OK, What is up with concurrent sentencing?

[Kreth]

I was reading this article this morning, the latest update in the case of a brutal gang assault that resulted in the death of a young man in my area. Another of the defendants has been sentenced to prison, one 15 year sentence for second-degree gang assault, and one 5-15 year sentence for second-degree manslaughter. But, get this, the sentences are to be served concurrently. Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I absolutely do not get the intention behind this type of sentencing.

Jeff

 

[Adept]

I'm at a loss for it as well. I imagine it could have applications where one conviction is over-turned on appeal, but the other is not. But personally I feel seperate sentences and convictions should be served seperately. Say you rape and kill someone, and are convicted of both, and served to 25 years for both. That should be a 50 year sentence, not a single 25 year sentence that 'counts' for both crimes.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think, though have no evidence, that it has something to do with paroles, and appeal proofing things.

 

[Flatlander]

A Canadian woman who was driving drunk and killed six people was just sentenced to 10 years/death caused. To be served concurrantly. She had been driving without a license, as it had been taken away for drunk driving previously.

In the Canadian system, if you are cooperative in the mandated rehab programs and behave well in prison, you may be eligible for parole after serving one third of your sentence. This woman may be free after 3 years. She killed six people.

 

[Kreth]

I suppose a case could be made for concurrent sentencing for non-repeat offenders in non-violent crimes. But I completely fail to see the point of concurrent sentencing for someone convicted of violent crimes (or multiple charges related to the same crime). Flatlander's case above in an excellent example of how wrong it can go, IMO...

Jeff

 

[loki09789]

Concurrent sentences:

sentenced to:
10 years for bank Robbery
10 years for assault
10 years for wrongful death....

If you were told you were serving these sentences CONSECUTIVELY, it would be one right after the other and add up to 30 years in prison.

If you were told you were serving these sentences CONCURRENTLY, it would mean that you woud be in jail for 10 years total. Each year of prison is checking off a year to each sentence of Robbery, assault and WD. Sort of a 3 for 1 deal.

Courts consider the context when considering Consec or Concur sentencing IMO.

If you are a 17 year old that murdered your father in a fit of rage and are found guilty BUT through the trial process it is clear that your father was an SOB/abusive...basically drove you to it, I can see the courts saying CONCUR with mandated couselling so that you have a possible future after you have served your time.

IF on the other hand, you outright killed your dad to pay for drugs and there was no provocation from the father I could see the judge making it CONSEC instead.

Context is a big deal.

 

[raedyn]

In Canada, I have never heard of sentences being served consecutively. And I think there are times where this should happen. Like Flatlander's example above, someone who was driving drunk with a licence suspended because of previoius drunk driving convictions who plowed into the back of a stopped van on a highway and killed six people who will be in jail for 3 - 10 years. *shakes head*

 

[Deuce]

The drunk driver who killed six people would have gotten the same sentance if she would have killed only one person. So, should another women in the exact same situation who killed only one person, get a smaller sentance? They both commited they same crime that resulted in a different death toll. Do you think their sentaces should be based on the amount of people killed, or the crime of vehicle manslaughter under the influence of alcohol? I'm curious what other people think.

 

[raedyn]

It's possible my mind could be changed on this, but it seems to me that she should get 10 years per victim, because couldn't this be considered 6 counts? Shouldn't they each have their own sectence?
There might be a good reason that those six deaths are known as one crime, but it doesn't immediately spring to mind.

 

[modarnis]

Much that involves sentencing has to do with the almighty Dollar. I work as a state prosecutor, so I deal with these concepts on a daily basis. Bottom line is there is pressure on judges to keep prison populations down.

The other real reason for concurrent sentences is to dispose of cases that are not strong cases through plea bargains. In the real world, cases don't come together like on TV. Victims recant their statements, witnesses can't be found, there are issues with evidence. Concurrent time gets defendants to plead. Well structured concurrent time still gives defendants more jail time because of sentence overlaps and the like.