evgen 6y ago

It is perverse, but there is a method to the madness. Some sentencing mitigations or parole decisions are based upon length of sentence. Someone who is given a 20 year sentence may be eligible for parole when, for example, 1/4 of the sentence has been served. By setting the sentence to a ridiculous length it is effectively denying any possibility for parole without directly stating that the sentence is to served without any chance for parole.

seebetter 6y ago
They already do this in LA. Get sentenced to 120 days in jail but due to overcrowding you’d do 5-10 days in jail. Soon local politicians will require you only to do 1% of jail time so you’ll be sentenced to a 100 years in jail for a misdemeanor. This already exists in the California bail system where you pay 1% of astronomically high bails (eg $60,000 bail for 1st time misdemeanor, like if they change a court date and fail to inform you).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jandrese 6y ago
I figure it must have been to get around a rule that says "you can't add a no-parole rider for this kind of crime".
arp242 6y ago
In the Netherlands life imprisonment means exactly that: imprisonment for life. There is no option for parole, other than by royal decree (which seems to have happened 3 times since 1970) [1] According to Wikipedia[2], there are several countries where this is the case: > In Europe, there are many countries where the law expressly provides for life sentences without the possibility of parole. These countries are England and Wales (within the United Kingdom), the Netherlands, Moldova, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Malta, Cyprus, Albania, Ukraine and the Republic of Ireland. This seems much clearer to me than a 200-year sentence which needs to undergo a calculation to get the actual sentence length. As I understand it, the way trails are done are also a bit different: rather than "two counts of X", people are judged based on "did X two times". In other words, you don't get a separate conviction for both Xs. So if someone killed three people, they're judged based on killing three people, rather than based on every individual killing. In those cases someone can receive a life sentence, rather than "3x30=90 years" or some such. [1]: Details in Dutch: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenslange_gevangenisstraf#Nederland https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenslange_gevangenisstraf#Ne... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Mangalor 6y ago

All these legalistic reponses, and yet none really touches the sheer absurdity of sentencing someone to 1,000 years. Doesn't the lifespan of a human being figure in at any point? Talking this way is dehumanizing.

luckylion 6y ago
Yes, it's called a life sentence. Nobody is expected to live a thousand years, and they're not going to keep them in prison after they die.
- Mangalor 6y ago
  I think you miss the point.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Let us say that the punishment for murder in the first degree is always a 50 year jail term. A man who is 75 years of age is charged with two murders and convicted. 1. At 75 years of age, he will not live to be 175 2. The law dictates that the punishment per murder must be 50 years 3. He's been convicted of two murders, and must have both charges applied to him unless we are not to expect punishment for one of the victims. Ergo, he must have a term much longer than his lifespan. There are a thousand details I just skipped over (concurrent sentances, multiple crimes commited in the same act, stacking versus non-stacking offenses, etc) but this isn't unusual and is a perfectly rational and sane outcome.
- ggggtez 6y ago
  In the US, it's possible to be let out of jail for a life sentence in only 7 years, when you account for parole. Judges are elected officials, so sometimes they like to make a nice big show of giving out a 1000 year sentence to appease the masses, when "life in prison without parole" would have done the same job.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  But that's the thing, it's not called a life sentence, and the thing that is called a life sentence, isn't a life sentence. I dunno if I buy the "dehumanizing" argument, but I certainly think it's unnecessarily confusing.

ulucs 6y ago

Application of law is mostly derived from first principles. So you start with two things that are believed by most legal experts: - Sentencing to life without parole is considered inhumane - Criminal sentences should be proportional to the crime - Sentences are supermodular Let's say there is a minimum sentence of two months for some insignificant crimes, start increasing the length for more serious ones. Most serious crimes usually involve several different crimes that are committed while committing the "main" component of the crime. So it starts adding up, and it starts adding up fast due to the supermodularity. So even though the end result is seemingly absurd, trying to make it non-absurd would violate some of the most agreed-upon principles and here we are.