Capital Punishment..without receiving the Death Penalty

I was discussing this topic with a friend of mines and as usual, the wheels of curiosity started rolling in my mind. Of all the convicted criminals in American History, What was the most amount of years a person has recieved without actually getting the Death Sentence? I have heard about people receiving as many as 418 years for multiple homicides, but what was the overall maximum ever passed down and what crime did this person do to recieve it…Anybody know? :confused:

I don’t know the answer to your question, but the thread title suggests some confusion over the meaning of terms. Capital punishment = death. Thus, “capital punishment without receiving the death penalty” is contradictory and makes no sense. One might get a death sentence and die of natural causes before being executed, but if capital punishment has occurred, death has occurred.

It wasn’t in the United States, but according to the Guiness Book of World Records, the longest prison sentence ever given was 26 consecutive life sentences. Andrew Aston, the miscreant in question, beat 26 senior citizens to death in their homes over a three-month period. Assuming that a life sentence is, on average, 40 years, this works out to well over a thousand years in prison.

The maximum penalty in many crimes is life w/o parole, and convictions sometimes bring with it a multiple life sentence. This 17-year old gang member just got two life sentences plus 110 years (for two murders and an attempted third murder).

If you peruse the websites of the various state corrections facilities (particularly states like Virginia or Texas or Florida), you’ll see some people with lon sentences.

In most cases, prosecutors realize that sentences above a certain threshold are going to be redundant. The Unabomber received one life sentence because that’s enough. Often times, as in the case of serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer or Wayne Williams, the individual is convicted of one or two counts when they are suspected of having committed more crimes. The unusual exception to this is the current state trial of Terry Nichols. (He is serving a life sentence plus 48 years for the death of 8 federal employees in the Oklahoma City bombing, and now facing charges for the deaths of 161 others in that attack).

The question I thought the OP was gonna ask was the longst time somebody had spent on death row. I believe that’s Excell White, who spent 24.5 years on death row in Texas before he was executed in 1999.

Isn’t life in prison really just delayed capital punishment?

Dahmer was charged with and convicted of 15 counts of murder. Williams was convicted on two counts despite being suspected of additional murders because there wasn’t enough evidence to lik him to the other crimes. There are serious questions about his guilt of those other murders as well as those of which he was convicted.

Only if life outside of prison is, as well. With life in prison, the punishment is being in prison. Eventually death will occur, but it’s not the intended punishment any more than it is following life on the outside.

ROFL - :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Note - I didn’t find his crime funny at all, What I did find funny was the amount of time he recieved for it…can you imagine the look on the his face when that sentence was passed down

Judge to Andrews - “Boyyee, when I get throoough with yoooou, I’m gonna bury your butt so deep in the hole that daylight will NEVER strike your ass again” :smiley:

While we’re on the subject, could someone explain the purpose of “life plus ‘X’ years” as a sentance? Is that used in states where there is no “life w/o parole” sentencing option?

–SSgtBaloo

I believe life plus x years is so that when the person becomes eligible for parole on the life sentence s/he would still have to serve the x years before being released.

I have this vague memory of hearing about a case where, before trial, some mob guy “died” in the hospital and was revived, and his lawyers argued that he couldn’t be prosecuted for anything that took place before his “death.” Supposedly the court agreed, then liquidated his estate since, having “died,” anything he owned prior to his “death” was now the property of his heirs. This may have been a work of fiction I read. Does this ring any bells with anyone else?