This man was just sentenced to 11 life sentences. He cannot be eligible for parole until he has served over 300 years.
Come on. Talk about an irrationally vindictive sentencing. I mean, yes he’s a heartless monster and should rot in prison until he dies. But what possible cause is served ( besides delivering a visceral reaction of gratification ) by sentencing anyone to more than one life term in prison, if they have no chance of parole??
Cartooniverse
I’d say that except for after the death penalty has been performed, there really is no such thing as “life without parole” for a single life sentence. IANAL/judge/prison official/parole board member, but I think most states have some parole method for even life sentences.
Heck, even Charlie Manson is up for parole every 5 years. They should have fried him before the USSC screwed up the call on “cruel and unusual punishment” back in the 70s.
From your example above, it appears that that averages to 36years to eligibilty for parole for each life sentence.
397yrs/11 = 36years/sentence. Even if he makes parole on each of his sentences, the next one takes over. Wait 36 years get parole on sentence 1, start serving #2, wait 36 years, etc…
You are absolutely sure he’ll be in for life.
Would a governor have to pardon all eleven sentences?
It also makes the survivors fell somewhat better if he is sentenced for each victim.
If I’m not mistaken (being a tv lawyer and all), they charge each crime separately because if they appeal and one is overturned, the other 10 still stick.
How is one life sentence more vindictive than 11? He’s still in prison forever.
What harm is caused by the sentencing?
So you’d prefer that after being convicted of all his crimes, the judge or someone just pick and choose which ones he should be sentenced for? What happens if some or all of the charges for which he was convicted are overturned – should we then go back and sentence on other charges?
I don’t see any approach other than being sentenced for the crimes you’re convicted of as being rational.
On the contrary. I think the court exercised admirable restraint. He’d pled guilty to twenty-nine murders, and six attempted murders.
His sentence virtually assures that he’ll never be free again, which is just as it should be. He could just as easily have been sentenced to nearly a millenium, but this is adequate.
That much less incentive to bugger around with appeals, because his situation is completely hopeless.
Up here in Canada, with have the “Faint Hope Clause,” which guarantees that prisoners serving life sentences can apply for parole after serving fifteen years of their sentence – even though (as the name implies) it’s extremely uncommon for parole to be granted in these cases.
This is a rare issue that I agree with the Conservatives on – it should be scrapped. If this charming fellow is found guilty of the twenty-seven murders he’s charged with, I don’t think his victims’ families should be subjected to any nastiness in fifteen short years – and I don’t think people who are so far gone that they can’t enumerate their victims on their fingers and toes should be able to waste the parole board’s time with little to gain from it but their own amusement. Screw that. Give 'em twenty-five consecutive life sentences and we’ll think about parolling them after they’ve served twenty or so of them.
<sigh> I sure wish that nurses could get into the news in a more positive light.
He deserves life in prison–for not only killing those people, but for also violating the trust between nurse and patient/family.
I don’t get the whole donate the kidney thing, (would you want a serial killer’s kidney?*), but if he does one mite of good in this world, well, it doesn’t redeem him or anything for me, but at least someone gets some benefit.
and
BOTH ideas I did not consider. Hey look, I’m not trying to be an apologist for this …this… amoral sociopath? Is that accurate? I was just trying to understand the reasoning behind 11 life sentences. Addressing the pains of each of the 11 families whose members were involved in the prosecution, and insuring that if one were overturned the other 10 would still stick are both excellent reasons.
I have to ask- since there are 11 life sentences that are part and parcel of the single conviction as the result of a single trial, if one were overturned, isn’t it terribly likely that all 11 would be overturned in tandem? I know the chances are miniscule to none, and I’m not advocating for 11 separate and distinct trials ( god forbid ) but isn’t it true?
elanorigby, it is the way of the media. If it bleeds it leads, so they say. How compelling a news item is it to do a feature on a nurse who works incredibly hard both physically and mentally, tends the most basic needs of those who cannot do for themselves, listens with caring and attentiveness to frightened sick dying people, is scrupulously focused when dispensing meds and taking and noting vitals? To me, it’s incredibly compelling because it is what must be done, and is routinely underapreciated.
Most people don’t take a moment to recognize when someone else is consistently good at their job. They only take note when someone fails for a moment, or consistently. Pity, that.