In the news today, we hear that a crooked American financier was sentenced to 150 years in jail. Why 150? Nobody could possibly serve a sentence that long, so it seems rather silly, especially as the defendant is 71 years old.
In the UK, the courts would simply give him a life sentence, with a recommendation that he never be paroled if we wanted to be sure he died in prison. Does this option not exist in the US? What’s the deal with 150-year sentences?
Usually if someone has 15 counts of 10 years minimum each then he gets a 150 year sentence. So the single crime may not be enough for life but several are.
These sentences are considered during parole, making him pretty much unparoleable.
The key here is that if he wins an appeal on one or three of the charges he still stays in jail for the others. He might, for example have kept quiet about a charge that really was the fault of his accountant, so he could appeal it later.
I’m waiting for someone to get sentenced to 150 years, and then it turns out that they’re some huge genetic freak that lives to be 180.
What is the cutoff? At what point would they do this?
If they would do it for 150 years, then I suppose they’d do it for 140 as well. And if a 10-year sentence stays at ten years without being changed to life, then maybe 20 years would also stay as is. But what about 50 years? 100 years? 75 years?
The American way seems much simpler to me. Add up the sentences of the individual crimes, and no clairvoyance is needed.
Madoff is being sentenced in the federal court system, in which there is apparently no parole option.
Why 150? That’s the maximum for these crimes. The judge wanted to Send a Message.
Message being: Don’t Steal From the Rich.
(The poor, of course, are still fair game). Sorry, I know, not for GQ.
There are people who have in their life time have served more than one life sentence.
At one time 20 years was considered a life time. And with good behavior you could get paroled in 1/3 of the sentence time, or 7 &1/3 years.
Judges started giving long sentences to keep someone from getting out.
I think that in this case that is the overwhelming basis for the sentence.
IANAL or an expert on sentencing guidelines but in some jurisdictions sentences are shortened for good behavior. Some convicts can be eligible for a parole hearing after serving as little as 1/3 of the sentence. Madoff’s lawyer argued for a 12 year sentence which could very well get him out of jail before he dies. 150 years sends the message that you will die in jail without a Presidential pardon. Like TheMadHun said, if you want a lesser sentence that gives a chance for release you have to beat all of the charges.
You might have missed this tidbit:
The man operated a major Ponzi scheme and he was the only one who knew? Come on you don’t really believe this. That fact means simply OTHER people got rich too. They are not in jail and they are likely to be rich and powerful in the years to come when everyone forgets.
Anyone remember Enron or Tyco, sure we do but now it seems like history. A man who bilked BILLIONS probably is covering for guilty people still needs friends and he’ll have them on the outside. People willing to elect people friendly to his cause.
This way by setting a sentance that is so long it makes it that much harder to find a work around.
To answer the OP, yes, the option does exist depending on the offense and the sentencing statute.
There is a logical way to assign a cutoff. No human has ever been observed to have lived longer than 122 years (Jeanne Calment). So you could say that any sentence that would go to or beyond the convict’s (safely unreachable) 130th birthday is a life sentence.
But I don’t think that’s necessary.
The UK Courts can only do this if the offence is one for which the law allows a life sentence, of which there are relatively few. Life sentences are mandatory for murder and treason, and possible for a range of other offences, mostly offences against the person - manslaughter, rape. I don’t know if there are any financial/economic crimes for which a life sentence is possible. It is likely that even in the UK the only way of ensuring that someone in Madoff’s situation spent the rest of his life in gaol would be to convict him on a number of separate counts of fraud (or a similar offence) and sentence him to consecutive terms of imprisonment, which is exactly what has happened here.
Was he given consecutive or concurrent sentences?
That’s good, in the UK, he’d be out in 75 years (ok in this case he is unlikely to live that long but…)
Consecutive. If he was sentenced to, e.g., 10 years on each of 15 charges to run concurrently, this would be reported as a sentence of ten years, not 150 years. And his chances of being released before dying would be greatly improved.
I heard someone on the radio saying that with an extra long sentence he would be imprisoned with the real ‘lifers’, which is probably necessary anyway as he has almost certainly got a few billion salted away - enough to fund a small war, let alone a prison escape.
An interesting idea for a computer game, free Madoff before he gets shanked.
Not true. There’s no guarantee the media will report anything accurately. Or is it a different world where you live?
In England and Wales ahem ahem, he could following the CJA 2003 be senetenced to an indetermined sentence only if he is a dangerous offender.
And judges no longer have the ability to set a “tariff” following a string of European Corut of Human Rights Cases.