A Number Too Far

Kantarii

I'm Not A Bitch!
Joined
May 9, 2016
Posts
9,360
Ukrainian man arrested in New Hampshire crash that killed 7 bikers is indicted.

https://apple.news/A81E1SaEfSiyRe9gidgWOwQ

As tragic as this is, something seems odd. If convicted, the guy faces a total of 378 years in prison.

What is gained from sending someone to prison for 378 years? He’s going to die in prison anyway. Why not just sentence him to life without the possibility of parole? At a certain point, a number for the sake of assigning a length to the sentence is just a number, but nearly 4 centuries? C’mon be realistic. Justice is the same if you sentence the guy to 100 years or 378 years.
 
I kinda hope any bikers in prison give him the Jeffrey Dahmer treatment.


Retched cocksucker!!!


:mad:
 
Because if he convicted of all 23 of the charges, and sentenced to the maximum on each charge:

7 counts of negligent homicide - 0 to 8 years each. (56)
7 counts of negligent homicide (driving under influence) - 0 to 10 years each (70)
7 counts of manslaughter (reckless) - 0 to 15 years (105 years)
1 count of DUI - 0 to 2 years (2)
1 count of reckless conduct (1)

The 378 years, largely depends on the state where the sentencing is done, each has different sentencing guidelines for this type of offense.

Most of the sentences would run concurrently, rather than consecutively and the convict would be eligible for his first parole hearing in approximately 8 years, and would likely make parole in about 13 to 15 years.

The reason for the 23 charges is the pile on prosecution - a jury is more likely to recommend maximums if the number of charges is larger. 7 counts each of differing degrees of the crime, are a tactic to allow a jury to convict at which ever level they prefer.

It is unlikely this case will go to a trial, no lawyer wants to stand and listen to their client being convicted and sentenced on 16 counts of a 23 count indictment. They enter a plea guilty to the manslaughter, DUI, and reckless conduct and take a 8 to 15 year sentence.
 
He needs a good ass beating for sure.



In the old days, it would have been a chain-whipping, but it's just not the same beating them with drive belts.


But the stomping remains the same . . . .
 
We live in an age where you have to pile on the charges
because it is so easy to weasel out of them...



Think about it.
 
Same reason a fireman wears two suspenders. If one breaks, the other still keeps his ass covered.
 
Ukrainian man arrested in New Hampshire crash that killed 7 bikers is indicted.

https://apple.news/A81E1SaEfSiyRe9gidgWOwQ

As tragic as this is, something seems odd. If convicted, the guy faces a total of 378 years in prison.

What is gained from sending someone to prison for 378 years? He’s going to die in prison anyway. Why not just sentence him to life without the possibility of parole? At a certain point, a number for the sake of assigning a length to the sentence is just a number, but nearly 4 centuries? C’mon be realistic. Justice is the same if you sentence the guy to 100 years or 378 years.

Each count might represent a separate victim and crime. In some states you can be charged with two kinds of murder when you kill somebody, Colorado for instance. The amount of years is a toll of the crimes charged and convicted of, not the amount of actual time defendant is expected to serve in a lifetime.
 
The thing is Charles Manson got life in prison and didn’t weasel out of it. Then again, times have changed since he went to prison.

Manson was not sentenced to life, he got the death penalty. When it was changed later he was up for parole several times and no doubt would have gladly accepted it had it been offered.
 
Given that the incident occurred in June; why did it take so long to indict? :confused:

Lots of possibilities. Evidence can take time to collect, especially if running tests at the crime lab. It's not like TV, these things take a while and the labs are generally backlogged.
In many states once the indictment is filed the arraignment is scheduled almost immediately, This starts the clock in the event of a speedy trial demand. The DA always wants all his ducks in a row just in case, so they don't indict until they are ready.
 
That’s the judicial system - probably running in high gear at best.




Your comment is as irrelevant as anything Hillary Clinton says.

Lots of possibilities. Evidence can take time to collect, especially if running tests at the crime lab. It's not like TV, these things take a while and the labs are generally backlogged.
In many states once the indictment is filed the arraignment is scheduled almost immediately, This starts the clock in the event of a speedy trial demand. The DA always wants all his ducks in a row just in case, so they don't indict until they are ready.


Ok, thanks. It seemed to me to be an awfully long time given that the circumstances wee kinda obvious to most.
 
Ok, thanks. It seemed to me to be an awfully long time given that the circumstances wee kinda obvious to most.

The judicial system in America isn’t know for its speed. Some types of cases can go longer in time frames.
 
Back
Top