# Prison sentences… how do they work?



## maxiogee

Hiya,

This has caught by eye.....

edited highlights



> A judge sentenced a … to 160 years in prison
> 
> Judge X Y. sentenced A B, to four consecutive 40-year sentences in the shotgun slayings of (one of his parents, a step-parent and two step-sisters). A B had faced a maximum sentence of 260 years in prison.



Now I've often wondered about American sentencing and wonder if anyone can explain this, and other similar sentences to me.

!! !! This is not about the crime in question or any other aspects of any country's legal system !! !!

What is the difference between a 260 year maximum sentence and a 160 year one? In Ireland sentences nearly always run concurrently and not consecutively, unless one of the crimes was committed while on bail on one of the other charges, or was a totally separate incident.


----------



## ElaineG

> vWhat is the difference between a 260 year maximum sentence and a 160 year one?


 
Without knowing the jurisdiction, it's hard to say with precision - but sentences running consecutively vs. concurrently will usually affect the timing of eligibility for parole, which is often calculated as a fraction of the overall sentence.


----------



## .   1

I have often been intrigued by the extreme sentences handed out in some societies.
I remember reading that back in the old days prisoners who died in custody were buried in prison to finish serving their sentences and then exhumed at the expiration of the sentence and reburied in a cemetary.

.,,


----------



## ampurdan

. said:


> I have often been intrigued by the extreme sentences handed out in some societies.
> I remember reading that back in the old days prisoners who died in custody were buried in prison to finish serving their sentences and then exhumed at the expiration of the sentence and reburied in a cemetary.
> 
> .,,


 
That makes some sense when you think that the aim of conviction is pure retribution to society. Society is retributed from the crime by the penance of his perpetrator. That works would work even when he's dead, through the infamy of letting his rests lie in prison. 

Today, convictions do not mainly aim retribution.


More on-topic, besides parole, it long convictions may only serve to prevent pardons. In Spain, at least, you can get years off your conviction for good behaviour. Of course, the larger is your conviction, the harder is to diminish it. Anyway, the maximum penalty is 25 years and even if your sentence was 1000 years, you won't stay in prison any longer than that.


----------



## whattheflock

I guess I'm just naïve: I always thought that the sentences were consecutive to make sure that, no matter what legal manoeuvres the defending counsel could summon, the sentenced prisoner would have no hope of ever getting out of prison while alive.


----------



## maxiogee

whattheflock said:


> I guess I'm just naïve: I always thought that the sentences were consecutive to make sure that, no matter what legal manoeuvres the defending counsel could summon, the sentenced prisoner would have no hope of ever getting out of prison while alive.



But, if the maximum sentence is less than "for the term of your natural life" is it legal, or more importantly is it moral, to ensure that?

--edit--
Thanks to whichever mod fixed my typo in the title. Elaine?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> But, if the maximum sentence is less than "for the term of your natural life" is it legal, or more importantly is it moral, to ensure that?


Surely that would depend on the nature of the crime.
We have a few dozen prisoners down here that I hope will never suck another breath of free oxygen.

.,,


----------



## fenixpollo

The answer to the question "how do they work?", is that they don't work.
If the goal of long sentences is prevention -- that is, to dissuade future criminals from committing the same crime out of fear that they might receive the same sentence -- the death penalty has proven that stiff sentences do not prevent crime.

If the goal of prison has anything to do with rehabilitation, then long sentences to not work.

If the goal of prison is retribution, then that's where there's room for debate.

Many people feel that in order to punish a person correctly, some criminals deserve to stay in prison for the rest of their natural life. However, the criminal justice system allows for parole (early release, with conditions). Many people feel that this, itself, is immoral, so they allow judges to assign multiple sentences that will guarantee more time in prison.  It's not unusual to hear of a 50-year-old murderer who receives a sentence of 140 years in prison.


----------



## french4beth

In the US, jurisdiction is extremely complicated - there's local, state, county, federal - and generally, judges have a great deal of latitude in their sentencing - many factors are taken into account (hopefully), and frequently, sentences can be based on popular opinion or 'to set an example'. However, as fenixpollo mentioned, death penalty is not a deterrent.

A fact that I find extremely troubling is that such a high percentage of people in prison are extremely poor, there is incredibly high illiteracy, and a disproportionate number of racial minorities in prison. And I would strongly urge everyone to see the movie "Exonerated" and also check out this wikipedia link about the Innocence Project. There are very few (if any) wealthy, white males sitting on Death Row. For more info on the death penalty, please check out this link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/


----------



## JamesM

fenixpollo said:


> Many people feel that in order to punish a person correctly, some criminals deserve to stay in prison for the rest of their natural life.


 
There is another reason for locking someone up for life that has not been mentioned in anyone's post yet, that I can see. If the person is driven to rape or murder without any compunction and has done so each time he is released from prison, it is reasonable to me that this person be separated out of society for the safety of society.

I have a cousin who is a nurse in an institution for the criminally insane. She has encountered such people. They are actually just as likely to kill you as to talk to you, depending on which gets them what they want with less effort. This is not a person that should be circulating in the general population, in my opinion.


----------



## pickypuck

ampurdan said:


> Anyway, the maximum penalty is 25 years and even if your sentence was 1000 years, you won't stay in prison any longer than that.


 
And that means that you will stay in prison the same time having killed one person or twenty-five.


----------



## Fernando

pickypuck said:


> And that means that you will stay in prison the same time having killed one person or twenty-five.



Agreed, and you get an almost-automatic parole after half the time.

IMHO, 10-15 year penalty for serial killers (including terrorists) and rapers is too cheap.


----------



## fenixpollo

JamesM said:


> This is not a person that should be circulating in the general population, in my opinion.


 Also in the opinion of periodcommacomma, I imagine, and anyone in favor of the death penalty. The strangest thing about multiple life sentences is this: if the goal of the long sentence is to remove someone completely from society forever, because they cannot be trusted to obey the law, why not put them to death once and for all?


----------



## JamesM

fenixpollo said:


> Also in the opinion of periodcommacomma, I imagine, and anyone in favor of the death penalty. The strangest thing about multiple life sentences is this: if the goal of the long sentence is to remove someone completely from society forever, because they cannot be trusted to obey the law, why not put them to death once and for all?


 
If you don't think the death penalty is an option, multiple life sentences is the only legal option to ensure a lifetime of separation from society.


----------



## french4beth

I'm against the death penalty for many reasons, but I also feel that it is a much harsher penalty for the person to know that they will be spending the rest of their life in prison.

Also, in the US, I've heard that it actually costs less to house, feed, clothe, and care for a prisoner for life compared to legal costs, appeals, etc. incurred in death penalty cases.


----------



## Fernando

One person imprisioned for life is not dead. Death penalty has many aspects (eg. it can not be reversed) that makes them inmoral (except in very limited countries and circumstances). Life prison is painful, but is "life".


----------



## maxiogee

french4beth said:


> Also, in the US, I've heard that it actually costs less to house, feed, clothe, and care for a prisoner for life compared to legal costs, appeals, etc. incurred in death penalty cases.



That depends on the fees the lawyers for each side charge, I imagine, and the quality of the 'care' afforded prisoners.


----------



## french4beth

> That depends on the fees the lawyers for each side charge, I imagine, and the quality of the 'care' afforded prisoners.


I don't think, so, Tony. Although I don't have any specific data, I believe that the majority of the cases are handled either by public defenders or _pro bono_. And unfortunately, at one time in the not so distant past, the grade of food fed to prisoners was a higher grade than the level of food fed to schoolchildren...

Here are some scary facts about the representation given to some of the accused (from the _Death Penalty Information Center_):


> The National Law Journal, after a study of death penalty representation in the South, concluded that capital trials are "more like a random flip of the coin than a delicate balancing of scales," because the defense attorney is "too often . . . ill-trained, unprepared [and] grossly underpaid." (M. Coyle, et al., Fatal Defense: Trial and Error in the Nation's Death Belt, Nat’l. L.J., June 11, 1990). States vary enormously in the quality of representation they provide to indigent defendants.




And the quality of the representation is also scary:


> In Washington state, one-fifth of the 84 people who have faced execution in the past 20 years were represented by lawyers who had been, or were later, disbarred, suspended or arrested. (Overall, the state’s disbarment rate for attorneys is less than 1%.) (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Aug. 6-8, 2001).
> In North Carolina, at least 16 death row inmates, including 3 who were executed, were represented by lawyers who have been disbarred or disciplined for unethical or criminal conduct. (Charlotte Observer, Sept. 9, 2000).
> In Texas, about one in four death row inmates has been defended by lawyers who have been reprimanded, placed on probation, suspended or banned from practicing law by the State Bar. (Dallas Morning News, Sept. 10, 2000).
> In Alabama, about 40 of the approximately 185 death row inmates – some within five months of filing deadlines for state appeals – do not have counsel. (N.Y. Times, July 5, 2001).


----------



## maxiogee

So, wherein lie the costs then?


----------



## french4beth

maxiogee said:


> So, wherein lie the costs then?


Here are a few facts from the Death Penalty Info Center website:



> Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials--one on guilt and one on sentencing--make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins... In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial.


 
More from same source:


> A single trial can mean near bankruptcy, tax increases, and the laying off of vital personnel. Trials costing a small county $100,000 from unbudgeted funds are common and some officials have even gone to jail in resisting payment.


 
Some hard figures:


> In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. [3] In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million. [4] In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment. [5] The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million _annually._[6]


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:


> So, wherein lie the costs then?





french4beth said:


> More from same source:
> 
> 
> 
> A single trial can mean near bankruptcy, tax increases, and the laying off of vital personnel. Trials costing a small county $100,000 from unbudgeted funds are common and some officials have even gone to jail in resisting payment.
Click to expand...

That's what I was querying, the make-up of that $100,000 —> if the defense is working pro bono, then who's getting the money?
The judge/prosecution/officials are already employed and being budgeted for separately, surely? The jurors aren't paid. The expert witnesses often come from state bureau of investigations or the FBI laboratories, so they're budgeted for also, unless they are invoicing the counties/states for their services - in which case it is just one set of tax-based officialdom charging another one, and pretty pointless.
What would happen if a County or State declared that they didn't have the money to prosecute the accused in a nationally notorious state?


----------



## fenixpollo

maxiogee said:


> The judge/prosecution/officials are already employed and being budgeted for separately, surely? The jurors aren't paid. The expert witnesses often come from state bureau of investigations or the FBI laboratories, so they're budgeted for also, unless they are invoicing the counties/states for their services - in which case it is just one set of tax-based officialdom charging another one, and pretty pointless.


 I think all of the lawyer's fees and salaries are figured into that cost. Also, jurors' expenses are reimbursed, so there's a small cost. Expert witnesses are chosen by the attorneys, and are often not in government employ... and can be expensive.


----------



## french4beth

Geez, Tony, I hope I get a good grade on my research paper  

Here we go (info found here): 



> Police investigators cost at least $50 per hour for up to 200 hundred hours of work for a single capital trial... trial court fees... include costs associated with all pre-trial research by lawyers and staff for the prosecution and defense, depositions, motions, jury selection, court reporters, and other required court procedures... increased costs for capital cases that may exceed courtroom costs of non-capital cases by $120,433... Assuming the courtroom costs to be $3,011.00 per day, the additional cost of operating just the courtroom for capital cases is $90,325. A psychiatrist typically costs about $964... This second [sentencing] trial entails additional costs that are not incurred in a non-capital trial. Assuming courtroom costs to be $3011 per day, the extended length of capital trials could impose large costs on the state.


Back to your final question:


> What would happen if a County or State declared that they didn't have the money to prosecute the accused in a nationally notorious state?


I don't know - probably depends on whether or not it's an election year, and the race of the victim(s). If it's a high-profile case, someone will always be able to find the money, somewhere, somehow.


----------



## maxiogee

french4beth said:


> Geez, Tony, I hope I get a good grade on my research paper


These questions, f4b, are for the _whole_ class - and not just for the star pupil 

Mods: This is not a research question 

From what you have posted I gather that the processes are dictated by central government - so could not the counties/states argue that they ought to pay the expenses which a county/state incurs in prosecuting a law "imposed" - either on the county by the state, or on the state by Congress?

I am at a loss to see why the citizens of a low-crime county/state should not pay for the overall maintenance of law and order.

But we've gone way off topic here, and maybe we need to split the thread.


----------



## JamesM

It is, unfortunately, not a "flow-down" system regarding finances.  One of the chief complaints by states in the U.S. is the imposition of "unfunded mandates", that is, those laws enacted by Congress that require a state to take a certain action but do not provide funds to do so.  The security enhancements required at the state level by the Federal Government is a recent example of this, but there are many others.

Unfortunately, just as it is in a business, upper management gets to dictate a requirement without providing the resources necessary to meet the requirement.    Of course, the ultimate failure of such a set-up for failure is _never_ the fault of upper management.


----------



## ElaineG

If someone is being prosecuted in the state system, they are being prosecuted under state law.

A crime prosecuted under federal law will be prosecuted in the federal system, which is separate in terms of prosecuters, judges, prisons, etc.  This system is centrally funded from the federal budget.

So, in the case of criminal law, the federal government is not imposing costs on the states.

The allocation of responsibilities and costs between states and localities varies in every state, and is up to the state itself.


----------

