What's the point of prison sentences running concurrently?

Answer 1

For conviction of multiple crimes. With concurrent sentences, even if one of the convictions is overturned, the other sentences stand.

That is commonly offered as part of a collective plea agreement for multiple charges, rather than serving consecutive sentences. It keeps the convictions on the record, giving the defendant less total time, but offsetting the risk of an acquittal if the evidence is not rock-solid.

Also, there are some times when one crime might arguably count as a lesser included offense to another, and thus fall within the double jeopardy rule. That means the person could not be sentenced separately (consecutively) for the two crimes. With concurrent sentences, that's not a problem, because no additional punishment is being tacked on for the lesser included offense.

Answer 2

The idea is that concurrent sentences are used so that a person can be convicted of a crime but not have to spend the entire sentence in jail. This is used when judges believe that the severity of the crime does not necessarily warrant consecutive sentences. Judges are given this kind of lenience because everyone understands that the literal reading of the law does not always reflect what is most just or most appropriate. Many places also give reduced sentences or time off from jail as a way of decreasing the prison population when jails suffer from overcrowding.

Answer 3

I think that most of your respondents have missed the point you are trying to make. I believe that you are querying why, for example, if four crimes are committed that would normally collect a tarriff of eighteen months each, and a sentence of (say) three years is given rather than six years worked out on the cumulative basis. It would seem that the whole is less than the sum of the parts. House robbers for example can be convicted of one offence and then plead guilty to as many as another thirty offences. If we worked strictly on a cumulative basis, they might spend the rest of their lives in jail. Maybe they get a discount for owning up to the other robberies.

Other respondents have explained what running concurrently means, so I wont repeat it, although, I think that you already understand that anyway.

Answer 4

No point at all. Sentences should be passed for each crime and the total time served should be cumulative. If someone has been charged with three rapes or murders it certainly doesn't make the victims, their families or the wider society feel that justice has been done when they only have to serve the equivalent of one sentence.

Answer 5

The idea is that somebody can be rehabilitated after a set length of time, then released. If the sentences ran consecutively, they would still be in prison, even though they are now reformed, and would be more use back in society.

Answer 6

The purpose of any outrageous or seemingly retarded decision, fine, sentence, or law is for government employed personel to sometimes reflect the stupidity of some of WE THE PEOPLE which makes up our government. How would you like to be dumb as a pile of rocks and be represented in your government by those that always made rational decisions?

Answer 7

concurrent prison sentences are for more than one offense..therefore if a person has already been sentenced to prison and faces further charges he/she will be detained for longer rather than released and then sent back to prison for the other crime.

Answer 8

It makes it sound worse and has a psychological effect maybe? Or maybe its so they can set different sentences for each crime that the person commited without getting them confused?

Answer 9

So there is not a space in between for the prats to do the same thing again in the interim.

Answer 10

It does not make sense but non of the sentencing laws make much sense,