This sort of thing just always gets on my nerves:
Man Gets 245 Years in 3 Killings in Ind.
Don't you think that a triple murderer should just, ya know, be sentenced to life in prison? Its just the absurdity of a 245 year sentence.
At any rate - off to the airport to pick up Matt.
UPDATE, 4:19am: Ok, so I've got Matt here now, all safe and sound.
Posted by Mark Noonan at November 4, 2006 01:30 AM
Comments
If liberal judges have anything to do with it, he'll probably serve 5 years with good behavior.
Posted by:
Psycmeistr at November 4, 2006 01:37 AM
*Chuckles*
I've never understoon 100+ year sentances either. Though maybe those rules are on the books for when we live beyond a century or two? Hehe, have fun you guys! I look forward to what you guys write!
Posted by:
Gozer at November 4, 2006 01:53 AM
Mr. Britt better hope that no one ever proves that there's reincarnation.
Posted by: Bigfoot at November 4, 2006 09:45 AM
Don't you think that a triple murderer should just, ya know, be sentenced to death?
Forget the stupidity of these long sentences, why not tell the guy he will be in jail for a thousand years, its a joke. The chair, the gallows, the firing squad, why keep an animal like this alive?
Posted by: Lose the Bongos at November 4, 2006 11:05 AM
//Don't you think that a triple murderer should just, ya know, be sentenced to death?//
Wouldn't someone who supports life prefer to let him spend the rest of his life confined in a cell?
Posted by: Nate at November 5, 2006 12:16 AM
I think Psycmeistr makes a good point. The 245 years might be to keep him in jail for the rest of his life since parole hearings typically come along way before the end of the sentence.
Posted by: Nate at November 5, 2006 12:22 AM
I>Wouldn't someone who supports life prefer to let him spend the rest of his life confined in a cell?
Nope, he lost his chance when he decided to kill three people. I prefer to see him swing from the neck until dead; no more Tookies for the left to fawn over.
Posted by: Lose the Bongos at November 5, 2006 01:54 AM
But just think of the sentence he might have gotten if only it had been argued/proved that he killed these people because he HATED them!
In that case, they really could have thrown the book at him.
BTW, it was once explained to me that the extremely long sentences were an effort to keep parole boards from just letting people out. If there is an arbitrary percentage of time that must be served to be eligible for parole, such as one-fourth of the sentence, then a sentence of 245 years would mean that the prisoner would never attain that eligibility. But a "life" term could be interpreted to be a certain number of years, in which the person might be up for a parole hearing while young enough to commit other crimes.
It is clearly an effort to counter possible future efforts which might be made by a liberal parole board.
Posted by: Almiranta at November 8, 2006 08:44 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment

If liberal judges have anything to do with it, he'll probably serve 5 years with good behavior.
*Chuckles*
I've never understoon 100+ year sentances either. Though maybe those rules are on the books for when we live beyond a century or two? Hehe, have fun you guys! I look forward to what you guys write!
Mr. Britt better hope that no one ever proves that there's reincarnation.
Don't you think that a triple murderer should just, ya know, be sentenced to death?
Forget the stupidity of these long sentences, why not tell the guy he will be in jail for a thousand years, its a joke. The chair, the gallows, the firing squad, why keep an animal like this alive?
//Don't you think that a triple murderer should just, ya know, be sentenced to death?//
Wouldn't someone who supports life prefer to let him spend the rest of his life confined in a cell?
I think Psycmeistr makes a good point. The 245 years might be to keep him in jail for the rest of his life since parole hearings typically come along way before the end of the sentence.
I>Wouldn't someone who supports life prefer to let him spend the rest of his life confined in a cell?
Nope, he lost his chance when he decided to kill three people. I prefer to see him swing from the neck until dead; no more Tookies for the left to fawn over.
But just think of the sentence he might have gotten if only it had been argued/proved that he killed these people because he HATED them!
In that case, they really could have thrown the book at him.
BTW, it was once explained to me that the extremely long sentences were an effort to keep parole boards from just letting people out. If there is an arbitrary percentage of time that must be served to be eligible for parole, such as one-fourth of the sentence, then a sentence of 245 years would mean that the prisoner would never attain that eligibility. But a "life" term could be interpreted to be a certain number of years, in which the person might be up for a parole hearing while young enough to commit other crimes.
It is clearly an effort to counter possible future efforts which might be made by a liberal parole board.