Can anyone explain rationale/justification for concurrent sentencing? Is this a case of the law being an 'ass'?
To my untrained eye it seems bizarre, that if three offenders are sentenced for three different crimes (say, aggravated assault, rape and murder), they might be sentenced to 5,10 and 15 years respectively - and with good behaviour may serve 3,6 and 10 years - a total of 19 years.
If, however, one offender committed all three offences, the sentence tariff for each offence might be the same, but would be served concurrently - and thus, he might be released after only 10 years.
It seems to be counter-intuitive and illogical - and suggests that offenders might as well 'go for broke' as the impact in extra time served would be minimal.
To my untrained eye it seems bizarre, that if three offenders are sentenced for three different crimes (say, aggravated assault, rape and murder), they might be sentenced to 5,10 and 15 years respectively - and with good behaviour may serve 3,6 and 10 years - a total of 19 years.
If, however, one offender committed all three offences, the sentence tariff for each offence might be the same, but would be served concurrently - and thus, he might be released after only 10 years.
It seems to be counter-intuitive and illogical - and suggests that offenders might as well 'go for broke' as the impact in extra time served would be minimal.