Concurrent Sentencing

D

DonDub

Registered User
Messages
66
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.
 
I'm afraid that I can't explain it to you but I completely agree with you. It seems to almost encourage multiple offences in a weird sort of way. It has always irritated me. I mean, the offences are not concurrent so why should the punishment be?? The only rationale that I can imagine as possibly being put forward by the authorities is that they don't have the resources for longer term sentences. Does anybody else understand this?
 
there is no rule judges make up there mind on each case, there is so much inconsistency, no logic in it, a good barrister speaking can influence the judges mindset, but in my view concurrent sentence is a kopout, a criminal can go mad while on bail commit more offences and still in effect receive the one sentence for a variety of crimes
 
Completely agree it is totally daft, if fact if one was on parole then surely that system encourages people to commit crime before sentencing . Also I think this system of automatic parole usually up to a third of the sentence makes a laugh of vicims.
 
Sure why do people with numerous charges against them for different offences get them all remeanded to one date? To reap the benefits of concurrent sentencing.......
Not necessarily a case that the law is an ass just that judges need to get real and recognise the rights of victims and the general public
 
The State would need not one Thornton Hall but 3 of them if judges began imposing consecutive sentences on offenders.
 
Brianne said:
Completely agree it is totally daft, if fact if one was on parole then surely that system encourages people to commit crime before sentencing . Also I think this system of automatic parole usually up to a third of the sentence makes a laugh of vicims.
Click to expand...


Any offences commited by a person on bail, the Judge has no discretion to impose cuncurrent sentences and must impose consecutive, S11 Criminal Justice Act 1984 as amended by S10 Bail Act 1997.

There is also no automatic right of remission for any prisoner, it has to be earned. If the prisoner behaves he is entitled to get up to 1/4 remission off the sentence.

See 59 on Prison Rules 2007

[broken link removed]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top