Hadn’t heard of this case before but damn, when a judge gives you concurrent cause they think you’re the type of person to get time added onto your sentence is damming af
The sentence was 15 years to life, implying that in order for her to get out she will need to be paroled. She won’t get out automatically. The judge’s statements are on the record now so it is very unlikely, even if she is a model prisoner, that they will grant her parole in 15 years. Probably more like 20-25.
I feel for the father of the boyfriend. While clearly grieving for his son, he made a statement that he didn’t want her in jail for life, because it’s not like it would fix anything.
What does that actually mean “15 years to life”? A minimum of 15 years with the possibility to be released on parole for the first time after 15 years and - if she doesn’t get it - she could also spend her whole life in prison? I didn’t understand the addition “to life” in the sentence.
The sentence the judge handed down is 15 years in prison at minimum. “To life” implies no maximum limit to it.
After the 15 years is up, she can apply for parole, and her case will go to a parole board, where they will evaluate whether she has served enough time in prison and now shows remorse, as well as any indication she can integrate back into society. (I think the victim’s families can also offer input if they want). If the board agrees, they may grant her parole, and let her leave prison, but with conditions attached that could send her back if she violates them. And with no maximum to the term, even if she were let out she can be subject to those conditions for the rest of her life.
If the parole board declines her application, she will be able to apply again in a few years. Even if she is a model citizen in prison, the board would be within its rights to say “You need to serve more time to answer for your crimes before we can parole you”. And since there is no maximum to the sentence, they can keep saying that for as long as they want to.
Seems like you are pretty much at the mercy of that parole board then. Are there any rules they base their judgement on, or is it just their personal “gut feeling”? I once saw a documentary about an (in-)famous prison in Louisiana (“The Farm”) where the parole board knew what they would say (from internal discussions before hearing the inmate) before he would even report to them. And when he would get a “no”, it meant another five years of waiting…
In Europe / Germany you can get a parole (probation) after serving 2/3 of your sentence, if a court decides that you are no threat to society anymore and unlike to commit further crimes, unless the court decided on “severe guilt” for special crimes (like serial killers / rapers), where a parole / probation can be excluded.
EDIT: so, in Germany with that sentence she would most likely leave prison at the age of 29, being able to start a new life, if it’s unlikely that she would commit the same or a similar crime again (of course not possible if a psychiatrist diagnoses her to be a threat to society). I know that she took two lives, but if she rots in prison, it will not make them alive again either.
Rules will vary from state to state in the US, but yes, if she wants to get out she will have to figure out what the Parole Board wants to see from her, and do those things over the 15+ years she will be in prison. But even then, the nature of her crime (and any statements the victims families will choose to give) will factor in. It would not surprise me at all if the parole board just issues blanket denials to the first applications for murder convictions.
And yes, like all systems, it has been abused in the past, but some states seem to be trying to improve it. There is no uniform set of qualifications to serve on these boards, and I bet some states pad the board with rhe Governor’s friends. According to the Wiki article on parole boards, though, some states mandate that at least one ex-convict needs to be on the board.
Interesting, those differences in justice systems. Over here, the “parole board” is always a (professional) district judge (or a group of judges, depending on the case), and the victim families or other persons outside of the judicial system normally have no stakes or say here.
I’m torn on that, it comes down to motive. If it was an accident then she shouldn’t be going to jail at all. If it was deliberate as contended - she was charged with murder after all - then it’s shocking and strays into pathological territory - in which case should she ever be released?
I think the father would be right if it had been involuntary manslaughter but to be charged with murder for a car crash is highly unusual. Having said that it’s possible this was an inappropriate charge and judgement and might get overturned on appeal.
Did you read the article? She threatened to do it multiple times on previous days. She then scoped out the site she would do it at before she actually did it. 100% premeditated murder.
I’ve never understood that. How is serving sentences concurrently at all the same punishment? Are there cases where someone has two sentences that can be ruled either to serve consecutively or concurrently? Who makes that decision and what goes into it?
The idea is to make sure that there isn’t an unjust stacking of time due to many little crimes being committed during a larger crime. As an example, let’s say a first time offender breaks into a bank and tries to rob it. If they applied the maximum for each individual crime, it is easy for the punishment to balloon into something that is much worse than the crime itself calls for—trespassing + robbery + destruction of property + whatever else you did = 80+ years for a first time offense.
When the judge chooses to have the sentences run concurrently, the prisoner will serve the longest sentence they have gotten for one of the crimes, but will still have all the crimes on their record. This gives them a greater possibility to be released after a more reasonable amount of time (10-20 years), which gives them a chance of rehabilitation and reduces the burden on the taxpayer to house people for very long amounts of time.
It is worth remembering that some people who commit crimes early in life go on to be productive and admirable citizens. Stephen Fry did time for fraud as a teenager, and then went on to be a beloved actor and writer. Sometimes those skills can be turned around to do good.
Indeed. What I intended when I said that was that the judge thought consecutive wouldn’t even be needed because she’s going to be spending way more than 15 in prison.
A dig simular to if a judge only fined someone $1k instead of $10 and saying “you still won’t be able to pay 1k”
Hadn’t heard of this case before but damn, when a judge gives you concurrent cause they think you’re the type of person to get time added onto your sentence is damming af
The sentence was 15 years to life, implying that in order for her to get out she will need to be paroled. She won’t get out automatically. The judge’s statements are on the record now so it is very unlikely, even if she is a model prisoner, that they will grant her parole in 15 years. Probably more like 20-25.
I feel for the father of the boyfriend. While clearly grieving for his son, he made a statement that he didn’t want her in jail for life, because it’s not like it would fix anything.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-teen-100-mph-crash-father-boyfriend-life-prison-rcna100635
That father is a better person than I. But personally, if she killed my son, I’d enjoy watching her be torn to shreds.
What does that actually mean “15 years to life”? A minimum of 15 years with the possibility to be released on parole for the first time after 15 years and - if she doesn’t get it - she could also spend her whole life in prison? I didn’t understand the addition “to life” in the sentence.
The sentence the judge handed down is 15 years in prison at minimum. “To life” implies no maximum limit to it.
After the 15 years is up, she can apply for parole, and her case will go to a parole board, where they will evaluate whether she has served enough time in prison and now shows remorse, as well as any indication she can integrate back into society. (I think the victim’s families can also offer input if they want). If the board agrees, they may grant her parole, and let her leave prison, but with conditions attached that could send her back if she violates them. And with no maximum to the term, even if she were let out she can be subject to those conditions for the rest of her life.
If the parole board declines her application, she will be able to apply again in a few years. Even if she is a model citizen in prison, the board would be within its rights to say “You need to serve more time to answer for your crimes before we can parole you”. And since there is no maximum to the sentence, they can keep saying that for as long as they want to.
Seems like you are pretty much at the mercy of that parole board then. Are there any rules they base their judgement on, or is it just their personal “gut feeling”? I once saw a documentary about an (in-)famous prison in Louisiana (“The Farm”) where the parole board knew what they would say (from internal discussions before hearing the inmate) before he would even report to them. And when he would get a “no”, it meant another five years of waiting…
In Europe / Germany you can get a parole (probation) after serving 2/3 of your sentence, if a court decides that you are no threat to society anymore and unlike to commit further crimes, unless the court decided on “severe guilt” for special crimes (like serial killers / rapers), where a parole / probation can be excluded.
EDIT: so, in Germany with that sentence she would most likely leave prison at the age of 29, being able to start a new life, if it’s unlikely that she would commit the same or a similar crime again (of course not possible if a psychiatrist diagnoses her to be a threat to society). I know that she took two lives, but if she rots in prison, it will not make them alive again either.
Rules will vary from state to state in the US, but yes, if she wants to get out she will have to figure out what the Parole Board wants to see from her, and do those things over the 15+ years she will be in prison. But even then, the nature of her crime (and any statements the victims families will choose to give) will factor in. It would not surprise me at all if the parole board just issues blanket denials to the first applications for murder convictions.
And yes, like all systems, it has been abused in the past, but some states seem to be trying to improve it. There is no uniform set of qualifications to serve on these boards, and I bet some states pad the board with rhe Governor’s friends. According to the Wiki article on parole boards, though, some states mandate that at least one ex-convict needs to be on the board.
Interesting, those differences in justice systems. Over here, the “parole board” is always a (professional) district judge (or a group of judges, depending on the case), and the victim families or other persons outside of the judicial system normally have no stakes or say here.
I’m torn on that, it comes down to motive. If it was an accident then she shouldn’t be going to jail at all. If it was deliberate as contended - she was charged with murder after all - then it’s shocking and strays into pathological territory - in which case should she ever be released?
I think the father would be right if it had been involuntary manslaughter but to be charged with murder for a car crash is highly unusual. Having said that it’s possible this was an inappropriate charge and judgement and might get overturned on appeal.
Strange case.
Did you read the article? She threatened to do it multiple times on previous days. She then scoped out the site she would do it at before she actually did it. 100% premeditated murder.
She was tried with two counts of murder. She was found guilty of two counts of murder.
At what point did you become all confused and unsure of things?
Concurrent = at the same time
Consecutive = one after another
Concurrent is almost always the better deal.
I think you mean “consecutive”.
Some great consecutive criticism there.
Yeah, typo, fixed
I’ve never understood that. How is serving sentences concurrently at all the same punishment? Are there cases where someone has two sentences that can be ruled either to serve consecutively or concurrently? Who makes that decision and what goes into it?
The idea is to make sure that there isn’t an unjust stacking of time due to many little crimes being committed during a larger crime. As an example, let’s say a first time offender breaks into a bank and tries to rob it. If they applied the maximum for each individual crime, it is easy for the punishment to balloon into something that is much worse than the crime itself calls for—trespassing + robbery + destruction of property + whatever else you did = 80+ years for a first time offense.
When the judge chooses to have the sentences run concurrently, the prisoner will serve the longest sentence they have gotten for one of the crimes, but will still have all the crimes on their record. This gives them a greater possibility to be released after a more reasonable amount of time (10-20 years), which gives them a chance of rehabilitation and reduces the burden on the taxpayer to house people for very long amounts of time.
It is worth remembering that some people who commit crimes early in life go on to be productive and admirable citizens. Stephen Fry did time for fraud as a teenager, and then went on to be a beloved actor and writer. Sometimes those skills can be turned around to do good.
Indeed. What I intended when I said that was that the judge thought consecutive wouldn’t even be needed because she’s going to be spending way more than 15 in prison.
A dig simular to if a judge only fined someone $1k instead of $10 and saying “you still won’t be able to pay 1k”