What's new

How in hell do multiple murders translate into one life sentence ?

Monk-Eye

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
887
Reaction score
36
Points
63
" How in hell does multiple murders translate into one life sentence ? "

* Incommensurate Allowances For DC Sniper Seeking Parole At Age Thirty Five "

Prosecutors are mentally fucking retarded thinking that they are somehow serving justice or public interests by saving state money in avoiding multiple trials to acquire multiple convictions to at least ensure that the public knows excrement such as that is not allowed to ever see a day of freedom .

So , is the plan to let the wast of human life and taxpayer money back out onto the streets to mock the lives of victims and survivors of the victims , or for some sick fuck to offer a book deal for a plush life , or for some stupid fuck film actors guild whore from goofy wood to parade the piece of shit down the red carpet as a celebrated example of redemption ?

'D.C. Sniper' Malvo can seek parole after change in Virginia law
The change, signed by Democratic Governor Ralph Northam, allows people like Malvo, now 35, who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for offenses committed before age 18 to ask for release after 20 years.
...
Malvo, who is incarcerated in a supermax state prison in Virginia's Wise County, and an older accomplice, John Allen Muhammad, were convicted in the shootings in which 10 people were killed. Muhammad was sentenced to death and executed in a Virginia state prison in 2009 at age 48.
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
782
Points
255
Well you see. There is this thing that is called the Supreme Court. It recently ruled that you can not sentence a Juvenile to Life without Parole. So Virginia was bringing their laws in compliance with the Supreme Court.

Now. Under the ruling. It would not matter if he had been convicted of one murder or a million. You still could not sentence him to life without parole.

Perhaps instead of screaming that people aren’t punished enough you could look to reduce recidivism. Nah. All you want is punitive. Never mind.
 
OP
Monk-Eye

Monk-Eye

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
887
Reaction score
36
Points
63
" Consideration Of Circumstances Allowed For Juveniles "

* When Secular Humanism Misrepresents Justice And Ignores Victims Of Egregious Acts Whose Perpetrators Are Unworthy Of Public Release *
Well you see. There is this thing that is called the Supreme Court. It recently ruled that you can not sentence a Juvenile to Life without Parole. So Virginia was bringing their laws in compliance with the Supreme Court.
Now. Under the ruling. It would not matter if he had been convicted of one murder or a million. You still could not sentence him to life without parole.
Perhaps instead of screaming that people aren’t punished enough you could look to reduce recidivism. Nah. All you want is punitive. Never mind.
By an absurd over generalization , you have misrepresented and misconstrued the actual court decision which relates to the term " mandatory " in legal contexts for punishment of juveniles .

The decision does not preclude that a juvenile cannot serve a sentence of life without parole , only that by default it not be " mandatory " , meaning that extraneous circumstances and the duration of punishment may include judicial discretion .

As a " life sentence " ( a sentence for taking a life ) is 20 years in many states , why do prosecutors not pursue multiple murder convictions , each with a " life sentence " , where individuals do not deserve to ever see a day of freedom ?


Mandatory sentencing - Wikipedia
Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term for certain crimes, commonly serious and violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion.[1]


Miller v. Alabama - Wikipedia
The holding of the court applies retroactively to all those convicted of crimes committed under 18. It does not automatically free any prisoner, and it does not forbid sentences of life terms for young murderers. Instead judges in their review have to consider the defendant’s youth, mitigating factors, and the nature of the crime before sentencing the defendant to imprisonment with no hope for parole.[2]

The case was remanded to the trial court for the convicted youths to be re-sentenced.[7]

Another case affected by the ruling would be the sentence that Lee Boyd Malvo received for his role in the D.C. sniper attacks, with a judge making a ruling similar to Montgomery v. Louisiana.[11]


Montgomery v. Louisiana - Wikipedia
On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of the prisoner, by a vote of 6-3.[7] Writing for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, applied the Miller v. Alabama rule retroactively, holding that prisoners previously given automatic life sentences with no chance of parole for crimes committed as juveniles must have their cases reviewed for re-sentencing or be considered for parole.[11]


Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)
In light of Graham’s reasoning, these decisions too show the flaws of imposing mandatory life-without-parole sentences on juvenile homicide offenders. Such mandatory penalties, by their nature, preclude a sentencer from taking account of an offender’s age and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to it. Under these schemes, every juvenile will receive the same sentence as every other—the 17-year-old and the 14-year-old, the shooter and the accomplice, the child from a stable household and the child from a chaotic and abusive one.

To recap: Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features—among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences. It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him—and from which he cannot usually extricate himself—no matter how bru- tal or dysfunctional. It neglects the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected him.

By making youth (and all that accompanies it) irrelevant to imposition of that harshest prison sentence, such a scheme poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.
 
Last edited:

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top