What's the point?

[zippeedee]

Can someone make sense of this for me? I know the justice system is set up to hopefully work for each victim and defendant, but this one I just don't understand.
Today the man who killed a pedophile priest in jail was "found guilty" and sentenced to life in prison. Fine, I get that, but he was already in prison, serving a life sentence with no chance of parole. He had already admitted to the killing, it was practically all caught on the security cameras anyway.
Even if he'd gotten an insanity ruling, he wasn't going anywhere but back to jail. I couldn't help but wonder how much this whole trial cost us taxpayers, and how many other trials were delayed so this one could reach a very obvious conclusion. Any one have any thoughts?

 

[Dan Murphy]

Legal procedure, I suppose. The law.

 

[POB14]

Very likely the additional conviction will get him either a less desireable (!) facility (possibly one that is on lockdown), fewer privileges, or possibly even solitary confinement.

People always ask why prisoners get good food, cable TV, exercise facilities, etc. -- well, this is why: you have to have something to take away if they don't behave in prison.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The reason is that anyone charged with a crime has the right to a fair trial -- that's part of our law in America. If we decide to start denying this basic right to people, then we may as well flush the Constitution down the toilet. The man received a trial because he, like everyone else, was entitled to a trial.

 

[zippeedee]

I totally agree that everyone deserves a trial, this one just seemed like such a waste. It seemed like it could have been handled like other prison punishments for bad behavior rather than a whole separate trial. I guess it is a slippery-slope thing and rights that are lost are difficult to regain.

 

[cardaway]

I totally agree that everyone deserves a trial, this one just seemed like such a waste. It seemed like it could have been handled like other prison punishments for bad behavior rather than a whole separate trial. I guess it is a slippery-slope thing and rights that are lost are difficult to regain.

Are you saying that him murdering somebody should have been treated the same as just another fight?

IMO there is far too much being allowed to go on in prisons as it is. Way too many people agree with prisoners "taking care of" other prisoners (like in this case - child abusers). I think it's sick and there should be more done about prisoner violence, not less.

 

[zippeedee]

No! It was a horrible, cruel crime, no matter who the victim was.
I knew I was just digging myself in deeper here! I just couldn't make sense of the whole process. They knew he did it, he admitted it. He wasn't going free either way. He already had a life sentence, so taking away privileges, going to a worse prison, etc were the only extra punishments available anyway. That's why I wondered why we had to pay for another trial.

 

[Chicago526]

No! It was a horrible, cruel crime, no matter who the victim was.
I knew I was just digging myself in deeper here! I just couldn't make sense of the whole process. They knew he did it, he admitted it. He wasn't going free either way. He already had a life sentence, so taking away privileges, going to a worse prison, etc were the only extra punishments available anyway. That's why I wondered why we had to pay for another trial.

Don't worry, I get what you are trying to say. You're wondering why we put someone on trial for a crime when they are already in prison for life w/out parole.

Each crime deserves a trial, for lack of a better way to put it. Another reason, is if the criminal were to win an appeal of the first conviction, he could be released or get a new trial, where he could get a reduced sentance or even acquited. So if that happened without being tried for the new crime, he could walk away a free man.