Eva asked:

This question contains spoilers… (view spoiler)

8 likes · like
7 years ago
7 answers

To answer questions about The Mars Room, please sign up.

David Angel Hi, I really loved this book. That having been said, I've been a prosecutor in California for over twenty years, and this sentence makes no sense to me. A first degree murder carries a sentence of 25-life, meaning that she would be eligible for parole in 25 years. If you murder more than one person you can get a 50 to life sentence. If it was a so called "special circumstances" murder (which does not appear to be the case here), she could get Life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). So, on the one hand the sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. That having been said, one theme of this novel is that people are often not accurate in either their memories or what they tell you about their past. This is especially true when they are talking about something that is both traumatizing and puts them in a bad life. It could be this error is intentional in that Romy either doesn't understand her legal case, or she is not willing to share another crime.

flag

Frank Sergi There was a mention that the sentence was increased because her son was present at the crime (they charged her with endangering a child). I'm not sure if that fits with reality or not...

flag

Rachel Widrig She basically had no chance in the legal system because of her past, and if the judge wants to keep you in prison forever (Romy does not appear to be an upstanding citizen, so convincing the court that she deserves to be punished harshly would most likely be easy for a prosecutor) two life sentences is the way to go. I think the whole point is that Romy is a victim of consecutive damning circumstances, and in my opinion that motif is what the book illustrates incredibly well.

flag

Mkelly107 I read and enjoyed a library copy of the book, which I no longer have in front of me; thus I can't answer with chapter and verse and they say.

What I can say is that it was more than two life terms by some short amount of time which made it more absurd. The point being that within the world of the novel there is an answer--this was not, nor was anything in the novel, just tossed off with no rationale.
Complaints about this sort of thing not making sense are properly directed at the State of California, not the author. I've seen the same thing happen serving on a jury here in Georgia: the state files any infraction of the law to make it's case stronger, and if the person is guilty of all of them, then the sentence is cumulative.

But apart from the legal details, as an involved reader of the novel, what I was seeing in Romy Hall's story seemed to me to be the fate of a single woman, and on paper at least, a poor mother, without proper legal defense, who was a stripper in SF, who did shoot her stalker right in front of her son. The Book was thrown.

flag

Greg I can answer that question. This author writes senseless books. Well, I should say, at lease one senseless book cause I won't read another. One is not to question this kind of writing. Why? Cause it's just bad writing, that's all there is to it.

flag