-Definition: a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility.
-Sentence: 50 years, serving a minimum of 25 years.
-Definition: unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought.
-Sentence: 10 years, serving a minimum of 5 years.
-Definition: accidental killing of another.
-Sentence: 5 years, serving a minimum of 2.5 years.
-Definition: the sudden, violent attack of another.
-Sentence: 2 years, serving a minimum of 6 months.
How do the above sentences add up to the death of another? I don’t believe in the death penalty because I believe the offender must suffer their time in jail, but I do believe that they should spend more time in jail than this! But look at the gap between second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. How is this fair? How does our legal system offer the opportunity to serve less time for good behavior? They committed and were charged with the crime! In my opinion, they shouldn’t get less time because they “found God” or decided to be good AFTER they committed the offence and got caught. Am I the only one that thinks this?
In the newspaper today, there was an article about a man who used his business’s money to buy personal necessities. He was sentenced to serve ten years in federal prison. Does this make sense? He didn’t kill anyone; he just spent money that wasn’t his. He will spend more time in prison than someone convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter and Assault. How is this fair?
Our legal system is messed up in this way. How does one who killed another not receive more jail time? I guess I just don’t understand how this is fair.
Will someone please explain to me how this makes sense?
* Sentence varies from state to state
* Definitions from www.dictionary.com
8 years ago