Cuncurrent sentencing. What are your thoughts on that?

Yes, I like it. I think it is a great way for a court to show the gravity of a person’s actions, especially if they repeated the same crime over and over again. I think it helps society keep hardened criminals off the streets when the likelihood of them being paroled would be a 100 years from now.

It’s concurrent. I generally think it to be proper, but there are times, especially when the convictions are not related, when I think consecutive sentences are in order.

@Siren You have made an argument for consecutive sentencing rather than concurrent sentencing.

Cuncurrent sentencing makes no sence to me.

I dislike them. It is like washing out all but one conviction. Kill 3 people but only serve time for one, and pretend to be serving an additional 2 sentences. It’s crap.

@gailcalled Thanks but,why are you whispering? It is not off topic.
BTW everyone I know that I made a spelling error.

@Siren would you like to answer again since you meant that you like consecutive sentencing.
@thriftymaid you state that you find it proper, but you don’t explain how one murder let’s say merits the same consequence as 10 murders.
@jewel, I agree. I don’t know how it ever occured to whoever proposed it in the first place?

@flo Sometimes there will be three counts of the same offense. Remember there are many convictions that are not for murder, but murder seems to be what people always think of. When there are three counts for something that carries 70 months, I usually think one 70 month sentence is enough, especially when the offense was not a crime to persons and/or the defendant is not a lifetime offender. If the offense is a crime to persons, I like to see consecutive sentencing although I will always plead the court concurrent sentencing for my client.

Concurrent vs. Concentric. When it is your derriere on the block you will give thanks that we have Concurrent Sentencing Rules.

I dont care so long as the criminal is put away and can’t kill law abiding citizens.

Incarceration makes no sense to me.

Thanks for clarifying what concurrent sentencing means. I guess I am against it then. I think that if the crime or crimes is heinous enough, then each offence should be individually recognized and dealt with independently, for justice for the victims and families of the victims did I get it right this time?

For lesser crimes (i.e. crimes of money!), depending on the impact the crime has made, I would probably vote for on an “per case” basis on how I would feel about concurrent sentencing. I generally believe penitentiaries are overflowing with people who have committed (or just been convicted with) petty crimes, such as theft of a loaf of bread. I think if someone keeps stealing a loaf of bread, give him/her some food stamps, not permanent incarceration.

@thriftymaid the fact that you would always plead the court concurrent sentencing for your client does not explain why there is such a thing in the first place. You are the lawyer so of course you will ask for the least. That is self interest, all lawyers want to win their cases. Please continue reading.
@Siren, It is a given to me anyway that theft of loaf of bread that it doesn’t apply. If I mugged you and your 10 friends, using a gun just for fun, the judge should only give me whatever sentence he would give for mugging one person, is that what you are saying? Let’s make it as uncomplicated as possible, let’s just imagine it is a place where the prisons are not overflowing.

@Siren ,
I just want to add: Should Madoff not be in jai then?

@flo: Madoff should be in Afghanistan building schools for girls with a pickax and a wheelbarrow.

@gailcalled that makes good sense to me. How about the part about the mugging?

I like Community Service but one with a serious commitment and a tangible goal. Let a mugger work at a Basketball and Reading Clinic. You play basketball with the kids for an hour, you help them with their reading skills for one hour. Comic books count. They get tested at the end of the year (or recruited possibly.)

@gailcalled about the concurrent thing…. should the person who mugged 10 people get 10 times the amount of community service or not?

Did he mug them ad seriatum or in a bunch? One guy who can mug a mob deserves some credit for organizational skills. Maybe let him file books in a library.

@gailcalled I think you are just joking now?

@flo http://www.jstor.org/pss/1121363

@flo: I really think criminals who do not actually seriously harm or kill people should be doing heavy-duty community service. Why pay taxes for road repair or draining the sludge from the Hudson river?

I had my wallet almost wrenched from my hands once in a drug store crowded with staff and some elderly folks. Everyone watched as I kicked the teen-ager and saved my wallet. I would have had him wash my car (in an anonymous parking lot).

@thriftymaid you just left a link:( I clicked on the “Start a discussion” when I posted the question. I don’t see an indication of it now when I look at the question btw. Your link is fine, but I put the question here to start a discussion. If you have already read it, would you impart your knowledge? It is not likely that I will be reading it. It is not just anyone who can read legal books, even if someone has the time, etc.

@gailcalled your answer is still not answering/addressing the question, right?

@Flo: True, but the querent raises the interesting question of making the punishment fit the crime.

@flo I’m sorry. I should have addressed the link to the one who asked where concurrent sentencing came from in the first place. The link provides some insight.

@thriftymaid thank you, it is only me who asked the question, you weren’t wrong in addressing it to me. The question that is more important to me than “where did it come from?” is : If I mugged you and your 10 friends, using a gun just for fun, the judge should only give me whatever sentence he would give for mugging one person? Let’s just imagine it is a place where the prisons are not overflowing.
So what does the link say, what is the insight it provides in your own words? I can only understand when things are put in very simple terms.

@flo If you will read what I wrote again you will see that I said that I do not like concurrent sentences for crimes to persons. I usually do think that concurrent sentencing is OK for three counts of some crimes, but not when the crime involved violence to a human.

@thriftymaid thank you