Solitary Confinement 23 hours a day, also, "Life without parole"

[Frylock]

When I was in High School, two of the students there killed another student.* One of the killers recieved life without parole.

I was reading up on the case, and it says she must spend 23 hours a day in her cell.

I have two questions.

Does life without parole really mean a person really will absolutely never under any circumstances be released from prison? (Assuming the conviction is not overturned.)

Also, is this 23 hour thing something that is imposed throughout the sentence? Or is this probably some kind of punishment for something done while in prison, or some temporary security measure or something?

The jurisdiction in question is the state of Texas.

-FrL-

*This is the case in question. I just realized this morning how weird and creepy it is that I used to wait for the school bus with this girl. (The victim, I mean.) She and I were usually the only ones there, but we never spoke a word. And then one day she was killed, and a movie was shown on national TV about it. Talk about your "brush with greatness"... yeesh.

[Shagnasty]

One of the concepts you want is a Supermax prison. The federal government and some states have them. Prisoners that include some high-profile ones really are kept in their cells 23 hours a day. The other hour is optional and is really just time in another cell without a roof. They are never getting out (although their lawyer is one of the few people they have access to from the outside). They also never see other inmates and they are fed through a special slot in the door. Their cells are completely spratan.

There are a number of people kept under these conditions. Supermax prisons are used for specially egregious crimes like the OKC bombings but they are also used as punishment for people that represented a threat in regular maximum security prisons. Some maximum security prisons have their own Supermax ward for this purpose. They are the real deal.

[Gary T]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Does life without parole really mean a person really will absolutely never under any circumstances be released from prison? (Assuming the conviction is not overturned.)

My understanding is that so long as the sentence stands, the convict will not be released. However, there are circumstances where the sentence can be commuted, which may result in the prisoner's release. This is not the same as the conviction (being found guilty of the crime) being overturned.

[flurb]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Does life without parole really mean a person really will absolutely never under any circumstances be released from prison? (Assuming the conviction is not overturned.)

There's nothing to stop a future legislature from changing the law to allow parole for those sentenced to life without parole. It'd be political suicide, but the legislature created the statute authorizing life without parole and can change it at any time.

[Little Nemo]

I don't know about Texan laws, but in New York, you can't sentenced to a lock-down prison. The judge simply sentences the convicted person to a period of imprisonment. The prisoner is then transferred to a reception prison where a determination will be made by prison officials as to what type of prison he or she will be sent to.

[Frylock]

So that just blows my mind.

A 19 year old who will spend the next, say, fifty years, never seeing another pair of eyes except her lawyer's, guards', and maybe occasionally her parents'?

Do they get books? Newspaper? Video? Anything?

-Kris

[Shagnasty]

I read somewhere that they can have a small crappy radio and selections from a limited number of books and that is about it.

[Paul in Qatar]

There are many here who are more educated on this than am I. Until they get her, let me take a try at this.

The idea of a super-max is not punishment, it is protection. Some inmates are dangers to the staff. These guys get locked up 23 hours a day. Some inmates are in danger from other inmates. This applies especially to infamous criminals. Other people might kill them for kicks.

As was pointed out to me by Q the M, John Wayne Gacy would be alive today if he had been in a super-max.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Does life without parole really mean a person really will absolutely never under any circumstances be released from prison? (Assuming the conviction is not overturned.)

The Governor (or President, for Federal crimes) always has the option of pardoning or commuting a sentence. That's included in the Constitution, with no specific restrictions on it. And a Judge's sentence can't override the Constitution, or add restrictions to it.

This has been exercised a few times. Generally, for a prisoner who:

• is elderly
• has been in prison for decades
• has a terminal illness
• would require expensive medical care if kept in prison

So basically, the Governor dumps this expensive, terminally-ill old convict onto the streets.

(Presumably, they will still require the medical treatment. But it will be provided thru the Welfare system, rather than the state prison budget. And the Welfare system is largely Federal money, rather than State taxes.)

[pool]

Originally posted by Paul in Saudi
As was pointed out to me by Q the M, John Wayne Gacy would be alive today if he had been in a super-max.

Gacy was executed via lethal injection. Perhaps you were thinking of Dahmer?

[Ranchoth]

Originally Posted by pool

Gacy was executed via lethal injection. Perhaps you were thinking of Dahmer?

Technically speaking, if he were in a supermax, he probably wouldn't have been on death row to begin with...


...ba-dum-bum.

[mks57]

Does the Bureau of Prisons have to justify the assignment to a SuperMax? Looking at a list of some of the prisoners, some of them seem to have been assigned for being infamous, rather than being a genuine security threat to the staff or other inmates.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by mks57

Does the Bureau of Prisons have to justify the assignment to a SuperMax? Looking at a list of some of the prisoners, some of them seem to have been assigned for being infamous, rather than being a genuine security threat to the staff or other inmates.

I was wondering about this, as well.

For example, the girl from the case I was looking at didn't seem to me to be particularly dangerous. Anyway, there was little evidence I could see that she would be. (Just having participated in a murder doesn't automatically make you dangerous to other inmates in a way that would require solitary confinement!) But apparently they just stuck her in there from the beginning, and as far as I can tell, mean to keep her there for the rest of her life.

-FrL-

[Little Nemo]

A 19 year old who will spend the next, say, fifty years, never seeing another pair of eyes except her lawyer's, guards', and maybe occasionally her parents'?

That's more than Adrianne Jones will ever get.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

That's more than Adrianne Jones will ever get.

I'm not here to say anything about such comparisons.

-FrL-

(Though the debater in me just can't resist saying this: You can argue this both ways. You can say "that's more than AJ will ever get," or, you could say, "She's got it worse than AJ, as AJ never had to experience anything as horrible and prolonged as this." But probably if you want to discuss this point, its better for GD.)

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by mks57

Does the Bureau of Prisons have to justify the assignment to a SuperMax?

Basically, no.

The Judge in court just sentences a convicted person to prison for x years. It's then up to the prison administration to decide which prison to send the person to. And they can move them to another prison at any time. (They prefer not to do reassignments unless they have to though, because they cost the system money.)

Prisoners can challenge their reassignment in court, claiming that this was a reprisal against them for reporting illegal activity, or prejudicial treatment against them as a member of a protected class -- either of those would probably be seen by a court as illegal. But the prisoner will have a hard time proving this to a court.

Also, some courts have been tough about requiring proof of actual damages. They will say 'how are you worse off by being locked in a cell in Prison B instead of a cell in Prison A? Prisoners can find it hard to prove this.

[Little Nemo]

Actually, there is a liberty interest in being confined to a lock-down cell as opposed to general population, so it does require a due process hearing.

[Polycarp]

"Life imprisonment without parole" can mean precisely that -- that, barring a positive decision on the part of the Governor (or President if a Federal prisoner) to commute the sentence, the person is never eligible for release, on any grounds.

However, it can also mean something else. And the significance here lies in the idea of "indeterminate sentences." These are very useful things for the court system in dealing with the proper sentencing for severe felons.

A typical jail sentence is determinate -- the judge says, "Thirty days." Of course, what most people don't realize is that that means "thirty days, subject to good behavior time." If a prisoner stays out of trouble for the majority of his sentence, he's entitled to be released when the majority of his sentence has been served. At one time, New York's laws provided for release after 5/6 of a sentence, subject to the Sheriff or his Jailer taking away "good behavior time" for misbehavior while in jail. So the guy with a 30 day sentence would be eligible for release in 25 days unless he forfeited good behavior time.

In an indeterminate sentence, on the other hand, the judge sets a maximum and a minimum sentence, the minimum typically a quarter to a half of the maximum, and very often a third. So Joe the Burglar gets sent up for a sentence of four to twelve years. What this means, effectively, is that he must serve a minimum of four years before being eligible for parole. Parole is discretionary at the judgment of the Parole Board for anything thereafter. But there is also a kicker: prisons also have "good behavior time" -- and once someone has served what the law provides, he's entitled for release on parole if he chooses to take it. (Some prisoners actually prefer to serve out their sentences and leave prison a free man, with no need to account to a parole officer or live under the conditions of parole.) In New York, at the time I learned this stuff, that was at the point 2/3 of one's maximum sentence had been served. So Joe the Burglar, having served four years, becomes eligible for a parole hearing. He is denied parole at that hearing, and every six months thereafter gets a hearing and is still denied. He's now served eight years, 2/3 of his four-to-twelve. At this point the onus flips: rather than him having to prove to the Parole Board how he has reformed and deserves parole, the burden is on the other side, to prove why he should be denied parole.

In some states, "life imprisonment" with no modifiers technically stands for "an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of seven years and a maximum of the rest of his natural life." He thus becomes entitled to a parole hearing (not necessarily to parole) after serving seven years. And there is some point, which varies by state, where good behavior entitles him to parole, barring the specific grounds for denying it to him. (Let's arbitrarily say 20 years for purposes of explaining this.) In other words, he must serve a minimum of seven years, may be granted parole at the discretion of the Parole Board at some point no less than seven and no more than 20 years after having been sentenced, and is eligible to be granted parole, absent a finding of good reason to deny him parole, after 20 years.

In those states, "life without parole" means that there is no point at which he becomes entitled to parole itself. But the parole board, in those states, still has discretion, if they are firmly convinced he has reformed.

In other states, of course, "life without parole" means precisely that. Barring clemency, there is no point at which he can be released on parole. But it's important to realize that, e.g., Georgia's seemingly extremly harsh sentencing laws actually mean, "serve a minimum sentence and show the parole board you have reformed," not the 20 or 50 years they actually read as.

[Big_Norse]

According to CourtTV Zamora will be eligible for parole in 40 years.

Zamora received a mandatory sentence of life in prison. She will not be eligible for parole until she has served at least 40 years of the sentence.

[MikeS]

Just as an aside, the maximum penalty under Canadian law is life in prison, with no possibility of parole for 25 years. There is, however, the so-called Faint Hope Clause under which prisoners can be released after 15 years instead.

[pravnik]

Graham and Zamora didn't receive life without parole. At the time they committed their crimes, there was no such thing as "life without parole" in Texas, even in a case of capital murder. In a capital murder case in which the death penalty was sought, a jury was asked two questions:

1) Is this defendant a future danger to society? and

2) Are there mitigating factors present to spare the defendant's life?

If the jury answered yes to the first and no to the second (or couldn't answer the second), then the defendent automatically received life in prison with the possibility of parole in 40 years. In Graham and Zamora's cases the death penalty wasn't sought, so they automatically recived life wityh the possibility of parole in 40 years.

Ironically, not having "life without parole" actually worked against criminal defendants; if you didn't receive the death penalty there was a possibility you might be out on the streets again someday, so putting you to death was the only way to be certain you would never again endanger the public. It was one of the many reasons Texas leads the U.S. in death penalty convicions. Governor Ann Richards pushed for a "life without parole" option, but prosecutors sucessfully blocked her time and again (to quote Harris County District Attorney John Holmes, "Those who ought to be confined forever ought to be executed").

Texas finally passed a law giving jurors the option of sentencing a capital murderer to "life without parole" in 2005. As to whether the new law means those convicted under that provision will automatically spend the rest of their natural life in prison, I believe it does, but I have to admit that I don't know for certain off the top of my head (unlike Harris county, death penalty cases are uncommon here). Texas law defines a "life sentence" as any sentence 60 years or over, so "life without parole" could mean the possibility of a young offender being released in his 80's or 90's after serving a 60 year sentence day for day. I'll check the law library and find out for certain.

[robby]

Originally Posted by Frylock

When I was in High School, two of the students there killed another student.* One of the killers recieved life without parole.

I was reading up on the case, and it says she must spend 23 hours a day in her cell.

I have two questions.

Does life without parole really mean a person really will absolutely never under any circumstances be released from prison? (Assuming the conviction is not overturned.)

Also, is this 23 hour thing something that is imposed throughout the sentence? Or is this probably some kind of punishment for something done while in prison, or some temporary security measure or something?

The jurisdiction in question is the state of Texas.

-FrL-

*This is the case in question. I just realized this morning how weird and creepy it is that I used to wait for the school bus with this girl. (The victim, I mean.) She and I were usually the only ones there, but we never spoke a word. And then one day she was killed, and a movie was shown on national TV about it. Talk about your "brush with greatness"... yeesh.

Where are you getting your information from? According to the story you linked to, neither of the killers received life without parole, and neither are confined to thier cells 23 hours a day.

From this page in the story you linked to:

Diane is an inmate in the Murray Unit near Gatesville, assigned as a maintenance clerk in the unit’s warehouse. A spokesman for the prison system described her as an average, quiet inmate who stays out of trouble and follows directions. Cautious by nature, “she told me she would be selective of her friends,” said spokesman Larry Todd. David, as of July 2001, is the co-editor for a Texas prison newspaper.

It doesn't sound like either one of them is in solitary confinement.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by robby

Where are you getting your information from? According to the story you linked to, neither of the killers received life without parole, and neither are confined to thier cells 23 hours a day.

From this page in the story you linked to:


It doesn't sound like either one of them is in solitary confinement.

I hadn't read that whole article when I posted. I had the impression from other sites I'd found in my google search that the two things I said were true, but you're right that it doesn't appear so.

-FrL-

[pravnik]

Originally Posted by pravnik

Texas finally passed a law giving jurors the option of sentencing a capital murderer to "life without parole" in 2005. As to whether the new law means those convicted under that provision will automatically spend the rest of their natural life in prison, I believe it does, but I have to admit that I don't know for certain off the top of my head (unlike Harris county, death penalty cases are uncommon here).

After poking around a bit, it appears that the new life without parole statute means exactly that: the remainder of the offender's natural life.

[TNWPsycho7490]

Isn't a life sentence just 60 years though? So it would be possible to serve one and get out...that's why some prisoners are sentenced to multiple life sentences or a certain number of years, i have heard sentences ranging from 70 years to several thousand years (guiness book of world records)

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by TNWPsycho7490

Isn't a life sentence just 60 years though?

Why do you say that?

I remember when I was a kid, my dad told me that "Life" really just means "20 years" when it comes to prison sentences. Turns out he was wrong, but that doesn't mean you are.

-FrL-

[TNWPsycho7490]

If i remember right it is 60 years...it must be a certain number of years though...or there wouldn't be any point in sentencing multiple life sentences if you are already in there for life.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by TNWPsycho7490

If i remember right it is 60 years...it must be a certain number of years though...or there wouldn't be any point in sentencing multiple life sentences if you are already in there for life.

Is TWNPsycho7490 right? Is a life sentence limited to 60 years? If not, do people recieve multiple life sentences? If so, why?

I would think one reason why they would go through the motion of handing out multiple life sentences would be that it could make a difference in the following situation: One of the convictions is overturned, but the other is not.

Anyway, even if it didn't make a difference, I can still imagine them handing out multiple life sentences just as a symbolic gesture. Plus, don't prosecuting attorneys get evaluated, in part, by the number of convictions they get? And where there's a conviction, there must be a sentence.

-FrL-

[pravnik]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Is TWNPsycho7490 right? Is a life sentence limited to 60 years? If not, do people recieve multiple life sentences? If so, why?

What a life sentence is depends on the jurisdiction. Here, anything 60 years or over is considered a "life sentence" in terms of parole eligibility. A first degree felony (unenhanced) carries a range of punishment of 5 to 99 years, and if it's an assaultive offense (aka a 3g offense) you have to serve half of your sentence before you're eligible for parole, in most cases up to a maximum of 30 years. So if you get 60 years for first degree murder, you're eligible for parole in 30 years; if you get 80 years, still eligible for parole in 30 years. For a non assaultive offense, you can be parole eligible on a life sentence in as little as 7 months. People sentenced under the old "capital life" (like Graham and Zamore) will be parole eligible in 40 years, but anyone sentenced to capital life after September 1, 2006 will receive life without parole.

Originally Posted by Frylock

I would think one reason why they would go through the motion of handing out multiple life sentences would be that it could make a difference in the following situation: One of the convictions is overturned, but the other is not.

Exactly right.

Originally Posted by Frylock

Anyway, even if it didn't make a difference, I can still imagine them handing out multiple life sentences just as a symbolic gesture. Plus, don't prosecuting attorneys get evaluated, in part, by the number of convictions they get? And where there's a conviction, there must be a sentence.

Courts do sometimes hand out multiple sentences symbolically, and stack them to ensure a defendant will never get out. Richard Speck got consecutive sentences that added up to almost 900 years, if I remember right.