Life Sentences Condemn People To Death Row

Lifer's are deprived of hope and left to die in places like this.

"I'd like to see our jails and prisons become more like greenhouses and less like warehouses."

- Commonwealth's Attorney Marsha Garst, in a presentation at a recent criminal justice conference

According to an Open Forum piece in the October 18, 2019 Daily News-Record a Rockbridge County man was sentenced to 170 years in prison in January of 2018 for downloading child pornography on his home computer. The commonwealth's attorney office had offered him a plea deal with a lesser sentence, but the defendant chose to have the jury trial he was entitled to under our judicial system.

Unfortunately, this resulted in his being convicted of multiple felony counts, each of which carried a mandated sentence by Virginia law, thus the 170 year total.

Our public prosecutors defended the multiple sentences on the premise that the children in these awful porn videos were being re-victimized with each download of this dreadful footage.

I am in total agreement regarding the seriousness of the harm done to children who are victims of this unimaginable abuse. But what constitutes actual reparation for this kind of unbelievable harm? A life sentence that completely eliminates the possibility of any reparation or redemption? Being condemned to die in a steel and concrete cage, in a de facto death row?

This negates Garst's statement that jails and prisons should be greenhouses for rehabilitation rather than warehouses for unending retribution. As much as I am against capital punishment, it could be argued that execution would be less cruel than being sentenced to a lifetime of being deprived of hope and simply waiting to die.

Having said that, I believe most societies would consider a life sentence to be disproportionate for someone guilty of being a virtual accessory to a crime (aiding and abetting the criminal act) but not having actually personally committed the crime (of subjecting a child to sexual abuse).

The other aspect of this case that needs to be considered is that if our constitution guarantees every person the right to a speedy and fair trial, might we in effect be punishing people (by threatening them with a possible worse outcome) if they avail themselves of that right? And if the lesser sentence associated with a plea is to be considered just, is a life sentence imposed by a mandated sentencing process to be seen as somehow more just?

I recently heard of a judge who makes a practice of publicly shaking the hand of the defendant in each jury trial and then turning to the jury with the words, "I have just shaken the hand of an innocent man (or woman)." The judge does this as a way of underscoring the principle that in our judicial system everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

With a plea deal, a person may feel forced into admitting guilt and forgoing a fair trial based on that presumption of innocence. 

Here's a link to the case cited:
http://www.dnronline.com/opinion/open_forum/punishment-does-not-fit-the-crime/article_b250861e-4fe1-592c-bc6c-266bb3624de5.html