That One Armed murdered story I posted last month has a sequel today.
This Story has the sentencing for the crime he was found guilty of last month.

This guy has been given Life - but thats actually 17 years (minimum) in prison for that crime i nthis case.

The sentence of Life normally means 10 years (if you're a good prisoner) to 20 years if your'e not, but this guy won't be out much before those 20 years are up since he's not going to be considered for release for at least 17 years.

BTW: In case you are wondering, why he wasn't sentenced when found guilty - there is generally always a gap of 4-6 weeks between the being found guilty bit and the sentencing, this gives the judge time to gather information about the background/other crimes of the offender, the effect on the victims (and family etc) before passing sentence.

If someone pelads guilty to a crime like murder they generally get sentenced on the spot though, so go figure.

Um, that's a pretty lax punishment. I don't know what the policy over here in the US is, but "life in prison" isn't a thinly veiled "20 years till parole." Is it really always like that?

Yes and no, there is a real debate on this point in most countries without death penalties for murder.

20 years for "life" may seem pretty light, compared with say a death penalty, and in some cases it is, especially for multiple murders etc.
Its even lighter when you can be out within 10 years under the old rules.

In other cases the minimum automatic rule is at least 1/3rd of the sentence must be served, the remaining 2/3rds depends on how much "reform" you go through, i.e. do you actually try and turn your life around etc, show remorse for what you did.
Of course there are lots of cases where people fake this to get a early release.

After the "20 years" is up, you're let out no matter how "bad" you are [if you offend while in prison or escape etc you may get more added to your sentence but generally not much extra].

The big issue is, if you have a policy that "life" means life with no chance of early (or any) release (before you die of old age in prison) for good behaviour, why not just put someone to death immediately after conviction? as in that case - its going to save a lot of time and money for someone who is going to die in Prison if life means life.

Now, assuming you don't take that position (which most first world countries without death sentences do and this includes all the EU, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada as well I think, and some states in the US), then you are left with a decision, how long do you stick someone inside if they commit murder - i.e. what is the length of a "life" imprisonment - in most countries thats considered to be 20 years give or take a bit for the type of crime or other factors (like multiple murders).
Some countries have a concept where if you kill multiple people or commit multiple crimes, the sentences add up, so you get ludicrous situaition where someone is sentenced to 100+ or 200+ years of prison - why bother, they aren't coming out again with that length of time before them.

They tend to make sentences here "concurrent" i.e. you do all the sentences together (concurrently) - which means you end up doing the longest sentences of all the crimes you commit. ( - in this case the guy got 7 years for pointing a gun at someone who tried to assist the girl, and 20 years for the murder, but they don't add up to 27 years).

If you do lots of crimes - especially for sex crimes (like rape) then you can be sentenced to "preventative detention" which means locked away for good until the "Minister of Justice" (basically the politician in the government of the day in charge of administering the law courts etc in the country), lets you out.
[The British equivalent would the "Minister in charge of the Home Office"].

The other issue is that there are always mistakes made - sometimes people are convicted of crimes (like murder) when they are not guilty - I know the US has had a few cases like this recently where convicted criminals have been released years after they were found guilty of a crime that DNA or other evidence showed later that they had not committed.

Now, if you have a death penalty and you gassed them or whatever then you can't bring them back to life. And of course if you lock someone up wrongfully then they lose many years of their life and should be compensated for this - and in the cases where wrongful imprisonment has happened down this way, that has been the case.

So, the issue is really where do you draw the line if you don't have a death penalty?

In this guys case, he got 17 years - we have had other more brutal murders of more people, which resulted is less jail time - so he got a pretty touch sentence.

Heck there have been people who got drunk, drove their car and killed someone (or in some cases more than one person) and ended up with much lighter sentences - who in some ways were just as guilty of murder as this guy was.

One reason for this is that we don't have "degrees of murder", you're either convicted of murder, or "manslaughter" (accidental death), or nothing.
None of this 1st degree, 2nd degree stuff.

why not just put someone to death immediately after conviction?

Because you'd look a bit silly if further evidence came to light, proving their innocence?

Simply make evidence after execution of sentance inadmissible.

No more injustice!

Rob

Yeah...what ever happened to public hangings anyway?

what ever happened to public hangings anyway?

They went out of fashion with the stockades and lynch mobs...

The juridical system in Belgium is a joke. Death penalty is automatically transferred to life in prison, which adds up to 30 years. Mostly criminals only have to serve one third of their sentence. So that's about ten years. The time they were taken into confinement before the trial also gets subtracted from the sentence.
This creates the situation where a full-on murderer gets away with only serving 7-8 years or less. Ridiculous.
(one might actually start to consider it...)

I've known rapists to only serve 1 year in prison. One year after conviction, the victim might see her agressor on a daily basis, on the street or I don't know where else. This is a high possibility, especially when you know that people that are a victim of a rape have a high chance of knowing their agressor. Personally.

Now they are testing a new sort of sentence here in Belgium : electronic supervision. The criminals remain at home, but they have to wear an electronic device which tracks their every move. If they don't comply with their sentence, they have to serve the remaining part of it in a real-life prison. One of the benefits is supposedly that the criminal doesn't have to reintegrate into society since he never really left it. The downside is : I know of at least two cases in which an (attempted) murder payed his victim a new visit to finish the job.
But politicians still claim electronic supervision is a success. Long live progress!

And don't get me started on the prisons itself : most of them might actually qualify to be 4 or 5 star hotels ! The days of moulded water and dried out bread are definitely history. One example : since a few years "good prisoners" get penitentiary leave ! That's right, if they've been good for a couple of months, they can go home for say, a week. Needless to say, a big percentage of them "forgets" to return afterwards. Best of all : when they are found and re-imprisoned, their sentence keeps on ticking as if nothing has happened. No extra measures, no nothing.

I work with criminals on a daily basis, and I can only say that the juridical system has become a joke : all the rights for the convict, practically none for the victim.
I've actually been in the situation where I've put somebody in jail in november (for 6 months), and the guy was actually happy. This way he had a roof over his head and three decent meals a day. AND he got a bed, his own refrigirator AND a TV! The guy couldn't be happier! Now call me stupid, but I don't think that's the intention of a prison, that people are actually HAPPY when they have to go there.
Nah, the juridical system is really f**ked up... and then they wonder why people have lost their faith in it.

all the rights for the convict, practically none for the victim..... Nah, the judicial system is really f**ked up... and then they wonder why people have lost their faith in it.

What systems are in place to ensure that the convict has actually changed and won't commit the offence again? While I'm not trying to reduce what the victim has gone through, there isn't enough done in the prison to re-educate the prisoners.
Yes the victims have suffered, the conviction and sentencing is what they expect out of the legal system. Additional councilling needs to be undertaken by them.

Having had a family member framed for a hideous crime, I think I have some authority as to what actually happens in prisons.

What systems are in place to ensure that the convict has actually changed and won't commit the offence again?

Many systems have been set up to do just that. While in jail, prisoners get the chance to study and re-educate themselves, there are instances that search for work for them when they get out, a whole social service is there...
Most of them don't take these offers though. They just do their (too short) time, get out and very often restart where they left off before they were caught... (of course not all do this, but the one's that do represent a substantial amount)
I must say that when I started my job I thought that every human was essentially good, and when they go "bad", something had happened to them along the way which made them act the way they acted.
Now my vision has changed : I still believe most people are essentially good, but some really are evil and incorrigible. Those individuals should be dealt with and never be alowed to set one foot in the free society since they are a menace to all other individuals.

I know it's not very PC to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. I think the "soft" approach used over the last 20 years has failed and at best only contributed to the problem. I have the feeling authorities get softer on criminals every year, and this while crime rates skyrocket and get higher every year.

What should be done then? I really believe additional funds should be released for every stage of the juridical system. (from the police officer that catches them to the judge that convicts them to the prisons they are put away in) This money should be invested in MORE people and MORE and BETTER means to work with. So that once again criminal investigation could be thorough again instead of half-assed because it all "costs too much". Because that's the real problem : the cost. That's why the soft approach is more popular with most governments : it costs less because with that approach they don't have to invest as much in people and means. They want to make the general public believe that what is lacking in people and means will be compensated by the social factor. It isn't, and it's really pernicious for the quality of the whole legal system. But I have the feeling that the powers that be don't really care about this.

I'm sorry to hear this about your family member, but this only adds to my point : with more means and more better skilled people we would be able to put the RIGHT people behind bars for a LONGER period of time.