As per this link a man has been sentence to 4060 years of prison and will be eligible for parole in the year 3029.
I don’t doubt the crime was heinous, but seriously, why even bother with numbers like this? Wouldn’t “life without parole” be enough?
Then again, I can well imagine a lawyer taking the case saying, “I just need a retainer of $1000 per year for the next 3000 years in one lump sum, paid in advance, and I can guarantee you will get a fair hearing when you are up for parole…”
I would it would be the result of:
With good behavior, he can cut that time in half.
There’s a symbolic value in that he was given a full sentence for each of his victims. None of them will have to feel that their individual crime was ignored or unpunished because of the number of other crimes that Pope committed.
Reminds me of a court transcript I once read. The judge sentenced a man to something like 200yrs in prison.
The man said, “There’s no way I can do 200 yrs!”
The Judge replied, “Just do as much of it as you can.”
Puts a whole new spin on “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”
Seriously, if a higher court throws out some of the convictions, the time for the other ones would still stand.
It may be that the choice of allowing the defendant to serve his terms concurrently may not have added up to enough jail time as he felt the crimes deserved, so his only other option would be to make him serve his sentences consecutively, leading to the absurd term.
I understand the sentence will reduced for time served. He had to remain in jail while awaiting trial, because he didn’t have the $37 billion for his bail.
I recall being creeped out by the idea of 100 year sentences when I was a child. I was convinced that when you died, they left the body in the cell for that entire time. :eek:
4000 years for sexual assualting on three girls, talk about coddeling the criminal!
I would have given 40 ka-jillion years!
I dunno, even as liberal/libertarian as I am, I’ve always sort of winced at the idea of sentences being imposed concurrently for multiple offenses. I mean, when a sentence is described in the statutes, I think the lawmakers are thinking in terms of the crime happening in a vacuum. So a rape gets the offender 20 years in prison, maximum. If the offender rapes three times, well, that’s 20 years for each one. I agree with the judge cited by Little Nemo – each crime deserves its justice. Of course, if that were prevailing philosophy, Ted Bundy’s body could have been fried to a crisp when it was all over.
deleted
Well if he is cryonically frozen for 1000+ years he might have a shot of walking eventually…
Oh, wait, I re-checked your post – I think I misunderstood. Sorry I misrepresented, **Nemo ** – somehow I got the idea you were citing a judge in a different case. Apologies offered.
Holy crap, me too. HAHA!
Don’t mess with Texas.
I wonder if the parole board will let him out?
DMark, part of it may be a reaction to things like David Berkowitz having been sentenced to six consecutive life sentences, and being eligible for parole, now. (Note, this is not a prediction that Berkowitz will ever be paroled, just a comment that he is eligible for consideration, at this time.)
There are many people here smarted than me on this subject, but I understand you can go up for parole after serving a third of your sentence.
Too bad: he’s going to have to spend the year 2525 in the slammer.