Did this man get too much time?

Sorry, got off topic a bit. My opinion, he is just a kid. Yes, 20 is still a kid mentally. Make him serve time, 10 years maybe. He will come out a 30-year-old man that hopefully has learned his lesson and paid his debt to society.

Or come out of prison knowing more than he did when he went in - about how to commit crimes better. If anyone here thinks that people go into prison and are sweet and kind, and apply themselves to learning how to be better people, you are deluding yourselves. Most criminals like this guy - who is well on his way to being a "career" criminal - go into prison and they aren't scared by what they see there; they don't learn that isn't the place they want to spend their lives and suddenly go straight. No, they learn from the other criminals in there how to commit crimes better, and learn from each other's mistakes.

I was married to a Texas prison guard for many years, and when someone was released for a violent crime, it wasn't a case of "if" they ever returned to prison, it was almost always "when" ... it didn't matter what their age was when they were incarcerated, they almost always went back. The only exception to that is the ones who end up in a minimum security prison - mostly people who get picked up for having enough drugs on them for personal use only, or white collar crimes. Anyone who was in maximum security was far more likely to return for another violent crime when released - I can't remember the specific number, but it was more than 90% for repeat offenders.

Most of the ones who return to prison go in for something more heinous than their previous crime. But the lesson here, as someone said, if you don't like the sentence, stay out of Texas. Or at least, don't commit a crime here. :-)

There isn't enough information here to make a decision. I do however think that we are way to lenient with violent offenders in our country.

At least in Texas, the law is that aggravated robbery is a first degree felony carrying up to life in prison as the punishment. If convicted of aggravated robbery and assessed a prison sentence, the convicted person must serve 1/2 of the time before being considered for parole.

So, he obviously received the maximum sentence possible for each of the counts. I'll assume that the jury also took into account his previous juvenile record.

Do I think it's a harsh penalty? Yes - but I don't think it's really "overkill." And as you said, "do the crime, you do the time."

The sentences are running concurrently, which means he only got one life sentence. And I have heard of other armed robbers receiving a life sentence so, in my personal opinion, no... the jury was fair and just in their decision.

Remember that a life sentence equates to like 30 years so if he is a young guy, he will get out in plenty of time to live a normal life. The problem is usually, by the time they are released, guys like him have no idea how to live a normal life.

Yes to the first part, in practice he is only serving one life sentence. But on the second part, it depends on the jurisdiction - there is no parole in my state so a life sentence literally means a life sentence, you are there till you die. Most jurisdictions are moving towards this.

That depends on the severity of the crime. I didn't read that anyone was harmed by him, but generally, budget constraints get in the way of enforcing a "true" life sentence. If he didn't hurt anyone other than to terrorize them and rob them, he will likely get paroled... eventually.

As I said, it depends on the jurisdiction. Parole does not exist in my state.

What state do you live in that can afford to house criminals until their natural death?

At least in Texas, the law is that aggravated robbery is a first degree felony carrying up to life in prison as the punishment. If convicted of aggravated robbery and assessed a prison sentence, the convicted person must serve 1/2 of the time before being considered for parole.

So, he obviously received the maximum sentence possible for each of the counts. I'll assume that the jury also took into account his previous juvenile record.

Do I think it's a harsh penalty? Yes - but I don't think it's really "overkill." And as you said, "do the crime, you do the time."

^^^^
went searching for Texas

This offense is classified as a first degree felony. First degree felony convictions carry up to 99 years in prison and $10,000 in fines.

that is is for ONE aggravated robbery and this young man was convicted of nine counts of aggravated robbery ---

What state do you live in that can afford to house criminals until their natural death?

I practice law in Virginia.

The sentences are running concurrently, which means he only got one life sentence. And I have heard of other armed robbers receiving a life sentence so, in my personal opinion, no... the jury was fair and just in their decision.

Remember that a life sentence equates to like 30 years so if he is a young guy, he will get out in plenty of time to live a normal life. The problem is usually, by the time they are released, guys like him have no idea how to live a normal life.

Yes to the first part, in practice he is only serving one life sentence. But on the second part, it depends on the jurisdiction - there is no parole in my state so a life sentence literally means a life sentence, you are there till you die. Most jurisdictions are moving towards this.

That depends on the severity of the crime. I didn't read that anyone was harmed by him, but generally, budget constraints get in the way of enforcing a "true" life sentence. If he didn't hurt anyone other than to terrorize them and rob them, he will likely get paroled... eventually.

As I said, it depends on the jurisdiction. Parole does not exist in my state.

What state do you live in that can afford to house criminals until their natural death?

A lot of these criminals have no employment and collect government assistance and live in government housing.

That's no cheaper than keeping them in prison, especially when you factor in the cost to the community of having violent offenders on the streets.

The sentences are running concurrently, which means he only got one life sentence. And I have heard of other armed robbers receiving a life sentence so, in my personal opinion, no... the jury was fair and just in their decision.

Remember that a life sentence equates to like 30 years so if he is a young guy, he will get out in plenty of time to live a normal life. The problem is usually, by the time they are released, guys like him have no idea how to live a normal life.

Yes to the first part, in practice he is only serving one life sentence. But on the second part, it depends on the jurisdiction - there is no parole in my state so a life sentence literally means a life sentence, you are there till you die. Most jurisdictions are moving towards this.

That depends on the severity of the crime. I didn't read that anyone was harmed by him, but generally, budget constraints get in the way of enforcing a "true" life sentence. If he didn't hurt anyone other than to terrorize them and rob them, he will likely get paroled... eventually.

As I said, it depends on the jurisdiction. Parole does not exist in my state.

What state do you live in that can afford to house criminals until their natural death?

A lot of these criminals have no employment and collect government assistance and live in government housing.

That's no cheaper than keeping them in prison, especially when you factor in the cost to the community of having violent offenders on the streets.

So rather than build infrastructure and the like to keep them out of crime, we'll just move them into privately owned prisons.

The sentences are running concurrently, which means he only got one life sentence. And I have heard of other armed robbers receiving a life sentence so, in my personal opinion, no... the jury was fair and just in their decision.

Remember that a life sentence equates to like 30 years so if he is a young guy, he will get out in plenty of time to live a normal life. The problem is usually, by the time they are released, guys like him have no idea how to live a normal life.

Yes to the first part, in practice he is only serving one life sentence. But on the second part, it depends on the jurisdiction - there is no parole in my state so a life sentence literally means a life sentence, you are there till you die. Most jurisdictions are moving towards this.

That depends on the severity of the crime. I didn't read that anyone was harmed by him, but generally, budget constraints get in the way of enforcing a "true" life sentence. If he didn't hurt anyone other than to terrorize them and rob them, he will likely get paroled... eventually.

As I said, it depends on the jurisdiction. Parole does not exist in my state.

What state do you live in that can afford to house criminals until their natural death?

A lot of these criminals have no employment and collect government assistance and live in government housing.

That's no cheaper than keeping them in prison, especially when you factor in the cost to the community of having violent offenders on the streets.

So rather than build infrastructure and the like to keep them out of crime, we'll just move them into privately owned prisons.

Why is it either/or? And VA only has 1 private prison.

I don't think it should be either/or. I just dislike the shut them away because they are living on government assistance frame of mind.

Who said "shut them away because they are on government assistance?"

The man is going to jail because he went on an armed robbery spree. Someone made the argument that it's more expensive to put these people in prison. However, for many people, it's not.

I don't think it should be either/or. I just dislike the shut them away because they are living on government assistance frame of mind.

Who said "shut them away because they are on government assistance?"

The man is going to jail because he went on an armed robbery spree. Someone made the argument that it's more expensive to put these people in prison. However, for many people, it's not.

It costs about 3X as much to house an inmate than to provide public assistance.

And I couldn't care less about what he gets. Just because someone is lucky enough to get off with a lighter sentence doesn't make his actions any less horrible. And as for murderers and rapists getting less, THAT is where the mistake is, not in this guy's sentencing.

QFT. ^ I couldn't say it any better than this!

I don't think it should be either/or. I just dislike the shut them away because they are living on government assistance frame of mind.

Who said "shut them away because they are on government assistance?"

The man is going to jail because he went on an armed robbery spree. Someone made the argument that it's more expensive to put these people in prison. However, for many people, it's not.

I made the argument to say that it is too costly to hold a criminal until their natural death. I was speaking of parole. Not to say that this guy shouldn't have received such a strenuous sentence. I said the sentence was completely fair and just.

In Canada he would have gotten community service.

I was thinking the same thing.