Why doesn’t a "life sentence" mean a custodial incarceration for the rest of your life?
I’ve read about criminals that receive multiple consecutive "life sentences". Unless you’re a cat, how can that be possible?
And why is it distinguished from a sentence beyond the life expectancy of any human, such as 100+ years? Wouldn’t it be simpler just to impose a life sentence that means precisely that?
Of course it’s not possible to server more than one life sentence.
Multiple life sentences are used to placate the families of the victims. Take a case of a serial killer who has multiple victims.
If he is given a life sentence for killing his first victim that would infer that their life was more important than the other victims.
The multiple life sentences are used to demonstrate that all the victims lives were equally important.
Whether a sentence is a life sentence or 100 years is just the judge expressing how he feels about the crime.
when someone recieves multiple sentences it is harder to appeal them.
example-
i killed 8 people and got 8 life sentences…
1 year into the sentences i get a slick attorney that gets an appeal through and clears me of one of the murders. well i still have the other 7 sentences so i am still screwed.
References :
Of course it’s not possible to server more than one life sentence.
Multiple life sentences are used to placate the families of the victims. Take a case of a serial killer who has multiple victims.
If he is given a life sentence for killing his first victim that would infer that their life was more important than the other victims.
The multiple life sentences are used to demonstrate that all the victims lives were equally important.
Whether a sentence is a life sentence or 100 years is just the judge expressing how he feels about the crime.
References :
a life sentence, in most jurisdictions does mean "for the remainder of one’s natural life." Of course, the exact meaning of that term depends on the sentencing jurisdiction. For example, in the federal system, parole was done away with about 15 years ago. Before that, one could serve something like 80% of the sentence and then be paroled…for a life sentence, that means that after 80% of a term that would put the person at the average age of death, that person could come up for parole.
Some states still have this type of system so that after serving a percentage of a sentence, a person may come up for parole. The way to get around the possibility of someone getting out of jail then is to give an unusually long sentence. Hence, you started to see 125 year sentences. If a state allowed consideration for parole at 80%, the person still had to serve at least 100 years (80% of 125), thereby effectively remaining in jail for the rest of their life, no matter how good their health.
The same rationale follows for consecutive life sentences. If for some reason a person were paroled or eligible for release as to the first sentence, they still have that next sentence with which to deal, effectively keeping them in jail for a longer term. Part of the rationale of consecutive sentences, too, is so that each criminal offense is paid for individually, rahter than the person serving on term for several criminal offenses.
References :