This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article currently states: "Richard McMonagle sentenced him to between 1,554 and 3,195 years in prison" Why is there no greater accuracy than this? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is more accurate to give a range. Sentencing in U.S. is typically given in a range. You might be familiar with expression "25 to life". The lower limit indicates the earliest time the prisoner can apply for parole. The upper limit indicates the maximum time period the prisoner can remain incarcerated. In this case, he was convicted for numerous counts and, I assume, the judge sentenced him to serve the sentence consecutively, essentially giving him a life sentence. 1,554 years indicates the sum of all the lower limits of the individual counts. 3,195 years is the sum of all the maximum sentences from the individual counts. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I know nothing of how the US penal system works, but I assumed that some sort of parole for good behaviour is usually included. I wonder if something along the following lines would be appropriate and read with less apparent vagueness, yet still be fully supported by the sources? "Richard McMonagle sentenced him to 3,195 years in prison, serving a minimum of 1,554 years." But if you both think the original wording was fine, then I'm happy to accept that. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
