Legal question - new law concerning time served on a prison sentence.?
463088
We need some more information to be able to answer... what is the jurisdiction? Most sentencing laws are at the state level, and we would need to know what state you are in to be able to look into it.\n\nI can find no law anything like what you refer to. Even if there were, it doesn't sound like your husband's case would apply, because time served for one crime is NEVER applied to a sentence for another, unless a sentence specifically says that the two convictions are to be served concurrently.
419205
this might help......www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62139
1017874
Well the question cannot really be answered without knowing what the person involved was sentenced for.  Different crimes have different good time credit provisions.\n\nBut, assuming half time credits and assuming that none are lost for misbehaving in prison, the easiest way to figure it out (although will only give a ballpark estimate) is to take the 2 years, subtract the total credits mentioned above, then divide by 2.\nBall park estimate with above assumptions on credits and behavior would then be about 8 months more time to serve...
505091
From what you describe, it would be the guidelines the parole board is using that would change, not the sentence.  Just because they could release them earlier doesn't mean they will.
1073410
Go to findlaw.com and research your states law for sexual assault. Chances are since he broke probation, he will have that time to actively serve too. It doesn't look good. Especially if they 'box-car' his sentences, meaning serving one before he can start another.
106431
YES,,, IT WORKS LIKE THIS,, HOWEVER IF YOU ARE NOT ELGIBLE FOR HALF TIME, THEN YOU ARE MANDATORY TO SERVE 80% OF YOUR TIME..\n\nNOW IN YOUR CASE.\nYOU WERE SENTENCE TO 730 DAYS (legaly they don't use the term in years) WITH 273 DAYS CREDIT WICH LEAVES YOU WITH \n457 DAYS AND OUT OF THOSE DAYS, YES YOU WILL DO 1/2 TIME IF YOU ARE ELGIBLE WICH MEANS YOU HAVE A REMAINING OF 226 DAYS IN YOUR SENTENCE.
1016459
It's the same with all sentences for all crimes in the UK. The time served does not fit the crime. \n\nThese yobs "choose" to steal a car (which is somebody Else's property which is hard come by) then endanger innocent people when they drive like twats, not to mention the police time in chasing them and potentially killing them too. \n\n10 years which means a minimum 10 years served... none of that only serving 5 years for good behaviour shite. We might get our streets back then.
65249
There is no standard time of punishment for marijuana arrests. It is case per case, depends on whether someone is caught for the reason of possession or sale or manufacture.
425810
"Applying Criminal Penalties to \nActions in Cyberspace"\n\nPreface: The messages below were posted in the Cybercrimes Seminar during September, 1998, as part of the class discussions.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nArticle No. 331: posted by Susan Brenner on Mon, Sep. 14, 1998, 13:29\nSubject: Blank scenario: the Student #9 statute\n\nArticle No. 274: [Branch from no. 273] posted by Student #9 on Sat, Sep. 12, 1998, 23:19\n\nThe following is a quick and dirty first draft of a proposed statute to criminalize any action producing the type of injury involved in the Blank case. It draws from CA Penal Code sections 288.2(b) and 647.6(a). I did not have a copy of a criminal statute that provides for additional civil remedies, handy...so I winged it.\n\nMy belief is that this rough draft contains enough flaws to inspire an evolutionary discussion process, ultimately, leading to the production of a sample model statute. Might be good practice...if enough of us join in. So go ahead and propose: a)why we should trash it, altogether [but, don't forget to include your alternative!]; b)how the draft should be revised; etc.\n\nMPC section 1.01:\n\n(a) Every person who knowingly distributes, sends, causes to be sent, exhibits, or offers to distribute or exhibit by electronic mail, the Internet, as defined in Section 17538 of the Business and Professions Code, or a commercial online service, any false or legally protected matter about another person, and with the intent, or for the purpose of causing said person embarrassment, or economic, professional or social harm shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine or imprisonment. \n\n(b)Every person who (cut and paste from above up to)...or social harm, resulting in injury to said person shall be subject to civil liability of not less than ten thousand dollars and not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nArticle No. 334: [Branch from no. 331] posted by Student #9 on Mon, Sep. 14, 1998, 14:44\nSubject: re: Blank scenario: the Student #9 statute\n\nI do not favor the forfeiture approach--Internet Service Providers sometimes require user acceptance of the terms of a specific agreement that addresses user liability for such activity with corresponding prohibitive language towards same(e.g., Yahoo email agreement).\n\nRe: the statute\n\nIf we define "person" to include both individuals and organizations, the fine and civil remedies seem a bit low. Perhaps setting the fines at "not less than $5,000 for each independent publication [as identified by ISP records]...what upper limit would be appropriate?\n\nHypo: If McDonald's Corporation discovered that Wendy's hired an agent to spread internet rumors that McDonald's used red earth worms to increase the protein content of their burgers, the cap on civil remedies seems almost an invitation to cyber-mischief. How should we set civil remedies as provided by this statute to serve as an adequate deterrent? \n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nArticle No. 335: [Branch from no. 334] posted by Student #9 on Mon, Sep. 14, 1998, 14:56\nSubject: re: Blank scenario: the Student #9 statute\n\nClarification--I do favor civil remedies provided by the criminal statute, as reflected in its drafting. I would prefer that Internet Service Providers be immune from either criminal sanctions or civil liabilities. Persons--either individuals or organizations--should be subject to both criminal sanctions and civil liabilities reasonably calculated to both deter the commission of the object crime and provide remedies for the victims of same.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nArticle No. 340: [Branch from no. 334] posted by Student #10 on Mon, Sep. 14, 1998, 17:46\nSubject: r
619920
http://prisontalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=372\n\nThere's a wonderful resource for exactly that circumstance.\nGood luck....and welcome home.
1115803
None of the above. It is a  mandatory and extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. These statutes became very popular in the 1990s. It applies to those who are chronic criminals.
106253
If the correctional facility where the inmate is being housed has a website featuring information about it's population, there is a good chance you could find out a release date that way.  You might also contact the actual facility to ask the warden or someone in the higher penal administrative offices as well as the board of pardons and paroles for that particular area about a release date for a specific individual.  This information is public record, as well as information relating to the facts of the crime, and sentencing information.  I hope this helps you.
990912
I work closely with the Courts and Judges are always moaning about the sentences they are allowed give. By law, if someone pleads guilty they have to have a 1/3 reduction on their sentence. So it really is not the Judges fault but the law and Human Rights activists (especially the one in No. 10). Also, even if the offender has loads of previous convictions, they are only allowed to sentence according to the maximum penalty of the current offence. e.g. if someone has been convicted for GBH loads of times and plea bargain for abh, their sentence will be much lower as the maximum penalty is much less.\nAlso, in reponse to the person saying that people don't turn up for Community Service, if they do not turn up and do not have an acceptable reason (e.g. doctors note) then they will be breached and returned to the courts. The same goes for Probation. If you don't turn up you WILL go back to the Courts. And the reason the Government are bringing in all this legislation is because our prison a seriously overvrowded. I am not saying i agree with what they are doing because I really am not, but seomtimes prison is not the best place for these people. Prison is not called "The Criminals University" for nothing!
175725
I was convicted for possesing drugs, I was sent to prison for 14 months, while I was in there, there was a guy who  assaulted his girlfriend, then drove around drunk with his 8 month old baby in the car. He was only sentenced to 6 months. It was so sad cause I got there 2 months before he did, and he was set free before I got out. Keep in mind that this was my first offense of any kind, (except traffic tickets). This is just one case, I could tell you a whole bunch of other cases that were Obviously worse than mine, and they got less time than I did....there is no such thing as justice in America!
1035119
Sentenced- may today become the day....
1036211
In Ohio, the calls are recorded by the prison, but they warn you of that before each call. I would assume its the same elsewhere. you can't have prisoners calling their criminal friends, putting out hits on people and such
1068029
No one should be above the law, and consequently no one should be exempted from the law. Past deeds should not effect  punishment any more than changing your life while you are in prison should effect it. If your crime was heinous enough to warrant the death penalty I believe at that point you have forfeited previous good credit in your life.