That sort of inductive reasoning is not always valid. There is evidence that lifespans are getting longer - slowly, but still. Maybe someone alive today will reach their 130th birthday.
That is not grounds for appeal.
The legal system has been abusing the language for so long they have long since forgotton how to speak plainly.
When they are using linguistic shenanigans to keep my sorry butt out of the big house, I deeply appreciate them not saying what they mean or meaning what they say.
All other times it’s irritating. As bad as sportscasters, some days, even though a judge handing out consecutive life sentences is probably just trying to literally give 200%. This beats most athletes by an additional 90%…
Why would clairvoyance be needed? Lock the person up, and don’t let him out.
Bernie Madoff got 150 years because he was convicted of eleven different federal counts: 6 counts with a max 20 year sentence, 1 count with a max 10 year sentence, and 4 counts with a max 5 year sentence. The prosecutors asked the judge to max him out on every count and make them run consecutively for a total of 150 years, and they got what they asked for. The reason why the judge didn’t give him a simple sentence of “life” was because he wasn’t charged that way; none of the individual charges carried a sentence of more than 20 years. If they wanted the equivalent of a life sentence, they had to ask for consecutive sentences on the individual charges.
I asked a lawyer friend once about when concurrent or consecutive sentences apply in UK law. It was a bit complicated but my understanding was that when a single act breaks several laws (e.g. unlawful possession of a firearm plus armed robbery) then the sentences will run concurrently. Does anybody know if I have this correct?
For the 131st time, there is no such thing as UK Law. There is the law of England and Wales, the law of Scotland and the law of Northern Ireland, but except for some immigration related issues no such thing as UK law.
Now, in England and Wales a sentence can be concurrent or consecutive, it remains the judges discretion. If the crimes either arise from the same facts (as in the example given above) or is a series of similar offences, then sentence can be ordered to be served consurrently. It remains the judges discretion but he is unlikely not to exersize it in favour of concurrent sentence.
It is my opinion that in England and Wales, sentecing such as that imposed on Madoff would run foul of the Human Rights Act, imposing consecutive sentences in order to achive a longer period of incarceration is very unlikley to be allowed by Straousberg (sp?)
150 years? Practically an overnight stay.
Such sentences send a message all right: The Law is a Ass.
It does surprise me that the sentence wasn’t overturned by a superior court. Are judges really free to impose whatever sentence they like? 10, 000 years, a hundred thousand, a million?
And I agree, such grandstanding sentences bring the law into disrepute.
Or, the Law Can’t Do Math.
I think it was The Twilight Zone that had a guy make a deal with the Devil to be given immortality. Then he kills his worst enemy, thinking he’d (futilely) be sentenced to death. Imagine his chagrin when he’s sentenced to… life in prison!
A somewhat related thread: Bernie Madoff sentenced to 150 years - Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share - Straight Dope Message Board
So, will Bernie be doing the warden’s & guards’ taxes ( Shawshank)?
There was a sidebar article in either the NYT or the WSJ that compared the prison sentences of other white collar criminals. One guy- I think his name was Sholem Something Or Other- got over eight hundred years. Another guy got 300+.
Compared to them, Bernie got off lightly.
But if the Law can kill him, surely other people can, too. Just do something to piss off another inmate, or do the dirty deed yourself.
BigT said:
The point is, he can’t die. If some prison inmate tries to off him, there could be pain (did he think to make himself invulnerable, or just not killable?), and he could still be stuck at the same physical location. How do you convince them to haul you off and dispose of your body when they try medical intervention and you don’t die?
I think Madoff got off light. They should take every penny he has, then drop him off under a bridge with a shopping cart, a refrigerator box, and an ankle monitor that goes off if he tries to leave the bridge. It shocks him, and the voltage increases after each incident. Then we see how long it takes before people start dragging him out from under his bridge just to watch the show.
Wait, why does he deserve a shopping cart? And the box should just be a cut down TV box.
A penal system that turns people into trolls? Somebody’s been spending too much time on the internet.
Plus the OP assumes that the charge could result in a life sentence. I believe the max allowed is 10 years so giving him 150 is the only way to give him “life”.
OTOH: With the $ he has squirreled away, I predict a blowout for his 222nd birthday party.
A life sentence is not a finite number and therefore can not be divided into tranches and sold to investors with different risk tolerances and investment horizons. Those who purchase the initial years are able to roll over their investments into longer-term stretches or can monetize by – let’s just say, it’s complicated.
Why does the subject of criminal law bring out the emotional worst in otherwise quite intelligent and reasonable people?
Most of the first 10-15 of you had something cogent to say to our British friend about the “why” of the 150 term. Then the conversation got taken over by folks who wanted to make a point but didn’t have a pencil.
I’ve done this for a living for 30 years, so let me pull rank and spread enlightenment. Stand back! (Hey, when you only know one thing, you can’t be humble about it.)
First, the United States has 51 legal systems, not counting specialty courts like the U.S. Court of Tax Appeals, Admiralty Courts, and suchlike. Alabama runs one of those 51 legal systems; we don’t expect too much from them, so let’s just leave them alone. As someone noted, Madoff was convicted in the system run by the federal (i.e. United States) government, which runs by its own rules. Politics plays a strong role in that system, which is one reason for its absurdities. (Then again, inbreeding plays a strong role in Mississippi law, which has just as many absurdities. I hope you’re taking note of the trends here.)
Judges have nothing to do with, and nothing to say about, where a person serves his time, or under what conditions. That’s done by the prison system, which is completely separate. Likewise, judges don’t control parole – that’s done by the parole system – in those systems that even have one. No prison or parole system in America has ever, ever, ever been known to be corrupt. Please trust me on that one.
Due to recent “reforms” in the federal system, 20 years means 20 years – there’s no time off for good behavior and no b**********g a parole board into letting you out early. Unlike parts of the UK, where a “life” sentence might entail a prison stay that is about as long as a game of cricket, we mean what we say! Mostly. Some states still do the “life=ten years or so” dance, but very few. Mostly, we go the other way and execute people for robbing a few gas stations. But only if the defendants fit the right demographics. (Well, you wanted the truth, didn’t you?)
Madoff’s judge knew that even a relatively light sentence would amount to life in prison without possibility of parole. People don’t collect social security in prisons, and the medical benefits just stink. Life expectancy for Bernie (and any normal 71 year old man) is about 5 years, actually. Knowing that Madoff was going to die in prison no matter what the sentence, the judge did the only sensible thing: bolster her political career by piling on the numbers, and thereby appearing to be “tough on crime.” That is the only sure-fire, foolproof way to get ahead in American politics: say silly things while grandstanding for the folks who are waving nooses in the air.
Did Madoff deserve to get a very hefty prison sentence regardless of his age? Absolutely. Do we look silly throwing around these huge numbers as if they were the product of a reasoned, humane judicial process? Of course we do.
My suggestion? Pass a law that any determinate sentence (that’s what they’re called when you see an actual number) of 100 years get automatically converted to “for the rest of your natural life.” The law would look much less foolish. In the event of a successful appeal of some of the charges, the judge always gets to re-visit the sentence and re-calculate it.
By the way, Mr. England-and-Wales, don’t get sniggledy about any of this. We learned it all from you in the first place.