Is there any reason why people say "He received 400 years for murder" instead of just saying "life"?

As an initial point, every state is different and has different laws as to what a life sentence (or a life sentence without parole means).

In my state, a regular life sentence means that you serve 25 years and then are permanently on parole supervision. By giving someone consecutive life sentences, you would essentially be lengthening the actual time served (though the board would treat anything over 3 consecutive life sentences as the equivalent of 3 life sentences). This might not matter for a defendant over 40, but would matter for a 25 year-old defendant.

As to life without parole, in some states that means without parole for a set period of time. Thus consecutive sentences again lengthen the date before parole. In all states, there is the possibility of the governor (or a pardon board) commuting the sentence from life without to regular life. By making the sentences consecutive, the judge increases the time until parole if the sentence is commuted (as governors rarely give a double break when commuting sentences).

Finally, some judges just like making it clear that even if its not possible to serve the full sentence, what this defendant did deserves that full sentence.

EDIT: An earlier answer said consecutive meant running at the same time. That answer is not correct. Concurrent means running together at the same time (i.e. the second one begins at the same time as the first one so 3 +3 = 3). Consecutive means you serve each sentence separately (i.e. the second one begins when the first one ends so 3 + 3 = 6).

It relates to the gravity of the sentencing. A life sentence is 25 to 35 years. And you may get out early for good behavior. a life sentence doesn't necessarily mean no parole.

Sentencing advises anyone reviewing the case later whether or not this person is a candidate for parole. Also, if you are convicted of four counts of first degree murder, don't you think the sentence should reflect each count? Your punishment should reflect each life you took. That is justice.

Could also be that this happens more in a state where the death penalty is not an option or is difficult to receive as a sentence (sometimes a jury has to be unanimous on this decision.) Everyone can agree that violent murderers need to be locked up for the rest of their lives, but some people don't believe in the death penalty. This may be sort of a compromise route, still reflecting the seriousness of the crime and ensuring that even if the inmate shows model behavior, they will never be out on the streets again.

According to AnswerBag, judges often sentence prisoners to consecutive life sentences to lower their chances of a speedy parole.

Judges can also issue consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. They likely do this for several reasons. First, it's the law. If someone is convicted of murdering several people, they can receive multiple life sentences (even though it may seem redundant or pointless). Second, a double conviction serves as a kind of insurance policy in the event one of the convictions is later overturned.

There doesn't seem to be any official rule or law on how long a life sentence actually is. The amount of time a prisoner spends in the big house depends greatly on judges and parole boards, but it is getting longer. According to this 2004 article from the Boston Globe, "the average amount of time served by criminals given life sentences increased from 21 years in 1991 to 29 years in 1997."

29 years isn't exactly a lifetime, but in prison, it must seem like it.

Most court systems have minimum/maximum sentencing laws.

If a person is convicted or 1st degree murder or capital murder, he can be sentenced to no less than 80 years and no more than 110 years per count (the figures are arbitrary, I haven't the slightest idea what they really are).

So say our bad guy kills four people and uses a gun. He'd get the minimum of 90 years per person= 360 years and say he gets an additional 10 years each, for the weapon enhancement= 40 years.

360 + 40 = 400 years.

Yes, it's life without the possibility of parole, but the sentence isn't "life" it is 360 yrs +40 yrs.

Consecutive or concurrent, it wouldn't matter. He is probably not eligible for parole for the first 90 years any ways.

So YES; it is a matter of semantics. But the sentence is NOT 'life' it is in years and is referred to in those terms.

What's wrong with technical talk? You are right. What difference does it make? But that applies to your way of thinking, too. Who cares if they say "consecutive sentences?" There IS a reason for it, and it has to do with the victims. It is a matter of making sure the perpetrator is held accountable for each crime he committed. If you are the mother of a murder victim, you want to know that the murderer was properly blamed and condemned for the crime of YOUR child. That is how you find closure. It further works toward preventing any chance of parole later being instituted if the law changes. (Example: Charles Manson was condemned to death, but later got out of it when the law changed. Same thing could happen to someone with a life sentence). A criminal with four consecutive life sentences is less likely to get freed by some crazy governor or judge in the future than someone with just one sentence. But in all practicality, it has nothing to do with the fear that the person will miraculously get out. It is mostly just a matter of making it official and making sure that the person is held accountable for EVERY crime he committed. With that precedent set, you can then apply the same principle to someone who is NOT being sentenced to life, but has committed multiple crimes.

They want to make sure that the person isn't going to get out of prison, so they give them more than just life.

Today, I heard of some one that had been given a life sentence and some how or another he was released from prison. I shocked me to hear that but it's true, the guy was released from prison and he had a life sentence. From what they said he only served like 15 years. How does that equal life?

When some one is given more than a life sentence meaning multiple sentences, that usually makes it a sealed deal that they are going to be in until they die. Unfortunately not every one will do life unless they give multiple sentences, since the multiple sentences seems to speak louder.

Sad but true!

Because a life sentence is 20-25 years depending on the case, and most people live to about 80

So if a 20 year old commited a crime, 3 life sentences would be a guarenteed do-in.

People say that he got 400 years because he was sentenced to 400 years.

Life doesn't mean life. At some point, you'll be eligible for parole. That's where the second life sentence comes in.

Because thats how long they would like to jail him if he were to live that long. It also means it'll be hard to get parole anytime he is alive. Life doesn't necessarily mean life, the idea is to keep you in prison only long enough to rehabilitate you. The rules of sentencing are changing all the time. If you specify a time, you are indicating how serious you think the crime is.

Yeah

Because in order to receive parole you must serve a certain percentage of your time. The person who gets 400 years will most likely not be able to live long enough to serve out the percentage of time required by law.