2 ms·
> Given that there were 7 charges and assuming all charges can be served in parallel that's a minimum sentence of ~15 years (why is left as an exercise to the r
by retsibsi 3y ago
> Given that there were 7 charges and assuming all charges can be served in parallel that's a minimum sentence of ~15 years (why is left as an exercise to the reader).
Looks like your logic is 110/7 = ~15, therefore there must be at least one charge with a maximum sentence of at least ~15 years. But why does that imply a minimum sentence of ~15 years? He could get less than the maximum sentence for some or all of the charges.
- infogulch 3y agoYes I assumed he would get the maximum sentence on all charges, which given optimal parallelism would be a minimum of 15 years (less optimal parallelism would mean more). But you're right that it's called a maximum sentence for a reason and that assumption may not be valid; thanks for the correction.
- retsibsi 3y agoThanks, I honestly appreciate this reply. I'm always a bit worried I'll come across unpleasantly when making posts like that, and spark a negative reaction. In terms of what's likely, from a quick search it looks like the maximums are 20 years for some of the charges and 5 for the others, and 10-20 years is a realistic guess for his actual prison time.