Where is the justice in sentences running concurrently?

[mariner2]

I've thought and thought about it but cannot for the life of me see why in the name of God's Arse anybody should get two sentences for two separate crimes and have them run concurrently.
If I buy two beers, I don't just pay for one do I?

[RevFunk]

So the solution would be what?

Just take the first offence into account?


You really are an ar5e

[mariner2]

Of course not.
Common sense would suggest, radical as it may seem, that the offender gets a sentence for both crimes and has to serve them both one after the other?
Anyway, aren't you supposed to provide an answer and not just dish out abuse?
I suppose you'd be OK with someone murdering a couple of members of your family but only getting the 12 years or whatever it is that you get for a single murder in these enlightened times.

[randyraven]

mariner2 - Your in England. We don't like to punish crime.
When we do have too, as a last resort send some poor criminal to prison , we dont want to put them away for too long.
Anyway the prisons are full and we cant afford to build anymore. GB PLC is skint.

[mariner2]

That's what I was afraid of, unbelievable, but true.
Why don't we contract loads of jails in the third world?
Nice and cheap, about 20 quid per prisoner per week instead of the �2-3000 it apparently costs here and it would help out the locals as well as getting all the scum off our streets. And if they want to see their families they would have to work and pay for the flights.
I'm only half joking, but it could never happen of course, it would infringe the poor little dears' "human" rights.

[jake-the-peg]

Whether sentences are consecutive or concurrent is at the discretion of the judge and there is a matter of judgement about whether the charges represent offenses that were discrete or effectively part of the same crime.

Take an extreme case - A fraudster sets up a website and tricks 100 people into paying him money sentencing to 100 consecutive sentences would not be commensurate to the crime.

Immagine if ITV were to be charged seperately for each person who'd lost money on phone ins!

Take this case in appeal

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CB6EE3 A2-4DA5-4561-8159-ABFAA3B9F37E/0/j_j_CARF3492. htm

The judge imposed

Count 1, escaping from lawful custody � 12 months.

Counts 2 and 3, dangerous driving � 21 months, concurrent with each other but consecutive to the sentence imposed on Count 1.

Count 5, driving with excess alcohol � four months concurrent, with ten years� disqualification.

Count 6, driving while disqualified � nine months, concurrent with Count 5 but consecutive to the sentences imposed on Counts 1, 2 and 3.

Count 7, no insurance -- �50 fine.

Count 8, obstructing a constable, three months concurrent.

Count 9, assaulting a constable, three months concurrent.

Count 10, resisting a constable three months concurrent.


He basically grouped similar crimes (obstructing a constable, assaulting a constable, resisting a constable) together and ran them concurrent but consecutive to seperate crimes.


Why then bring all these seperate charges? Why not just bring the most serious? well obviously it might fail. The case off assaulting a constable might fail whereas resisting arrest might

[mariner2]

Thanks for that, great answer, that actually begins to make sense.
Though I would quibble about obstructing and assaulting an officer being lumped together, I can see where the thinking behind it lies where I couldn't before.