Court sentencing doesn't always make sense

[gsdx]

I'm watching an IR: Cold Case Files marathon on A&E at the moment and they had a case where a man was convicted of several murders and rapes.

One 13-year-old girl was raped and then murdered. One woman was raped, murdered, and set on fire after being doused with gasoline. Another woman was raped and murders. Four other women were raped but not murdered.

For the girl, the guy received 25 to life.
For the other 2 women, he received 75 years total.
For the 4 women who survived, he received 425 years total.

It doesn't make sense that rape and murder would get a lesser sentence that rape alone.

 

[Puzuzzu]

they have to live with the trauma?

 

[Alpha1851]

It's a fictional show, right? Maybe they're hoping the viewers at home won't notice that type of thing.

 

[gsdx]

It's a fictional show, right?

As DaemonFox said, it's a real programme based upon real cases. The 'IR' stands for 'Investigative Reports' and is hosted by Bill Kurtis.

 

[Alpha1851]

There were multiple rape victims. That's multiple rape convictions and sentences which equals the higher number. I'm not a big t.v. watcher so I've never heard of it.

But, as far as sentencing goes, this always happens. Selling coke is selling coke, but if you have a certain number of grams in coke, your sentence will dramatically increase b/c you're viewed as a seller instead of a user. Same w/ rape. If you rape someone under a certain age, your sentence will be much higher than if you attacked someone of age.

 

[Alpha1851]

One 13-year-old girl was raped and then murdered. One woman was raped, murdered, and set on fire after being doused with gasoline. Another woman was raped and murders. Four other women were raped but not murdered.

For the girl, the guy received 25 to life.
For the other 2 women, he received 75 years total.
For the 4 women who survived, he received 425 years total.

It doesn't make sense that rape and murder would get a lesser sentence that rape alone.

Oh, I see what you mean. The defendant doesn't get sentenced for both rape and murder. Per attack/incident/victim, he will only be sentenced for the higher crime (the highest crime that he's convicted of). We don't add up all the offenses. and say the rape is worth 2 yrs, the murder is worth 5 yrs, and so on.

For example, for let's say the defendant found a woman to attack, he fucked her at gun point, took all of her money, and shot her in the head which killed her immediately, he sole her car, and sped down the highway. Now, he'll be charged w/ grand theft auto, (forget the speeding charge), armed robbery, rape, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, murder, and some other things. The jury can convict him of any and all of these charges depending on the evidence and depending on whether or not they believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty of these crimes.

However, when it comes to sentencing, he'll only be sentenced for murder. Why? B/c the violent crimes are all lumped together b/c they occurred out of the same incident.

Now, if this defendant had stopped at a gas station and attacked another person, and assuming he was convicted of the attack, then he could be sentenced for that second crime as well (different people, and different incident).

Also, if he had cheated on his taxes earlier in the day, or joined some illegal betting scheme, then that would also be far game in sentencing b/c the crimes are different (non-violent).

So, in your example, the guy got 25 to life for rape and murder of one girl. The 25 yrs is really for the murder. The murder was the worst he did that day to that girl.

The man got 425 for four rapes. That's 4 women times 4 rape incidents, which is where the number comes from.

Does this answer your question?

 

[gsdx]

Does this answer your question?

I didn't really have a question to answer, but thanks for giving such an excellent explanation. Really, though, I was merely commenting that it doesn't always make sense.

 

[Alpha1851]

I didn't really have a question to answer, but thanks for giving such an excellent explanation. Really, though, I was merely commenting that it doesn't always make sense.

I do get way to excited when someone mentions the law.

 

[Alpha1851]

Ok that's some explanation, but it doesnt explain why rape was sentanced at such a large number while murder was such a low number. 75 years for two counts of murder and 425 for four counts of rape.

It depends on a lot of things. The ages of the victims, the method of the rape/murder involved (were the rapes particularly horrific?). What state you're talking about (has the state seen an increase in rapes lately which caused the legislature to raise the sentencing limits?). The order the crimes occurred in (the more crimes you commit, the harsher your sentences will be.) Loads of things. Now, that I can't possibly answer.

 

[gsdx]

What state you're talking about (has the state seen an increase in rapes lately which caused the legislature to raise the sentencing limits?).

It was in New York City (Harlem, I believe) beginning in 1991. It was several years (after DNA testing became popular) before they caught the guy.

 

[star-warrior]

What I don't understand is why the sentences are so ridiculously long that the convicted felon would have died before serving the full term.

If he were to live a ridiculously long life in prison, I don't see him living more than another fifty to seventy years there, so a sentence of several centuries is pretty meaningless. Just call it life, and that's that with no chance of parole.

 

[levenshulme31]

Cases like that baffle me. Why not just put them all together and call it life without parole? Sentencing to 500+ years is a nonsense. You might as well sentence him to 4 million years.

One British case where the sentencing was absurd to the point of being offensive was the Ealing Vicarage case (early 1980s I think) where a gang attacked a vicarage, beat up the occupants, raped the housekeeper and robbed the place. They received higher sentences for the robbery element than the rape. British law can be curious like that, property crime is often deemed more serious in sentencing than personal crime.

Another one which I found a bit crazy was a case where a teenager was arrested andf charged with stealing 40 bicycles and was given a fairly lenient sentence as it was his first offence. Surely stealing the first bike was his first offence. By bike forty the little bastard was well established as a career criminal.

 

[frankfrank]

What I don't understand is why the sentences are so ridiculously long that the convicted felon would have died before serving the full term.

If he were to live a ridiculously long life in prison, I don't see him living more than another fifty to seventy years there, so a sentence of several centuries is pretty meaningless. Just call it life, and that's that with no chance of parole.

In this country, "life with no chance of parole" isn't that common.

If somebody is sentenced to 40 years, they might actually be "up for parole" in 15 or 25 years, if they've shown "good behavior."

A sentence of 425 years means that "good behavior" may allow him to be eligible for parole in 113 or 240 years, but by then it doesn't matter. He'll be carried out of the prison in a box long before ever being eligible for parole.

Perhaps the "life with no chance of parole" is uncommon because it may be feasible, someday, for such sentences to be overturned by some series of court decisions??

 

[gsdx]

In this country, "life with no chance of parole" isn't that common.

If somebody is sentenced to 40 years, they might actually be "up for parole" in 15 or 25 years, if they've shown "good behavior."

I think the people who are given the chance at parole are people who really aren't likely to recommit their crime. In other words, it was something of a one-time thing, but one which still requires punishment.

'No chance of parole' is more for serial killers who are clearly a danger to society and not likely to be rehabilitated. (Think 'Hannibal Lecter'.) I've seen some interviews on A&E in which the prisoners freely admit that they will return to their criminal ways the moment they are released from prison. And there have been many, many cases of serial criminals being released on parole who did just that.