US Lengths of Court Sentences (from Very Many Questions XXXII)

[Borachio]

I'm not sure I understand it at all.

If a person is a danger to the public then they should be kept incarcerated until this is no longer the case.

If a person is no danger to the public, it's hard to see what purpose imprisonment actually does serve.

 

[Cheetah]

Pretty much everywhere in the Western world uses case law, based either on old Roman laws or being in the Anglosphere.

Say what??

Spoiler Map over Legal systems of the World :

Most of the world, in fact, uses a properly thought up thing, not the hodgepodge of silly cases like the Anglosphere does!

[Civil law's] most prevalent feature is that its core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law. This can be contrasted with common law systems whose intellectual framework comes from judge-made decisional law which gives precedential authority to prior court decisions on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions (doctrine of judicial precedent, or stare decisis).

 

[EgonSpengler]

If a person is no danger to the public, it's hard to see what purpose imprisonment actually does serve.

1. People who don't think about this stuff too hard are reassured that somebody's in charge and making sure we're all safe from the crazies.
2. It's very lucrative. I think even the government-run prisons are serviced by private companies. I looked it up once, years ago, and it was more expensive to incarcerate a person for a year in Massachusetts than to send them to Harvard University for a year. All that money doesn't just disappear; people are making a living on it. We can see this all up-and-down the criminal justice system, it's not just prison sentences. Merely being charged for a crime and successfully exonerating yourself can cost a great deal. You get charged court fees, property gets seized, etc, etc.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, I was thinking about Roman case law being the basis of the English (and thus Anglosphere) system, so I was clearly in error about the extent of this influence, but even going by that map, precendent-based legal systems do encompass a surprisingly large chunk of the world.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What is the difference between common and civil law?

 

[Borachio]

Civil law is codified. Common law is based on precedent. I believe.

https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/common-law-vs-civil-law/

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think it just feels good to be able to sentence a monster to 175 years in prison.

Probably feels good to burn them alive too.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So civil law allows for no precedent whatsoever? And common law has things codified too, right? Is this just a difference of degrees?

 

[Borachio]

It probably is just a difference of degree.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It probably is just a difference of degree.

Thanks!

 

[warpus]

Thailand (the record of 141,000 years)

Interesting, thanks for the info! I bet the Thai sentence had something to do with the royal family being insulted.. or.. drugs?

 

[Ryika]

Probably feels good to burn them alive too.

Yes, but that's also inhumane.

Putting people behind bars might be as well, but as a society we've decided that that's okay (or at least a necessary evil), and adding years beyond the lifetime what a person will live anyway, doesn't really have any effect on the person sentenced.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes, but that's also inhumane.

Putting people behind bars might be as well, but as a society we've decided that that's okay (or at least a necessary evil), and adding years beyond the lifetime what a person will live anyway, doesn't really have any effect on the person sentenced.

I don't think the primary function of law should be to make judges feel good. Nor should it be the primary concern of judges to be feeling good. If they need that kick to get through the day they can just wear stockings under their gowns and keep it to themselves.

 

[rah]

And don't forget things like time off for good behavior or Governors looking to reduce expenses and shortening the sentence on non violent offenders. A 10 year sentence rarely means 10 years in jail. So by giving out a 175 year sentence you know it can't be nickle and dimed down. Even if they hand out 50 % reductions, he's still going to be in till he dies.

 

[civvver]

Well there is that, but I think it's just to pile on years as a symbolic gesture. I mean you can get life without parole for capital offenses. For other ones though they have to pile on the years from each count.

A lot of it I think is just technical, there's some leeway but mostly the laws say this offense is 5, this one is 7, this one is 15, this one is 4-6 years, then it all gets added up.

Ultimately I don't really care. What we should be looking at instead is our mandatory minimums for minor drug possession charges. Just google the differences between possessing crack vs cocaine. It's incredibly imbalanced. Basically set up to inhibit minorities.

 

[Ryika]

I don't think the primary function of law should be to make judges feel good. Nor should it be the primary concern of judges to be feeling good. If they need that kick to get through the day they can just wear stockings under their gowns and keep it to themselves.

Such cases do not only make judges feel good, they also cheer up the victims and the public at large.
Seeing Larry Nassar being abused publicly is great.

But yeah, I mostly agree with you. There is no actual use in it, but at the same time, I don't see harm in it either.

 

[uppi]

So civil law allows for no precedent whatsoever? And common law has things codified too, right? Is this just a difference of degrees?

In theory, a civil law system doesn't recognize precedent as a source of law. All decisions are supposed to be made according to the text of the law. In practice, the argument that a similar case was decided is a specific way is still a good one, judges recognize the need for consistency in decisions, and they don't want all of their decisions overturned by higher courts. So most of the time, they will follow precedent if it is compelling enough. They just don't have to.

The main practical differences probably arises with old cases, because legal reasoning changes over time and might not apply any more. In a civil law system, a judge can apply a different reasoning despite the old precedent without having to wait for a higher court to overturn the old ruling (which might be impossible if the precedent was set by the highest court).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And don't forget things like time off for good behavior or Governors looking to reduce expenses and shortening the sentence on non violent offenders. A 10 year sentence rarely means 10 years in jail. So by giving out a 175 year sentence you know it can't be nickle and dimed down. Even if they hand out 50 % reductions, he's still going to be in till he dies.

That's already been covered.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Interesting, thanks for the info! I bet the Thai sentence had something to do with the royal family being insulted.. or.. drugs?

Neither. Corporate Fraud.
Unless members of the royal family were among the 16,000 victims.....

 

[Takhisis]

Prosecutors in Spain wanted 384,912 years for a mailman who stole thousands of pieces of mail, but the actual sentence was 14 years.

A few years for each piece of mail stolen. Of course, any judge with a working brain will count it as one crime, not a crazy-illion individual ones.

I'm not sure I understand it at all.

If a person is a danger to the public then they should be kept incarcerated until this is no longer the case.

This is called prevention.

If a person is no danger to the public, it's hard to see what purpose imprisonment actually does serve.

Deterrence. I.e. making an example out of the miscreant.

Seeing Larry Nassar being abused publicly is great.

So you're really arguing for retributive justice.