Appreciate you being informative but 65 years is, in most cases due to multiple life sentences. It’s more to do with how many years before you’re eligible for parole, not the expectation of 100 years or something.
I didn’t read into the situation and don’t have an opinion, but your first point is already misleading.
The sentences were 30 years and 25 years. As of right now, they are running concurrently. A “life sentence” is one where you are sentenced to prison for your natural life. A life sentence may be with or without the possibility of parole.
Nobody in the history of language has been more wrong than you are.
Different US states have different sentencing guidelines, but generally speaking, you can be sentenced to “life with the possibility of parole after n years” (where n is determined by the judge at sentencing), or “life without the possibility of parole.”
Charles Manson, for example, was sentenced in California, and came up for parole about a zillion times. Was never granted parole, of course, but his parole hearings were a bit of a spectacle for a while.
Uh OK. So now I did read into it, and still stand by my statement that you’re being generally misleading. That might not be the case here specifically, but you’re definitely trolling with your first “argument”.
I didn’t know cops needed you to protect them when they sentence people to death. You a union member?
I don’t know how you figure that sentences of finite numbers of years are life sentences unless you’re being willfully obtuse.
You should also note that I have not made any arguments. I’ve only provided additional information beyond a screenshot of a very old tweet, which is publicly and easily available, and I have stayed as far from editorializing as possible.
Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.
Not the person you’re arguing with, but just to be clear, in the US, life sentences are either determinate or indeterminate. The former are for the remainder of natural life. The latter typically have a fixed part (25/30 years, in this case) after which parole is possible for early release, but can extend up to the remainder of natural life.
So when we say “multiple life sentences” it doesn’t mean sentencing for the duration of a multiple of their remaining natural life, it means that there are multiple sentences that have the possibility of life imprisonment.
Edit: I see what you’re saying. In this case, these were both fixed sentences, not indeterminate life sentences.
Appreciate you being informative but 65 years is, in most cases due to multiple life sentences. It’s more to do with how many years before you’re eligible for parole, not the expectation of 100 years or something.
I didn’t read into the situation and don’t have an opinion, but your first point is already misleading.
I did. The sentences were 30 years for felony murder and 25 years for burglary and theft.
Which I stated were initially set to be consecutive, and later changed to concurrent. So you didn’t even read the comment you replied to.
It’s still misleading to say “while 65 years is long, it’s not multiple life sentences.” That’s just flat-out not true.
The sentences were 30 years and 25 years. As of right now, they are running concurrently. A “life sentence” is one where you are sentenced to prison for your natural life. A life sentence may be with or without the possibility of parole.
Nobody in the history of language has been more wrong than you are.
I know the US is different than Canada, but up here a life sentence is 25y and then you can get parole.
You might not get it then, but you can. There is no “without parole” legit life sentence.
Different US states have different sentencing guidelines, but generally speaking, you can be sentenced to “life with the possibility of parole after n years” (where n is determined by the judge at sentencing), or “life without the possibility of parole.”
Charles Manson, for example, was sentenced in California, and came up for parole about a zillion times. Was never granted parole, of course, but his parole hearings were a bit of a spectacle for a while.
Charles Manson, you are hereby sentenced to life with parole
Sentencing form
[ ] person is actually eligible for parole
[X] were just fucking with them, never grant parole.
He was actually sentenced to Death, but California abolished the death penalty before he was executed
So … death with the possibility of parole?
Uh OK. So now I did read into it, and still stand by my statement that you’re being generally misleading. That might not be the case here specifically, but you’re definitely trolling with your first “argument”.
I didn’t know cops needed you to protect them when they sentence people to death. You a union member?
I don’t know how you figure that sentences of finite numbers of years are life sentences unless you’re being willfully obtuse.
You should also note that I have not made any arguments. I’ve only provided additional information beyond a screenshot of a very old tweet, which is publicly and easily available, and I have stayed as far from editorializing as possible.
Not the person you’re arguing with, but just to be clear, in the US, life sentences are either determinate or indeterminate. The former are for the remainder of natural life. The latter typically have a fixed part
(25/30 years, in this case)after which parole is possible for early release, but can extend up to the remainder of natural life.So when we say “multiple life sentences” it doesn’t mean sentencing for the duration of a multiple of their remaining natural life, it means that there are multiple sentences that have the possibility of life imprisonment.
Edit: I see what you’re saying. In this case, these were both fixed sentences, not indeterminate life sentences.
Which, so far as I can see, is not the case here. 30 years for felony murder, 25 years for burglary and theft.
deleted by creator
You literally gave your opinion directly before this statement.
I meant an opinion on the situation regarding the subject of the article and the circumstances they’re in.
Does that make sense?
Makes sense to me
deleted by creator