This article needs additional citations for verification .(January 2022) |
In judicial practice, back-to-back life sentences, also called consecutive life sentences, [1] [2] are two or more consecutive life sentences given to a convicted felon. This practice is used to ensure the felon will never be released from prison.
This is a common punishment for a defendant convicted of multiple murders in the United States. Depending on the jurisdiction in which the case is tried, a defendant receiving a life sentence may become eligible for parole after serving a minimum length of time, on the order of 15–25 years. If a back-to-back penalty is imposed, the defendant must serve that minimum for every life sentence before parole can be granted, resulting in effect in a life-without-parole sentence, given the defendant's reasonably expected lifespan. Such a penalty also ensures that even if any of the convictions are overturned on appeal, the defendant must still serve the sentences for the ones left standing without need of a retrial (as would presumably be the case if a single sentence is issued for several crimes).
Other countries either allow multiple concurrent life sentences which can be served at the same time (e.g. Russia), or allow multiple consecutive life sentences with a single minimum term (e.g. Australia), thus allowing earlier release of the prisoner.
In Canada, after December 2, 2011, it became possible for multiple periods of parole ineligibility to be imposed for multiple first-degree murders. The mandatory penalty for first-degree murder is life imprisonment with 25 years' ineligibility for parole. Due to the addition of section 745.51 [3] to the Criminal Code of Canada, a judge was permitted to stack multiple 25-year periods of parole ineligibility to account for multiple victims. Before doing this, the judge had to consider a jury's recommendation to this effect. [4] The life sentences were not served consecutively (back to back) but the multiple periods of parole ineligibility led to a similar result. The longest period of parole ineligibility was 75 years, handed out to four offenders: Justin Bourque (later reduced to 25 years), John Paul Ostamas, Douglas Garland and Derek Saretzky.
Section 745.51 was found to be unconstitutional by the Quebec Superior Court and Quebec Court of Appeal in the case of Alexandre Bissonnette; and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal in May 2022, finding multiple periods of parole ineligibility for first degree murder to be unconstitutional due to imposing an in effect irrevocable life sentence, contrary to the function of parole after a minimum period, which would be "grossly disproportionate" punishment and thus contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [5] The Supreme Court of Canada's declaration of constitutional invalidity meant that section 745.51 was struck down retroactively. The result of the case law is hence that, per the law prior to 2011, that the sole penalty for murder is life imprisonment with 25 years' ineligibility for parole, regardless of how many murders are committed; in effect, only the plausibility of being granted parole is affected.
The Criminal Code permits consecutive (back to back) sentences for other types of offences [6] which results in extended parole ineligibility for those offences. [7]
Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which the convicted criminal is to remain in prison for the rest of their natural life. Crimes that result in life imprisonment are extremely serious and usually violent. Examples of these crimes are murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, illegal drug trade, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated property damage, arson, hate crime, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, theft, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide.
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Indiana. The last man executed in the state, excluding federal executions at Terre Haute, was the murderer Matthew Wrinkles in 2009.
In the United States, habitual offender laws have been implemented since at least 1952, and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require a person who is convicted of an offense and who has one or two other previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those who continue to commit offenses after being convicted of one or two serious crimes.
In criminal law, a sentence is the punishment for a crime ordered by a trial court after conviction in a criminal procedure, normally at the conclusion of a trial. A sentence may consist of imprisonment, a fine, or other sanctions. Sentences for multiple crimes may be a concurrent sentence, where sentences of imprisonment are all served together at the same time, or a consecutive sentence, in which the period of imprisonment is the sum of all sentences served one after the other. Additional sentences include intermediate, which allows an inmate to be free for about 8 hours a day for work purposes; determinate, which is fixed on a number of days, months, or years; and indeterminate or bifurcated, which mandates the minimum period be served in an institutional setting such as a prison followed by street time period of parole, supervised release or probation until the total sentence is completed.
Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Texas for murder, and participation in a felony resulting in death if committed by an individual who has attained or is over the age of 18.
In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence that lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for parole after a minimum term set by the judge. In exceptional cases a judge may impose a "whole life order", meaning that the offender is never considered for parole, although they may still be released on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Whole life orders are usually imposed for aggravated murder, and can only be imposed where the offender was at least 21 years old at the time of the offence being committed.
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in Japan. The Penal Code of Japan and several laws list 14 capital crimes. In practice, though, it is applied only for aggravated murder. Executions are carried out by long drop hanging, and take place at one of the seven execution chambers located in major cities across the country. The only crime punishable by a mandatory death sentence is instigation of foreign aggression.
The "faint hope clause" is the popular name for s.745.6 of the Canadian Criminal Code, a statutory provision that allows prisoners who have been sentenced to life imprisonment with a parole eligibility period of greater than 15 years to apply for early parole once they have served 15 years. Offenders who committed their offence after December 2, 2011 are no longer eligible to apply for the faint hope clause. However, those convicted of offences that occurred prior to that date may still be eligible.
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Wyoming.
In Germany, life imprisonment has an indeterminate length and is the most severe punishment that can be imposed. A person sentenced to life imprisonment may normally apply for parole after having served 15 years. If the parole court rejects the application, the inmate may reapply after a court determined blocking period no longer than two years. If the court has determined a "severe gravity of guilt" exists, parole is delayed for a non-specific period beyond 15 years.
Life imprisonment in Canada is a criminal sentence for certain offences that lasts for the offender’s life. Parole is possible, but even if paroled, the offender remains under the supervision of Corrections Canada for their lifetime, and can be returned to prison for parole violations.
In Finland, life imprisonment is the maximum criminal penalty. In actual practice, life imprisonment rarely lasts for the remainder of a convict's life; it currently consists of imprisonment in closed prison and possible periods of imprisonment in a halfway house, supervised parole and full parole. The death penalty was abolished in Finland in 1949 for peacetime offences and for all offences in 1972.
Canadian criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, which includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentencing in Canada.
In Canada, homicide is the act of causing death to another person through any means, directly or indirectly. Homicide can either be culpable or non-culpable, with the former being unlawful under a category of offences defined in the Criminal Code, a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada that applies uniformly across the country. Murder is the most serious category of culpable homicide, the others being manslaughter and infanticide.
The Florida Statute 775.087, known as the 10-20-Life law, is a mandatory minimum sentencing law in the U.S. state of Florida. The law concerns the use of a firearm during the commission of a forcible felony. The Florida Statute's name comes from a set of three basic minimum sentences it provides for. A public service announcement campaign accompanied the law after its passage under the slogan "Use a gun, and you're done."
Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the ability of a defendant to tell the jury that, absent a penalty of death, a penalty of life imprisonment would not permit early release of a prisoner on parole. While the question had been decided in the case of Simmons v. South Carolina, this case dealt with the extent of the ruling.
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that, where a capital defendant's future dangerousness is at issue, and the only alternative sentence available is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the sentencing jury must be informed that the defendant is ineligible for parole.
R v Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that life sentences without a realistic possibility of parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Court unanimously struck down section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, which gave sentencing judges the discretion to stack periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders, for violating Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Life imprisonment is a legal penalty in Singapore. This sentence is applicable for more than forty offences under Singapore law, such as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attempted murder, kidnapping by ransom, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons, and trafficking of firearms, in addition to caning or a fine for certain offences that warrant life imprisonment.