Why are the different States SO different in their sentencing? does anyone know?

I am sure there is no "right" answer to this, however I think it is because we have the ability as states to make our own decisions. That is the way our democratic system works, each state has the power to do what it and it's people want (vote for or against) as long as it is within the perimiters set by the National Government. See, we as states cannot change a Federal Law, but can change things within that law. Say for example the Federal law stated anyone caught shoplifting was to have their hand cut off. Every state would have to comply with that sentence. If however the Federal Government stated that shoplifters could be sentenced with the maximum penalty of getting their hand cut off. Each state could choose their punishment up to having the hand cut off. Does this make sense? I don't know if I am explaining it well enough...can anyone help me here?

Summied is on the right track. Below the Federal government, each state has their own legislature (for making laws withing the state)and their own set of courts.

Basically, some issues are mandated for the Federal gov't. and some to the state gov't. and that is where differences come in. The states may have different laws.

I think that Federal law also supercedes some issues, like "double jeopardy". If a person is exonerated for a crime, in state, court, they cannot be retried for that crime, in a state court.

However, I believe that an interesting aspect to this is that in the case of a major crime, such as murder, that violates both Federal and State laws, prosecuters will first try the accused in one court (generally state)and if they are unsuccesful, in their prosecution, they then charge the accused in the federal court. That wouldn't violate the double jeopardy statute. Does any of that make sense? Of course, I am just guessing, and really don't know what I am talking about. :-)

Xray is spot on about the double jeopardy rule - State court can also re-try Federal court cases under it. That wouldn't happen over here in the UK; once someone is aquitted they walk, regardless of whether they are guilty or not. I found a lot of useful info on this from 'A Guide to Legal Literacy' by the California State Bar (which I downloaded as a pdf file)

the reason for my question here is...
i have recently come across two totally different 'criminals.'
one is a female and one is a male. one murdered one person and the other is in prison for 8 murders. however, they have both been give the same sentence. the only difference is that they are living half way across the country from one another. they have both been given 999 years! life without the possibility of parole.
now, sure, i understand that the WAY in which the crime/crimes were committed might have been different. but one murder against EIGHT?? and they are both serving the same amount of time???

Oh boy, Gobbi! Now you are really getting deep. We may need help from someone like LawDog or El Roscoe on this one.

I think that what you are getting into here, are "sentencing" laws. And, I think that a lot of people have asked the same question as to why the big varation in sentences. One of the prime concerns, I believe, was race. With blacks receiving much harsher sentences than whites. So then, I think that a number of laws were enacted, that gave particular guidelines, for sentencing, based on the crime, and perhaps other circumstances. But, just like anything else, a number of people were unhappy with the new rules, so I'm really not sure where things stand now.
But, when you see big differences, like the example you give, it may have something to do with WHEN the sentences were handed down. I think that a lot of this "reform" took place in the mid 90s, so that someone before that time may have gotten a completely different punishment than someone who was sentenced later.
Hope that helps a little.

Much of this comes from the U.S. Constitution. All States are given autonomous authority to enact laws to govern their own residents within that State. Sentencing laws (guidelines) are a matter of legislation passed by the State House of Representatives and State Senate that necessarily reflects the desires of the voting public.

And that's the rub!

Sentencing becomes a political act, not an act based upon public safety, rehabilitation or anything else. If the polls tell the politicians that beating up on inmates and criminals is the popular political flavour of the day then that's what the politicians do if they plan on being re-elected!

I follow Florida most closely because that is where my Pen Pal is... in 1983 Florida did away with parole...so anyone convicted after 1983 cannot be paroled. Several years later, haven't been able to find out when, they put in a 'backdoor' and called it clemency. So now a Florida inmate can apply for clemency which is, as far as I can track down, the same as parole! Why did the politicians do this? Simple, without parole to insure some 'in and out' flow through the prisons they were bulging at the seams and the politicians became concerned that the Federal Courts were going to force them to start releasing inmates just to make room for new arrivals. That wouldn't be so good politically so they came up with clemency!

The politics and economics of prisons is really a facinating subject.

Tom

Thanks everyone for the explanation and the comments - much appreciated

You are so right, Tom, and it is especially aggravating when you or someone you care for gets the short end of the stick.
But, what can we do about it, other than to write letters to our politicians and try to make them see it our way.
We often hear "democracy" called "a great experiment", and I guess that this is the reason why.