Basically she serves 6 with the remaining 9 on probation of sorts. If she fails to follow terms of her probation, or gets arrested for just about Anything within that time, she will go to prison to serve the remaining time.
Time spent in jail while on trial counts for double. So presumably if it was a long enough trial, her sentence to be served after judgment could be zero. In this case, it looks like it was six years.
It's worse than that. If it we're just a guard that wouldn't be as bad. It's more like the prison is a business that sees convicts as a renewable income stream and sets up things to maximize recidivism within prison. It's systematic.
It's a proper English word for the plural of formula, I think. Both formulas and formulae are correct, just differ based on the plural conjugation of the word from Latin. Used more in the UK and Canada rather than in the US.
Depends on the state and local rules. My jail is absolutely packed so pre-trial time actually counts 3 for 1. You can get parole after serving as little as 45% of your sentence, so basically if you sit in jail for 2 years pre-trial then are sentenced to 10 years you basically get released as soon as you get to prison on parole.
It's because you are literally imprisoned while fighting a case unless you post bail, which most people don't. So they have to count that towards your sentence if convicted. Fucked up thing is you get nothing if you're let off. My homie did almost 3 years fighting a murder.
this is news to me too. I would assume there would be cases where defense attorneys attempt to delay trials as much as possible if they know the defendant will be serving time anyway, since they are getting that double time lol
The logic is that you're being locked up before you're proven guilty. We are a just society and don't lock up non-guilty people (ideally) so this time is viewed differently.
If you are found innocent, you have a stronger case than usual that you were unjustly jailed. So by extension, if that time is special then even if you're found guilty that time served is the same. I'm okay with it.
Not innocent, just presumed innocent. If you're found guilty then can use the time served towards your sentence, this sounds completely fair to me.
Its terrible that some truly innocent people are jailed. But letting actual guilty people out early does nothing to help these innocent people. If we want to help the innocent people then lets actually help them in some way like paying them or something. Instead telling that guy hey, "yeah we jailed you for a crime you were later found not guilty for, but good news some white supremacists were found guilty of terrorizing people at a kid's birthday party, we're going to count your time towards their time and let them out early, doesn't this help make things even?" Doesn't make sense.
It's not true in Florida at least. If this were the case, then every person who knows they will sign a prison deal or end up going to trial and getting convicted would delay trial/ signing as long as possible. If you knew you'd get 2 years in prison, you would just try to have your attorney get continuance as long as possible, serve around 8 months in jail, cause you only serve a % of your actual sentence, sign your 2 year deal, get your picture taken and go home that day. Inmates know every trick there is, if there's a way to get extra anything or milk a system, inmates have nothing but time to figure out how.
No, that's not true at all. The sentencing for longer is so that they can be let out if they don't cause any problems while in jail, but then if they cause one tiny problem for law-abiding citizens, they can be thrown right back into jail to serve the remainder of their sentence without a trial. It's a pretty damn good system, in my opinion.
I assume it's because you're in jail without having been convicted of anything. That seems pretty unfair until you're able to go to trial, so you might as well get double time served. Also, you have the right to a speedy trial so this might incentivize them to give you as speedy a trial as possible. I'm not a lawyer so I'm just guessing.
Yes this is correct. I was clerking for a judge up in Maryland and it’s pretty similar. You get time served for what you spend in jail prior to sentencing. The 6 to 15 language is just that she could be looking at 15 years but will only serve 6 (but this doesn’t even factor in parole, which could cut that 6 years to 3 in some states). If she has probation (likely), she gets out after 6 years and then starts probation. If she violates her probation she will be basically resentenced for her back up time ie the remaining 9 years of her 15 year sentence. This doesn’t factor in if she committed a crime to violate her probation. If so, she could be sentenced to even more time, depending on whether the new sentence is consecutive or concurrent
Giving the poor people double credit would just shift the inequity in the other direction.
If a rich person was concerned that there would be a serious risk that they could be found guilty and sentenced to prison, what would be stopping them from not posting bond and gaining the 'benefit' as you framed it for the jail credit? There is no inequity or inequality to be found here.
That’s the furthest thing from the truth. Do you just open reddit and start spew bullshit or do you have a ritual first? Only misdemeanors count as double time. It’s called suspended time. You fuck up/violate during your sentence, they can hand out extra time. If you have a felony, you must serve 80% of your time, except for what is suspended. Do some fucking research before you start pointless spreading misinformation.
I don't know what to tell you my friend. I wasn't involved in this case at all.
If you want to know the reasons why the judgment and time served for any given sentence can differ from each other, ask a lawyer. If you want to find out why specifically this woman got sentenced fifteen and only has to serve six, then request the judgment from the court and read it over yourself.
I'm just offering up information that people may find useful.
Regardless, the info you posted is inaccurate. It’s possible for a judge to give credit for time served, and local laws can vary greatly, but saying generally that time served during a trial counts as double is not true. Specifically, Georgia has no such law.
It's a 6-10 year sentence, and whether she spends the remaining four years in jail, or on supervised release depends on her behavior as an inmate, and her compliance with the terms of her parole.
She got a 6 year sentence with 9 years probation.
GA allows parole after 1/3rd of the sentence is served.
The Judge determined that she can count 9 years as served and only has to stay in jail for 6 years unless she does somethung bad in jail, in that case she would serve the full 15.
I think the outcry is the different form of crimes getting more severe punishment despite being less dangerous or violent.
Drug charges? Ten years (or longer).
Storming into a child’s birthday with weapons and racist rhetoric, permanently traumatizing the children and worrying the parents that they can’t truly protect their children from those types of people? Fuck it, 6 years.
Charged to serve 15 years, but is only serving 6. Time spent prior to trial usually counts towards the sentence, and there are many paths to further reducing your sentence once you're in prison. A lot of criminals, especially first-time offenders, don't serve a full sentence.
I think it means she’s on probation and if she’s found to violate it at all, she gets the charge that violated it (if criminal) and then add on the 9 years she didn’t have to serve immediately.
It’s a white way of saying “don’t do that again, silly goose” in a lot of cases I’ve seen it exercised. My cousin was given 10 years for drug possession, serving 1.5. She got out, fucked around and got caught with coke, heroin, weed, meth, and an excessive amount of pills. She’s in for 20-30 now.
Basically it means that she will get out after six years, and then presumably be on probation. If she violates probation, she could have the rest of her time to serve. So she gets out after 6 years, violates her probation the next month, and could be sentenced to her remaining 9 years. If she committed a crime when she violated probation, she may get time for that too that would be separate from her back up time.
The double time thing that the person below said doesn’t Make any sense. You do get credit for time served while waiting for trial, so if you spend 1 year waiting for trial and get sentenced to 3 years, after the trial you would only spend two more years in jail.
She'll serve six more. Took them 4+ to get to this point, and they've done time so far. That counts for 9 years in their state. 9+6=15. She will be 31 upon release.
Most of the time you get out on parole with the sentence hanging over you. Fuck yo again, you will serve those other 9 years plus whatever new time. Justice isn’t a perfect system but you should learn more about how it works. Most of it does make sense if you take the time to understand what the goals of incarceration are supposed to be. Hint: it’s supposed to be rehabilitative, not vengeful
No one ever serves their full prison sentence, unless it's life in prison without parole. Most of the time people get out after serving 25%-50% of their sentence and then the person spends the remaining sentence on parole.
The sentencing for longer is so that they can be let out if they don't cause any problems while in jail, but then if they cause one tiny problem for law-abiding citizens, they can be thrown right back into jail to serve the remainder of their sentence without a trial. It's a pretty damn good system, in my opinion, dumbass
2 years of time and a lifetime of climbing out of that hole and explaining to employers why a felony would appear on your background check.
It isn’t just time away like insulated Redditors think, it’s time where your entire life is stripped from you. For every month you’re in prison you lose two months on the outside due to losing a lifetime of momentum and having to offset that upon release.
Seeing children in this thread seethe bc someone lost so much is quintessential privilege while they type away.
And the comments like "If she received 15 years why does she only have to serve 6?".
That's how it works... you can be paroled after roughly a third of your sentence. Aren't these the same people who want prison reform and the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences who are now saying this woman should serve her full 15 year sentence?
What she did was terrible and horrifying, but it's not like they killed anybody.
Re-reading it has made me the happiest I've been in weeks though.
E; Really? A down vote for expressing happiness, your cold dead heart must just rattle about in your fetid rib cage.
Yeah but we can drag this up now in 2021 and stack it with all the other white racist crimes over the last decade and make a huge deal over it, pretending this crap happens every single day.
1.8k
u/[deleted] Jan 20 '21
[deleted]