Using Entrapment as a Criminal Defense

One of the less frequently utilized criminal defenses is the defense of entrapment. Entrapment cases are extremely difficult to prove and are often problematic and complex. Entrapment occurs when a Government agent or an officer of the law coerces another person into committing a criminal act. These agents are usually police officers.

In order for the entrapment defense to be effective, a defense attorney must not only prove that a Government official convinced the defendant to take part in the crime, but also that the offender would have been very unlikely to partake in the criminal behavior without his or her persuasion.

In the large majority of entrapment cases, the Government agent that is responsible for this coercion is an individual who is looking for a scapegoat for a crime that they are planning to commit. They may utilize their position and take advantage of their power in order to gain necessary information and resources to commit the crime that they are plotting.

Entrapment will occur when this Government official convinces an innocent individual to commit a crime. The agent may attempt to make the crime appear very attractive to the offender by guaranteeing that they will receive copious amounts of money or by claiming that the activity is legal. A Government official may be charged with entrapment if they have developed and implanted an imperative or pressing motive in the mind of the offender.

For example, if the agent has formed a strong bond of friendship with the defendant and has caused the defendant to believe that partaking in a crime will greatly improve the agent’s situation, then the defendant may choose to partake in the criminal activity in order to benefit their friend instead of for personal benefit or gain. This type of behavior on the part of police officers may constitute entrapment cases. Entrapment cases may also ensue if a police officer pressures an individual into partaking in a crime through the use of force or threats of violence.

In many entrapment cases, a defendant is being tried for a crime because a Government official was resolved to frame an innocent individual for criminal activity. This may result from planting evidence that causes the defendant to appear guilty of the crime in question. There are many different ways that entrapment may occur, but it is essential that the defense attorney be able to prove that the defendant would not have taken part in the activity without the coercion of the Government agent.

Utilizing undercover agents that pose as drug dealers is not considered to be a form of entrapment. Therefore, if an individual purchases drugs from an undercover cop or if they sell drugs to an undercover cop, the entrapment defense will not be successful in negating their criminal liability. The Government official must not only provide the defendant with the opportunity to take part in criminal activity, but must play an active role in coercing the defendant and convincing them to take part in illegal behavior.

Excessive Government Involvement In Criminal Defense

The criminal defense of outrageous government conduct is often confused with the defense of entrapment. Government conduct is rarely an effective defense for criminal activity, but there have been a few cases in which a court overturned an initial conviction due to the misconduct of police during a criminal investigation.

For example, in the 1978 Supreme Court case, People v. Isaacson, the New York State Police abused a young man named J.D. Breniman until he had answered their questions and admitted to extensive drug use. The police then coerced him into acting as an informant and made him believe that he would receive a lighter sentence if he helped them to apprehend other drug dealers.

Breniman phoned a friend and informed him of his dire situation and the need to find drugs that he could sell in order to raise the money that he needed for a defense attorney. The defendant, who was a graduate student in Pennsylvania, agreed to try to help his struggling friend. He had committed no prior drug offenses and he had very little experience using illegal substances.

Breniman convinced the defendant to meet him in New York State in order to make the exchange, where the defendant was apprehended by police. The defendant was then charged with the sale of illegal drugs and was sentenced to incarceration.

In this case, the Supreme Court found the behavior of the New York State police to be outrageous and unfair. Therefore, the original ruling was overturned and the defendant was acquitted of the charges

The Separate Jurisdictions of Federal Law

When the United States Constitution established the Federal Government, the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal Government to maintain a limited amount of power. The purpose of the Federal Government was not to create and enforce criminal laws.

Deterrence At A Glance

Deterrence can occur in one of two ways. Individual deterrence occurs when an offender who is responsible for taking part in illegal activities partakes in a criminal trial and legal precedence is used in order to determine the conviction and the subsequent sentence for that individual. The punishment that the individual receives will be fitting but severe and is intended to convince the criminal that taking part in illegal activities is not worth the penalties that result.

General deterrence arises on a much larger scale. Individuals who are responsible for disregarding criminal laws will be convicted in a criminal trial and punished with various penalties. These penalties are often harsh and undesirable in their own right. By ensuring that criminals receive consequences for their actions, theoretically, other individuals will be discouraged from taking part in similar activities. They will understand that individuals who are caught disregarding the law will be subject to fines or jail time.

If individuals witness other people having their lives put on hold for taking part in specific behavior, then the observers will be less likely to take part in that behavior. In general, people do not want to take part in actions that are going to be detrimental to their well-being and their futures. If they know that a there is serious legal precedence to prosecution of certain behavior and that it has severe consequences, then they may not take part in that behavior in the future.

General deterrence works through the establishment of legal precedence. In every criminal trial, a court must rule while following guidelines and legal precedence that has been established in previous cases. Legal precedence is generally established by a high court, such as the United States Federal courts.

Once a precedent is developed, a criminal trial that possesses similar issues and factors will have a similar ruling. For example, legal precedence has determined that an individual who is responsible for murdering another person will receive a life sentence or capital punishment.

There has been some controversy about the use of punishment for violating criminal laws as a method of deterrence. Many people argue that individuals who disregard criminal laws do not stop to consider the consequences of their actions before they engage in illegal activities.

For example, statistics indicate that states that continue to maintain the death penalty and states that are responsible for subjecting the largest number of individuals to capital punishment also continue to maintain the largest crime rates in the country. Therefore, a criminal trial that results in court-authorized sentences is not always effective in deterring individuals from committing crimes.

What You Should Know About Criminal Law

Criminal law is an essential body of law and a very important legal practice. Without the establishment of criminal law and recognized punishments for violating these laws, it is likely that crime rates would be much higher than they are now.

Throughout the history of human civilization, criminal law has acted to deter individuals from partaking in harmful or dangerous behavior. This has been accomplished through the establishment of harsh and severe punishments that are imposed upon individuals who are responsible for disregarding the law.

Without laws and regulations, citizens would be free to take part in any activity that they desired. They would be more apt to act on impulse and give into negative emotions because they would not receive legal repercussions for their actions. Therefore, chaos would be widespread.

All forms of crime would likely increase a great deal in frequency. Individuals who were not fond of another person may take part in assault or homicide because they would not need to fear capital punishment or incarceration. Drug possession, use, and distribution would be much more widespread than it is today. If an individual wanted something, he or she could take it without purchasing it.

Although the necessity of criminal law is very evident, there are still many concerns about judicial procedures. It is important that the problems and the complications that exist in criminal law be acknowledged and addressed.

Objectives

There are various different reasons why a criminal punishment will be imposed upon an individual who is responsible for violating the law. Each punishment has different goals and aims and various things can be accomplished by handing a criminal sentence to an offender who has caused harm or injury to another person.

In general, the majority of people in the United States believe that a perpetrator should be punished for any crimes that he or she commits. Using this mentality, criminals receive criminal sentences as a form of punishment for their actions.

However, the use of criminal law to impose punishment upon an offender is a controversial topic. Many people believe that it is wrong to punish individuals who have violated the law because the law is supposed to be emotionless and the use of punishment implies that some form of emotion is present in court proceedings. Instead, these individuals believe that the criminal justice system should focus on deterrence and rehabilitation.

Criminal sentences should be imposed in order to improve society, not to exact revenge on an offender. Therefore, when a criminal punishment is decided upon the judge should take into consideration how this punishment will effectively benefit the community. This could be by incarcerating criminals to keep dangerous offenders off of the streets. It may also be by providing criminals with education and counseling services while they are in prison so that they may grow and develop to be productive and positive members of the community.

In some instances, an individual who has caused harm or damage to another person or to another person's property will be required to repay his or her victim or his or her community with money or with time and services.

Criminal sentences such as these help ensure that the criminal justice system is not just seeking to get even with criminals, but that the system is investing time and resources into helping criminals improve and transforming them into law abiding citizens. If this is not a possible outcome, then criminal law should be primarily concerned with keeping the public safe from dangerous individuals.

Major Aspects

Sometimes it is difficult to discern if an action or a behavior should be considered a crime. Not all harmful and detrimental behavior is carried out with malicious intent. Accidents occur that may have devastating and irreversible results. However, if an individual did not intend to harm anyone, then it seems unreasonable for them to be incarcerated with murderers and repeat violent offenders.

Some individuals should not be sentenced to criminal punishments because they do not deserve the harsh realities of imprisonment. In situations such as this, sentencing an individual to incarceration would be considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment that he or she receives is very disproportional to his or her behavior.

In order to avoid this, there are many different elements of a crime that must be satisfied before an individual can be convicted of taking part in criminal activity. If these aspects have not been fulfilled by the offender, then the defendant cannot be convicted of a crime because his or her behavior cannot be considered to be criminal. It is the responsibility of the prosecutor to present the court with sufficient evidence to convince the jury that each of these elements is satisfied.

The most essential part of any criminal case is evidence proving that the defendant is responsible for the crime in question. However, this is not the only element of a crime that must be satisfied. Once the prosecutor convinces the jury that the defendant has caused the damage or the injury that has occurred, he or she must also prove that the offender intended to cause this harm.

There are various different types of offenses that an individual may take part in and which may result in legal action against the offender. Illegal behavior may result in injury to another person or damage to another person's property. An offender may also face severe criminal charges if he or she had even the smallest role in criminal behavior. No matter what type of crime has been committed, all of the major aspects of a crime must be satisfied in order for a defendant to be found guilty of a crime.

Actus Reus

In order for a crime to occur an individual must first take part in an activity that has been deemed to be illegal. The illegal activity is known as actus reus. In order for an individual to be convicted of a crime a prosecutor must convince a grand jury that the defendant is responsible for the crime in question. The prosecuting attorney will be required to present evidence to the court that will leave the jury with no doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime.

The evidence that may be presented to the court includes objects that were found at the scene of the crime, documents, video recordings, DNA evidence, and witness testimonies. If this evidence is not successful in convincing the jury of the defendant's guilt, then the jury cannot convict the defendant of a crime. If the jury is going to convict an individual of a crime, then he or she must maintain no doubt that the defendant is at fault.

It is commonly believed that it is easy to determine what constitutes a legitimate actus reus. However, there is often confusion and debate regarding who is responsible for taking part in a crime. This is especially true in cases of omission. In instances of omission, the court must decide whether or not failure to partake in specific actions constitutes a crime.

It is possible for actus reus to occur as a result of the failure of an individual to behave in a certain matter. If it is known that the individual is responsible for the actus reus, then the criminal defense attorney may attempt to discredit the actus reus by trying to prove that the actus reus was not voluntary. If the offensive behavior was not voluntary then actus reus did not occur and the offender cannot be charge with a crime.

Separate Jurisdictions

One of the most important parts of a criminal investigation is discovering where a crime took place. The crime scene will provide investigators with important and invaluable clues and information. If investigators locate a crime scene they may be able to determine how a murder victim was killed, as well as gather essential evidence to support their case. Locating a crime scene is also the most reliable way to determine who has jurisdiction over a specific case.

Before a criminal investigation can really begin jurisdiction must be established. The law enforcement agency that is granted jurisdiction over a specific case will be given the right and the responsibility of collecting evidence, locating and apprehending the criminal, and presenting the evidence to a jury who will determine the fate of the criminal.

There is a range of different types of jurisdictions and various ways in which jurisdiction may be determined. Jurisdiction is often the subject of intense debate between different State governments, as well as between the Federal and the State Government. It is not uncommon for the lines between jurisdictions to become blurred and for arguments to ensue. The Government that does receive jurisdiction over a specific case will be responsible for presiding over that case.

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is in no way a new or a unique idea. Since the beginning of history individuals have been subjected to the death penalty for various different actions and crimes. In the early history of the death penalty, torture was used as a method of entertainment for rulers and government officials.

They developed barbaric methods of torment used to inflict intense pain and suffering upon their victims. The reasons that individuals would suffer the death penalty could vary a great deal, from high treason to the sudden whim of a dictator.

Today, many countries around the world continue to utilize the death penalty as a method of deterrence and punishment. In the United States, capital punishment is reserved for the most atrocious criminals who have been convicted of murder. n other countries around the world, the way in which the death penalty is imposed and the methods of execution would be considered to be cruel and unusual punishment by the standards of the United States. Stories regarding executions emerging from third world and underdeveloped countries are often horrific and heinous. This is not to say the practice of capital punishment in the United States is perfect or not flawed.

There are many problems and complications that continue to exist with the death penalty in the United States. Statistics regarding capital punishment illustrate a very troubling reality. Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomical discrimination are all very evident when reviewing data and information related to the imposition of the death penalty. Data indicates that wrongful convictions are possible and they occur much too frequently.

In instances such as this, an innocent individual may be executed for a crime that he or she did not commit. It is troubling enough that an individual may spend many years in prison for someone else's crimes, but once an individual is executed there is no way to correct the mistake that has been made.

Because of these problems many political, religious, and social groups voiced concern about the use of the death penalty. As a result, numerous states have outlawed capital punishment, and the states that continue to maintain the death penalty have altered various laws regarding capital punishment.

Life Imprisonment

In recent years, public support for the death penalty has decreased a great deal. Individuals, communities, and organizations have begun to acknowledge all of the problems that exist with capital punishment. In order to address these problems, many states have banned capital punishment in favor of a life imprisonment sentence. In states where the death penalty continues to be maintained, the frequency of criminal execution has decreased a noticeable amount.

The use of life imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment negates the possibility of irreversible and unforgivable mistakes. However, there are many individuals who feel that life imprisonment is not successful in keeping society safe from dangerous criminals. People who support the death penalty often raise valid concerns about the sentence of life in prison.

Life imprisonment sentences are not just handed to individuals who have been convicted of murder. There are many different types of crimes that may warrant a life imprisonment sentence.

If a convicted criminal is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, then the offender will be required to spend the rest of his or her life behind bars. However, this is not always the case.

Generally, the term life in prison is very deceiving and misleading. This is not the only factor that has caused a great deal of debate surrounding life imprisonment. There are occasions when this sentence is imposed upon juveniles who are under the age of sixteen. Many people feel that the use of this punishment on minors is unconstitutional.

While life imprisonment sentences have been the subject of copious amounts of argument, judicial officials do take important steps in order to ensure that dangerous criminals who pose a continuous threat to the community remain in jail.

Individuals who oppose the death penalty often cite the possibility of wrongful convictions and the decreased cost of life imprisonment as two primary reasons to abolish capital punishment despite the problems that continue to exist with the life sentence.

Purpose of Punishment

The use of criminal sentencing as a form of punishment for individuals who have violated the law has been a subject of a great deal of debate for a long period of time. Individuals who are convicted of breaking the law are sentenced to a criminal punishment which they must serve.

This punishment may range in severity from minor fines to long term incarceration. The punishment will generally depend on the goal that the Government and the judicial authority is attempting to achieve. If their primary goal is to deter the individual from committing crimes in the future and to prevent other individuals from taking part in similar criminal behavior, then the criminal’s punishment must be harsh and severe.

There are many different goals that may be accomplished through the use of criminal punishment. The severity of the punishment will often vary from one convicted criminal to another, even if the crimes that have been committed were the same. This is because the judge has the ability to consider all of the aspects of a criminal case and determine an effective punishment that is fitting for each particular defendant.

The inconsistency of criminal punishment is another topic that has raised a great deal of concern. If there is not a set and standard punishment for all individuals who commit the same crime, then there is room for prejudice and discrimination on the part of the judge.

However, the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing laws and Federal sentencing guidelines have also caused many problems because first time offenders of certain crimes are receiving the same harsh punishment as career criminals. Criminal punishments present judicial officials with many complications which need to be addressed and resolved.

Criminal Defense

A criminal law case requires two attorneys to compete against each other in order to convince the jury to believe their individual cases. The prosecutor will be utilizing evidence and witness testimony in order to prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime in question. A criminal defense attorney will be countering all of the claims of the prosecutor and attempting to cause the jury to doubt their client's guilt.

Even if the criminal lawyer cannot prove the defendant's innocence, all he or she needs to do is provide sufficient evidence and information to make the jury question the guilt of the defendant. If the jury has any reason to doubt that the defendant is guilty then it cannot convict the defendant of a crime.

In many cases, the evidence overwhelmingly proves that a defendant is responsible for the crime of which he or she is being accused. In instances such as this, it is the responsibility of the criminal defense attorney to develop a convincing and adequate criminal defense that will negate their client's criminal culpability.

There are many different criminal defenses that criminal lawyers may choose to employ in a criminal case. Generally, these defenses seek to prove that a defendant cannot be held accountable for their crimes for a number of different reasons. In most instances, it will be because of a diminished or compromised mental state that has caused the defendant to act out of character.

Many criminal defenses surround psychological disorders that have developed in the defendant. Other defenses claim that physical, social, or environmental factors caused unusual behavior in the defendant. No matter which stance a criminal defense attorney decides to adopt, he or she must be very convincing.

A successful criminal defense will effectively negate or diminish their client’s accountability, therefore lessening the severity of their conviction and sentence.

Definition of Individual Deterrence

Criminal laws are often established in order to prevent individuals from taking part in detrimental behavior that has been deemed illegal. Thus, one of the primary objectives of sentencing individuals who violate criminal laws is deterrence. Laws are developed in order to ensure that the safety and the well-being of citizens is protected and upheld. Individuals who disregard these laws endanger the well-being of themselves and others, and are therefore tried in criminal courts.

Deterrence may manifest in multiple ways. Individual deterrence occurs when criminals are punished in criminal courts for their behavior. Deterrence results when an individual experiences a punishment that discourages them from taking part in the same behavior again. The penalties that they have experienced are aimed at convincing the offender that taking part in illegal actions is not worth the consequences that they will face. Offenders are tried in criminal courts in order to determine what punishment will act as an effective deterrent.

Once perpetrators have been convicted of a crime in criminal courts, the judge will deliberate on an appropriate sentence. Sentencing the criminal to an adequate punishment is the most important factor of deterrence. If the punishment is not proportional with the crime that was committed, then the sentence may not effectively deter the criminal from partaking in illegal activities in the future.

Deterring an individual from disregarding criminal laws may help to save lives. One common example of deterrence is the punishment for driving under the influence. An individual who is charged with driving under the influence may experience several penalties for their behavior, including fines, jail time, and the revocation of their license. The fines are often very expensive and may include fees ranging from a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars. They may be required to spend up to a few months in prison.

Also, individuals who are caught driving while intoxicated will have their license suspended for numerous months. This will affect the offender’s day-to-day routine. They may experience trouble getting to and from work, or running basic errands.

This can also be applied to more serious offenses that are tried in criminal courts, such as robbery, assault, and sexual offenses. These crimes are extremely severe and may result in extensive physical harm for victims who are involved in these cases. Therefore, it is essential to determine sentences that are severe enough to deter criminals from taking part in this behavior again once they are released from prison. However, the punishment cannot be so severe that it is considered to be unusually cruel or disproportionate.

What are Infancy Special Defenses?

When involved in a criminal case, it is extremely important to become familiar with criminal defense law and to develop an adequate and effective defense. There are many different types of criminal defenses and stances that an offender may decide to take. Adopting successful and believable criminal defenses is the key to escaping conviction or receiving a lighter sentence.

One of the more common and seemingly straightforward types of criminal defenses is the infancy defense. The infancy defense may be used when a defendant is a minor who is under the age designated to be the legal age of criminal liability. Criminal defense law recognizes that children do not have the same cognitive ability as adults. Their brains are still maturing and developing, and therefore, they do not have adequate impulse control and are likely to act on negative feelings and emotions.

Children are incapable of effectively evaluating and understanding the consequences and effects of their actions. Therefore, children cannot be held liable for any criminal activity in which they take part. Federal criminal defense law has established an age that denotes when children become criminally liable for their actions. In the United States, a child cannot be held legally accountable for criminal activities if they are under the age of seven. However, this minimum age may vary a great deal from one State to another.

The majority of states within the United States have not established a minimum age in which defendants can employ infancy criminal defenses. Criminal defense law in the states of New Jersey, California, Idaho, Utah, and Texas do not hold minors liable for criminal activity if they are under the age of fourteen. Georgia, New Hampshire, New York and Illinois will not convict a child under the age of thirteen of a crime.

These states believe that a child is not capable of intentionally committing a crime until they reach age of criminal responsibility. A minor who has not yet reached this age does not have the experience or the intellectual capacity to understand the consequences that would result from their actions. Therefore, they cannot be charged with a crime.

In other states, criminal defense law reflects the belief that even young children are aware that certain actions are wrong and detrimental. In these states, infancy criminal defenses may not be successful in avoiding legal responsibility. Instead, a minor may be tried and sentenced in the juvenile justice system.

Juvenile justice systems have been developed because states believe that minors should be held accountable for their actions, but they cannot be treated the same as adults because they do not have the same experiences, education, and physiology as adults. However, most states have established criminal defense law that does recognize certain instances in which a juvenile should be tried as an adult. In instances such as these, infancy criminal defenses will generally not be successful in absolving criminal liability.

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when debating the necessity and morality of trying a minor as an adult. These factors include the juvenile’s criminal history, the child’s age, and the severity of the crime that they have committed

International Death Penalty

The capital punishment debate is not exclusive to the United States. Countries throughout the world practice capital punishment

Conflicting Purposes for Punishment

The application of criminal law has many different goals and conflicting purposes. As such, criminal sentencing and incarceration have many pros and cons. The intent and the purpose of criminal sentencing also vary a great deal. Often, the function of criminal law varies from one case to the next, and each case may contain its own conflicting purposes for punishments and penalties.

Because of these conflicting purposes, punishments often differ to a large degree from one defendant to another, even though the crime committed may be the same.

Often, penalties are disproportional with one focus on deterrence and rehabilitation. Non-utilitarian punishments, meanwhile, often focus on retribution. According to the doctrine of retribution, an individual who has committed a crime by violating criminal law must be punished for their actions.

The sentence that they receive should fit the crime that they have committed so that justice is effectively served. If an individual is responsible for inflicting harm upon another person, then they should be punished so that they too experience the pain that they have caused another individual. In order for justice to be served an offender must be sentenced to a punishment that fits the crime, but not a penalty that is unusually cruel.

Because there are two different schools of thought regarding the purpose of punishments, there is often controversy and argument surrounding the use of disproportional punishments. Many people feel that the use of disproportional punishments are wrong because individuals are receiving punishments that are much more severe than the crimes that have been committed. Also, disproportional punishments do not maintain the severity of crimes in relation to other crimes.

However, people who support utilitarian punishments argue that disproportional punishments are necessary for deterring individuals from committing crime. While proportional punishments may be successful for retribution, they do little to deter criminals and decrease crime rates.

What are Consecutive Life Sentences?

Life sentences are among the most severe punishments that courts can impose on offenders in criminal cases. They are often given to those found guilty of the most heinous crimes, such as murder, and are intended to ensure that they spend the rest of their lives behind bars. However, there is another type of life sentence that is becoming increasingly common in recent years – consecutive life sentences. In this article, we will take a closer look at the definition of consecutive life sentences, and examine some recent popular cases where they have been applied.

What are Consecutive Life Sentences?

A consecutive life sentence is a sentencing option available to courts in some jurisdictions where a defendant is found guilty of multiple offenses that are punishable by life sentences. When a judge determines that the offender deserves more than one life sentence, they may choose to sentence them to consecutive life sentences. In this context, “consecutive” means that the offender must serve each of the life sentences one after another, rather than concurrently.

It is important to note that not all jurisdictions allow for consecutive life sentences and that the specifics of the law vary depending on where the case is being tried. In some states, such as Louisiana and California, mandatory life without parole is a possible sentence for certain crimes, so the use of consecutive life sentences is not as common there. In other jurisdictions, such as Texas and Oklahoma, consecutive life sentences are more prevalent.

Recent Cases

1. Ariel Castro Case

One of the most significant recent cases where consecutive life sentences were applied was the Ariel Castro case. Castro was a former Cleveland school bus driver who kidnapped three young women – Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry, and Gina DeJesus – and held them captive in his home for over a decade. During this time, he repeatedly raped and assaulted the women and forced them to endure horrific living conditions. In 2013, Castro was arrested after one of the women, Amanda Berry, managed to escape and alert the authorities.

2. Ted Bundy Ted Bundy is one of the most notorious serial killers in American history. Between 1974 and 1978, Bundy raped and murdered at least 30 young women and girls in several states, including Washington, Utah, Colorado, and Florida. Bundy was captured in 1978 and put on trial for the murder of two Florida State University sorority sisters. Bundy was convicted and sentenced to death. However, he was able to delay his execution by appealing his case multiple times.

Many people question the purpose and the necessity of handing a convict a consecutive life sentence. The term “life imprisonment” implies that a criminal will spend the rest of their life behind bars. As long as they are living, a convict who has been sentenced to life imprisonment will remain captive in a prison cell in order to keep the public safe from any harm that they may present to society.

Therefore, a consecutive life sentence seems unnecessarily redundant. Individuals often wonder as to how a criminal can serve more then one sentence of life imprisonment when the term “life sentence” indicates that a criminal will remain in prison until they die.

In order to understand why judges condemn a criminal to a consecutive life sentence it is important to understand the nature of life imprisonment. A consecutive life sentence occurs when a convict is required to complete a second life sentence after the first life sentence has been concluded. This may seem absurd, but reviewing the information and statistics related to life imprisonment will help an individual to understand the necessity of a consecutive life sentence.

The term “life imprisonment” is often misleading and deceptive. Contrary to popular belief, a life sentence does not necessarily mean that a criminal will spend the rest of their life in jail. When a judge condemns a convict to a life sentence, he/she will also determine whether or not the prisoner will be eligible for parolewithout chance of release.

However, in many instances, a convict will be granted the possibility of receiving parole. Some states, such as Alaska and New Mexico, prohibit a criminal from being sentenced to life without the chance of release. Therefore, it is possible for a murderer to once again walk the streets and pose a threat to individuals in the community. A consecutive life sentence will help to ensure that a dangerous criminal remains behind bars.

In most cases, life imprisonment means that a criminal must serve between fifteen to twenty years of their sentence before they will be considered for parole. If a criminal was handed a consecutive life sentence, then they will need to complete another twenty years before they are eligible for release, making it a total of forty years served before the convict will be considered for parole. Condemning a prisoner to multiple life sentences will ensure that the offenders are not considered for parole and are not released into the community.

In general, an offender will be handed a life sentence for each crime that they have committed that warrants life in prison. Therefore, if a perpetrator is responsible for murdering three people, then the offender may receive three life sentences. Many people believe that giving a convict multiple life sentences helps to console the victim’s family members because the offender has received a punishment for each specific crime that they have committed. In this respect, multiple life sentences are often extremely beneficial and reassuring.

It is possible for a convict to appeal their sentence. If one of the life sentences is overturned during the appeal process, then other life sentences have been passed in order to ensure that the criminal spends a long time in prison. A consecutive life sentence also accentuates the extent and the severity of the crimes that the offender committed.