Talk:Reclusión perpetua

Contradiction?

Bullet point 3 says: "Reclusión perpetua entails a minimum imprisonment of 30 years...etc" but then bullet 4 says "reclusión perpetua is an indivisible penalty and has no minimum, medium or maximum periods". Do these not contradict each other? The third bullet says reclusion perpetua is 30-40 years and the fourth says there is none. Are these part of two separate nations' codes or something? Wickethewok 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the edit history of the page, it appears the author of the page is sure that there is no contradiction and ask to read carefully, but I can't see! Adjustements are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.123.69 (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Same conclusion -> blatant contradictory edits.

• Reclusión perpetua entails a minimum imprisonment of 30
• Unlike life imprisonment, reclusión perpetua is an indivisible penalty and has no minimum.

i therefore put a {contradictory} tag. -- 41.251.64.208 02:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not contradictory. Thirty years isn't a minimum, it's the only parole starting date for the sentence. The sentence always ends after forty years, it's not adjustable during sentencing or service. Compare this to a life sentence which can have parole after any number of years, or a regular prison term which can be specifically defined. This is all very clear from the context of the article, please reread it and make an attempt to understand its content before haphazardly placing tags. --NEMT 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

AH, I can see to why there can be some confusion actually. All it needs is to be better worded so as to not be mis-interpreted by mistake. That-Vela-Fella 03:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still a contradiction. Your final point repeats that there are "no minimum, medium or maximum periods" and yet there is a maximum period of 40 years to the sentence, as stated in both point 3 and in your rebuttal above. And, in reference to your defensive point above, it is not clear, and Wickethewok had every right to point this out. Thus, a change to point three could read "Reclusión perpetua entails a sentence of 40 years, which is not adjustable during sentencing or service of the term. Individuals imprisoned under reclusión perpetua are eligible for parole after 30 years." Consequently, point 4 could be completely removed. Russthomas1515 10:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it? You say: "there is a maximum period of 40 years to the sentence" but your concept of "maximum" is not the same as a maximum sentence as defined by law. Forty years is the only sentence, it is not a maximum sentence. Though parole is possible, the sentence is always for forty years. There is no contradiction. --NEMT 04:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the unsigned suggestion above would make it clearer. Also, bullet #2: it says "Reclusión perpetua carries accessory penalty,...". What is accessory penalty? Does this mean that conditions like solitary confinement or hard labour can be tacked onto the sentence? Or does it mean that one can be sentenced to reclusión perpetua and another consecutive fixed-time term for additional offenses committed during the same crime? Thanks, CWPappas 03:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Que lastima!! Lycurgus 04:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NEMT, why are you telling people who are OBVIOUSLY confused that the wording is not confusing? YOU are not confused, but many people posting here seem to have trouble understanding what has been written in the article until you explain it further. Isn't it possible that this would mean the way it is written now is confusing to some degree? Why can't we just add that "The sentence always ends after forty years, it's not adjustable during sentencing or service," and "a life sentence which can have parole after any number of years"? That would go a little ways toward helping to clear things up wouldn't it? --MuséeRouge 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I threw my hat into the ring and had a go with some quick re-wording of the article just to start things off. Please make any improvements deemed necesary. --MuséeRouge 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

I think, reading the information in the article, this "Reclusión perpetua" is just a kind of life imprisonment, and, as that, It should be merger within that article. In fact in Spanish is used almost as a synonym of life imprisonment, and, as far as I know, Spanish is not an official language of the Philipines, so I don't think a legal institution would be named in that language.

About the Argentinian case (a country in which Spanish is the only official language), the article, as It is now, doesn't give any reference to the difference between "Reclusión perpetua" and life imprisonment in Argentina.

--Camahuetos 13:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not life imprisonment, it's a forty year prison sentence. --NEMT 14:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not merge, and keep the article in Category:Philippine law. --PFHLai 15:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is clearly a Philippines-related article and not solely about the generic life imprisonment. Life Imprisonment needs a major re-write anyway. Plasticup ^T/C 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I would have to side with Camahuetos here. I mean this is still a life imprisonment; Mexico has a 40 year life-sentence. Geosultan4 03:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this article should be merged; it differs significantly from life imprisonment. This sentence has a minimum term of 30 years and a maximum of 40 years. It also is specific to the Philippines. I believe it to be notable as a standalone topic. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is going to be merged, it should be merged into an article about life imprisonment in the Philippines not the generic article IMHO Nil Einne 06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On further consideration I don't think a merger is warranted. As I understand it, in all countries with life imprisonment the sentence is one of indeterminate length that can in theory mean life. Even in countries where life sentences are treated fairly 'leniently' like Germany, NZ this is still the case. In practice, it may be rare or never that a person actually spends their life in prison but the only way people can get out is by being paroled or being given an amnesty or pardon. This usually requires some sort of application or at least may be denied. In a few cases perhaps parole may be automatic but even in these cases as I understand it it's still parole so it means that it can be revoked and that the person likely has to meet certain conditions. On the other hand as I understand at least it in the Filipino case 'Reclusión perpetua' is a determinate sentence of 40 years. After 40 years the person is released. There is no parole or pardon or amnesty (although these may still be granted before the 40 years). The person cannot legally spend more then 40 years in prison as part of the sentence. It doesn't matter whether the day before you're going to be released you start a riot and kill 100 prison guards. You've still served your sentence (you may of course be charged with something else). There are a few countries mentioned in life imprisonment which don't have life sentences but in these cases it's not considered life imprisonment anyway AFAICT. We should probably mention reclusión perpetua in the life imprisonment article under Philippines but don't merge. Nil Einne 08:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the merging proposal, I think the merge banner should now be removed. --Howard the Duck 12:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Accessory penalty"?

Reclusión perpetua carries accessory penalty, life imprisonment does not.

This sentence needs to explain what "accessory penalty" means, otherwise it's meaningless without context. "Accessory penalty" is currently a red link. Tempshill 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The concept of accessory penalty is well understood, and probably shouldn't be any type of link. In this case the accessory penalty is lifetime barring from holding political office, even after release. --NEMT 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well understood by whom? I don't know what it means. PeteVerdon 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

From the context it should be clear what an accessory penalty is. Is English your first language? --NEMT 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear from the context, accessory could mean anything. We're trying to improve the article here, why are you getting so defensive? Perhaps you should abide by your own "no angry mastodons" principle. In any case, I've made some changes to the point in question, hopefully it is to your satisfaction. Russthomas1515 10:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Robbery

I changed "Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons" to "Robbery" because the wikipedia article carries the same meaning as in the description. Nag-Eedit si Mang Robert (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Reclusion perpetual and life imprisonment

Reclusion perpetual and life imprisonment 136.158.101.19 (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)