NationStates Jolt Archive

Which do you think is better?

The British system, in which any sentence runs simultaneously. So a murderer or 3 would still receive 25 years in prison (12 on good behaviour) but with the life imprisonment tariff (any offence upon release and back in prison instantly).

The American system, in which all of them are stacked up. So (dont know about general punishment for murder in a non capital punishment state, so using British) for a murderer of 3, they would receive 75 years (and again, not sure but is it the case of 36 years on good behaviour?).

So, which is better, in your opinion obviously?

Any one else care to cast a vote and/or give an opinion?

Neither are punishment enough, but the American system is more harsh and therefor better.

I say American.

Which do you think is better?

The British system, in which any sentence runs simultaneously. So a murderer or 3 would still receive 25 years in prison (12 on good behaviour) but with the life imprisonment tariff (any offence upon release and back in prison instantly).

The American system, in which all of them are stacked up. So (dont know about general punishment for murder in a non capital punishment state, so using British) for a murderer of 3, they would receive 75 years (and again, not sure but is it the case of 36 years on good behaviour?).

So, which is better, in your opinion obviously?

I am not certain, but I believe that American judges have discretion in some cases, so that every sentence is not necessarily stacked.

But in the case of murder or sexual crimes especially, I want the perpetrator to be punished as much as possible. Crime rates drop when criminals are locked up, because they are unable to prey on new victims. Keep them locked up!

US by a country mile. However, all sentences ought to be mandatory subsequent to three appeals, with only one chance of parole, three quarters through the sentence, and only for minor and fist time offenders.

You're discussing concurrent vs. consectutive punishment and also mentioning parole. In the U.S. it will depend on the crimes and the jurisdiction and the laws involved. Different states have different rules on this and all are different from the federal system. Where I live, it is up to a judge whether or not the punishments are concurrent or consectutive and I've seen both occur in similar cases. One guy gets stacked sentences and on guy gets concurrent ones for what amount to the same type of offense. It just depends. I definetly don't agree that there should be a "blanket" rule that makes all sentences concurrent or consectutive, however, a set of rules that provided for a consistent means of determing which crimes or circumstances gave rise to which would be a good idea.

As to parole eligibility, it also varies state-to-state. Where I live, some crimes require you do to 70% of your sentence before parole eligibility, some require you do 50% and some require that you do 33.3% The 50% and 33.3% numbers can also be cut in half by good time so you end up actually doing 25% or 1/6 of your sentence before parole eligibility. On the other hand, the 70%ers get no good time at all. The federal system has no parole at all though. There are certain things that can be done in some circumstances to cut your sentence and sentences in the federal system are often followed by a term of "supervised release." However, there is no "good time" calculations. You might get a year knocked off for going through a drug rehab program or you might get a %age reduction in the sentence based on cooperation with the feds in another investigation. But there is no parole per se.