Why do they hand down ridiculous life sentences such as 120 years, if it's impossible for the person to serve the entire duration?

[Rita669]

Two answers. The first and foremost, it is a statement of how severe the crime was
Richard Reid, aka the shoebomber

In 2002, Richard Reid, a British convert to Islam, tried to bring a plane down in the middle of the Atlantic with a bomb hidden in a shoe. He was stopped by his fellow passengers and handed down:

three consecutive life sentences
110 years in prison on top of that, with no parole, to be served consecutively after all the life sentences
supervised release of five years after he did that time, because the law required it
a $2 million fine
Richard Reid did not have $2 million to pay, nor did he have the ability to come back to life multiple times, to serve his three consecutive life sentences plus 110 years without parole. For the purpose of keeping him away from anything dangerous a single life sentence would be eqully good, but handing down three of those, plus over a century without parole, plus stripping him of everything he ever owned to pay perhaps 1% of his fine, sent a far more powerful message.

The other reason is that with these sentences, there is no way any lawyer could negotiate a parole of some sort. Even if he managed to get through three consecutive life sentences somehow, he’d still be left with another 110 years in prison of which Richard Reid served none, because that’s how his punishment was worded. He’s in for life and if he manages to get around that somehow he’s still in, safely locked away from the outside world.

[abc3643]

I think you answered your own question, but there's more to it.

1. First, often, certain crimes come with automatic sentences that are usually appended meaning that any automatic sentence is to be served consecutively with any other sentences that may already or will be given out. Keep in mind, that some crimes actually have multiple counts in the charge.

2. What is impossible now may be possible in the future. So, suppose medical technology advances that lifespans can be upgraded to 300 years. Under the US Constitution, prisoners are often entitled to many of the same rights as anyone else and one thing that they get is medical care. So, in this situation, it is conceivable for a prisoner sentenced today to get the care needed to live that long and thus actually serve a 200-year sentence and walk-out when it is done.

[jshm2]

His "converting to Islam" has nothing to do with anything, and he will actually be be eligible for parole in about 30 years and even released before then if there is a demonstrable case to be made he has reformed.

The only reason they add "without parole" is to appease the public. Also, he could be released tomorrow, if the FBI or CIA found use for him.

You need to remember that there is always the public face of the law and the backroom face of the system. Also, it should cause you concern that he still has a better record than some US cops...

[MikeInHawaii]

Take the BTK serial killer in Wichita, Kansas as an example. For nine of the murders he was convicted of, he could be paroled in fifteen years with a life sentence. So, if the sentences were concurrent, he could be out in fifteen years. If they were consecutive, it meant no parole for 135 years. The law was changed before the tenth murder allowing a “hard forty,” or ineligible for parole for 40 years. So again, with concurrent life sentences, he could be out in 40 years, a slight possibility since he was in his forties. Ten consecutive life sentences meant 175 years. If “life without parole” isn’t an option, a sentence that exceeds any possibility of living to serve it will do.

[HighlyVolatile]

I'm hardly an expert in criminal justice but to my understanding, life sentences can sometimes be eligible for parole and for appeal. Another is that multiple life sentences can be given if there are multiple charges.

For example, if someone is found guilty of murdering multiple victims, they can receive multiple life sentences (one for each victim). The net effect is cumulative but it's the result in those cases of being convicted for multiple crimes, not a single crime.

[HighlyVolatile]

I think you already answered most of this question on your own. The one other angle that might be applicable is the multiple convictions angle. The shoe-bomber you cited might have been tried for multiple crimes rather than a single one.

[jamesgoldman]

That not that long

Gary Ridgway AKA the green river killer got 480 years for tampering with evidence alongside 48 life sentences

Richard Speck got 1,200 years for his murder spree

There a Wikipedia page for longest sentences, far better than the lily-livered British

[VLAD76]

I've often wondered this myself why not just say "life" or maybe "wow mate! 3 life sentences? Can't see you getting out ever!" Lol. Seriously though it is strange!

[Smashingdoozy]

Isn't it like based on how many people you have killed/injured. A life for a life type deal. You kill 3 lives you serve 3 lifes

[exitseven]

If you can get the sentences to be served consecutively if one verdict somehow gets overturned, there is stil another one that will make sure he does not get out of prison.

[SignedAutographs]

It means, the crime was so heinous, that, they'll not only die in prison, but, they'll continue "serving" it, when they have died

Usually this is based on multiple counts of VERY SERIOUS crimes

[genericname85]

Because certain things can reduce your sentence. So you may be able to get out in your lifetime still.

[Bklynbadboy12]

That's because they want to make sure they never get out. Your eligible for parole after you serve a third of your sentence so if the give you a tone of time you can't get out

[msc545]

It is the result of stupid Jurors expressing their anger. A life sentence is more than sufficient.

[MikeInHawaii]

Jurors determine guilt or innocence. The judge determines the sentence.

[msc545]

@MikeInHawaii Not always.

[neoagent1]

Yeah I don't really get it either. Just sentence the guy to death by imprisonment.

[Waldoe]

because they are eligible after serving a percentage of their Time... so... 40 years = out in 11

[Anonymous]

Probably because they’re not going to do execution so they just give them a sentence that’s impossible for them to outlive

[jimmy2]

So they can never get out and do what they did to get into prison

[Jamie05rhs]

I agree. And he deserved every bit of it.

[Cleopatra1980]

Cause that maximum. Some get two life sentences.