Sentencing Restrictions and Centuries Behind Bars: Who Wins?
The following is a post courtesy of Darwin Overson – a Salt Lake City criminal defense attorney.
State legislatures continue to pass regulations restricting the discretion judges have to impose sentences for given criminal offenses. Many argue for the need for mandatory minimum sentences to send clear messages to those who would consider engaging in illegal activity and to punish those who have effectively. However, is the public served well by a justice system that’s little more a chart or a sliding scale? What comfort could we possibly derive from a 500-year prison sentence that we couldn’t from a 30-year term? Let’s examine some of the facts.
Facing Nearly 1,000 Years in Prison
Bucks County Court Judge Diane Gibbons sentenced a Falls Township man convicted on sex crime charges to 982 years in prison this past January 2013, according to Philly.com. A jury convicted Walter Meyerle of 170 counts of sex crimes against 15 children with ages ranging from as old as 17 to as young as 4-years-old. The abuse reportedly spanned a decade where Meyerle used relationships with parents in the area to gain access to his victims. The first molestation charge against Meyerle dates back to 2011 when authorities charged him with having sexual contact with a Croydon-area girl.
While the judge’s sentence in this case guarantees he’ll spend the rest of his life behind bars, is the public served by its inherent hyperbole? A human being can’t serve about 1,000 years in prison. We don’t live that long. Keeping the bones in a cell until the term is served seems a little excessive. Some might argue the high number of years attached to the sentence sends “a message.” That could very well be true, but what kind of message?
A court that levies outrageous sentences to those found guilty of multiple offenses doesn’t strike fear into the hearts of defendants. All this type of posturing does is make defense attorneys work harder for their clients because they know they’re up against a legal system determined to treat them as “examples” to ease the public conscience. This action also sets a dangerous precedent for future sentencing when judges look back on this case to determine if they should impose such a massive number of years.
Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences
Despite facing millennia in the state prison system, Meyerle may only spend a minimum number of years locked up depending on how the judge decided he should serve those years. If Judge Gibbons determined Meyerle should serve his terms for individual charges concurrently, every day spent in prison counts for each conviction. If the judge sentenced him to roughly the same amount of time for each conviction, he could serve the entire sentence in about five to seven years. That’s a much rosier outcome than a life sentence.
However, if the judge ruled he must serve each sentence consecutively, he won’t ever see the light of day as a free man again barring parole or the Hail Mary chance of overturned convictions. This single decision is why having an experienced criminal defense attorney in Bucks County is so important. Effective, tenacious legal counsel can mean the difference between a livable sentence, and dying behind bars.
NO JAIL TIME
Commonwealth v. "H" (DUI case)
Client was charged with three separate DUI cases calling for mandatory minimum imprisonment of 90 days on each case. Client was advised to seek immediate intensive alcohol counseling. Client was sentenced to 1 year of house arrest after serving 3 days in the county prison.
Commonwealth v. "C" (Felony drug/Firearms case)
Client was charged with felony Delivery of drugs and illegal gun possession and was facing a mandatory 3-6 year prison sentence in the State prison system. Client was sentenced to one year of house arrest.
Commonwealth v. "S"
Client was charged with simple assault, domestic. After a hearing where evidence and testimony was presented, the entire case was dismissed by Judge Leonard Brown.
State of New Jersey v. "H"
Charges for young man charged with second degree aggravated assault were downgraded to third degree and he was accepted into the County Pretrial Intervention program with charges to be dismissed and record expunged after one year of misconduct free behavior.
OUR CRIMINAL DEFENSE TEAM INCLUDES TWO FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
We have decades of experience dealing with local police departments, prosecutors, and judges throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Anyone facing charges involving a criminal offense can expect to experience a heightened degree of emotional turmoil, for themselves, as well as their family members. Our team of highly qualified criminal law attorneys and expert legal support staff are committed to providing each of our client’s with the compassion and understanding they deserve, as well as an aggressive plan for representation at an affordable price.
As former prosecutors, we have a balanced and in-depth understanding of the criminal justice system and how the prosecution prepares cases. In addition, we have long-standing experience dealing with local police departments, prosecutors and judges throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
At Young, Marr and Associates, when we say “experience matters,” we mean it. Our lawyers, which include two former prosecutors and a former senior deputy district attorney bring more than three decades of criminal law experience, handling more than 10,000 criminal cases. It is precisely that experience that allows us to achieve outstanding results for our clients facing DUI, traffic, felony and misdemeanor charges in state, federal and juvenile courts.