I enjoy watching shows such as “The New Detectives” and “The FBI Files” on Discovery. Sometimes, after the perpetrator is caught and gone through trial and pronounced guilty, the narrator will say that he was given multiple life sentences, or sometimes something such as “life plus 100 years”. Obviously, since no human being could possibly live that long, what’s the point in giving multiple life sentences, or giving prisoners a greater sentence than they could possibly live?
I was always under the impression that the purpose of consecutive life sentences (or “life plus xxx years”) was to effectively eliminate the possibility of parole.
Usually a convicted felon is eligible for parole after a certain percentage of his sentence is served. By giving multiple life sentences, the prisoner can’t be eligible for parole.
One reason for multiple sentences is appeals. If a conviction on one charge is overturned, the others may stand. If I have six life sentences, and one is overturned, I don’t get out of prison. OTOH, if the judge had simply said, “Well, you did all these crimes, so we will give you a life sentence, but one is enough,” things would be more complicated.
Similarly, I believe the life plus a term of years is similar to the life without the possibility of parole. The goal is to prevent the life-sentenced criminal from getting paroled while still alive. It all depends on what the state’s law is on the subject. These things get pretty convoluted because they typically represent a series of compromises between those who believe life imprisonment is a good idea, and those who don’t.
Also, if a serial killer is given 3 life sentences for killing 3 different people, instead of just 1, and one of the 3 convictions is overturned on a technicality, then the other two life sentences would still stand.
I saw an interview on TV with a woman who had a reputation as a “hanging judge.” When she was asked roughly the same question as the OP, her response was that she would often give very large sentences (400 years, for example) as a way of focusing attention on the criminal, like saying “watch out for this one, he’s particularly bad.” When the criminal arrived in the prison system, the 400 year sentence would raise a few eyebrows, and appropriate precautions, etc. would be taken.
I think if you had a relative or friend murdered, you would want to know that the perp was sentenced individually for that that crime, and the same would apply to every other victims families and friends.
So the sentence would be, life for murder A, plus life for murder B etc ,rather than, life for X number of murders.
A way of acknowledging the individual victims.
If you give a prisoner three life sentences, you’ve got him covered as a human, as a zombie, and as a vampire.
Actually, it doesn’t. in the federal case “Bloodsuckers v Sommers” (More commonly referenced as “US v Sommers”), the Ninth District ruled that a “life sentence” is not equivalent to an “undeath sentence”, since the legislative intent did not cover that possibility
The court, did however, refuse to address the issue of resurrection [return to the full life state], saying that it was irrelevant to the case before it. The ACLU has expressed interest in locating a test case to clarify this.
The Southern Baptist Conference has been actively lobbying in the corresponding issues around the death sentence: Jesus was given a death sentence, and they’d like to establish legal precedents to assure that in the event of his resurrection, he would not be apprehended and extradited for successful execution in Jerusalem.