Is there any point to concurrent sentencing?

Is there any point to concurrent sentencing?

Author
Discussion

Allsmokeandmirrors

Original Poster:

42 posts

76 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
Its a peculiar pet hate of mine to see a criminal being given a concurrent sentence for something he did serially, its not like he did all the crimes in one go so why should he serve them all at the same time?
Its seems to be an easy way to dispense with treating the crimes properly and circumvent justice.
If each crime carried a 2 year sentence and Mr Crim did 20 of them over a week say, how is it justifiable to give him just 2 years and essentially write off all the other wrongs he did?
Surely its high time this type of so called sentencing option was scrapped and serial perpertrators serve the full terms for what theyve done?

Mike335i

4,985 posts

101 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
How much more tax are you willing to pay to house all these criminals then?
I'm with you in the theory of it and the principle makes sense, but will cost too much.

Douglas Quaid

2,271 posts

84 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
That is a good way to spend tax imo. Get scum off the street. Even if they’re locked up for life, at least they’re not bothering law abiding people any more.

grumbledoak

31,499 posts

232 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
A joke, isn't it?

Ditto "Life" sentences.

Loyly

17,990 posts

158 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
Mike335i said:
How much more tax are you willing to pay to house all these criminals then?
I'm with you in the theory of it and the principle makes sense, but will cost too much.
They should make prisons more cost effective. Get rid of the televisions, hot food, medical care etc and put the convicts to work, then they could justify running full sentences.

williamp

19,213 posts

272 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
I think its about right: serving 20 years for a string of minor offences isnt really fair. What if they were duped into it? gelt compelled to do them as gang culture, which most eopel grow out of once they reach the mid 20s. They could settle down instead of wasting their entire life.

I also understand the parole service is fairly good these days. Not ecvellent by any means, but a lot better then it was so the "after prison" care is good and can stop many reoffending.

Their prison record is still discolsable to potential emploers regardless of any new "right to be forgotten" laws, so they will still suffer. And there will still be very lenient/very harsh sentences given. But for a string of simmilar sentences, why not clump threm all together? I think its **a bit** like driving and speeding at 31mph for the first 100m, 32mph for the second 100m, 35 mph for the next 100m, then you spotted the camera and slowed down. So is that 3 motoring offences, or shall we just say its one??

Alucidnation

16,810 posts

169 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
How much financial burden does a prisoner put on the state?

sherbertdip

1,097 posts

118 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
Alucidnation said:
How much financial burden does a prisoner put on the state?
Look it up, it varies per establishment.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-pe...

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
Its a peculiar pet hate of mine to see a criminal being given a concurrent sentence for something he did serially, its not like he did all the crimes in one go so why should he serve them all at the same time?
Its seems to be an easy way to dispense with treating the crimes properly and circumvent justice.
If each crime carried a 2 year sentence and Mr Crim did 20 of them over a week say, how is it justifiable to give him just 2 years and essentially write off all the other wrongs he did?
Surely its high time this type of so called sentencing option was scrapped and serial perpertrators serve the full terms for what theyve done?
The number of crimes is taken into consideration when deciding on the tariff.

For a starters, if you take someone to magistrates court for one burglary and they plead they will be unlikely to receive a custodial. If you take a recidivist to magistrates court for one burglary then they may get up to 6 mnths. Not the norm, but possible.

Take someone to court for 20 burglaries then the bench might feel their powers of sentencing are insufficient and send the bloke to CC.

Two sentences of 2 years to be served concurrently means that two victims can be told that the offender has received 2 years for whatever they did against them.


highway

1,929 posts

259 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
The OP is right. Concurrent sentencing is a con played out on the public by government. The only times most question the system is when they or a loved one, experience it first hand.
Here’s a scenario - 70 year old man stops outside generic fast food restaurant to get grub for he and the Mrs who waits in the car outside. He orders food and is waiting for it to be handed over. 20 something male enters restaurant. He is agitated and high on a class A substance. He picks up stool and hits 70 year old around back of the head, knocking him to the floor. He then starts kicking the older man and stamping on him. Attack lasts about 30 seconds.

Assailant leaves restaurant. Police called by staff, who don’t intervene. Old boy gets to his feet. Assailant re-enters. Attacks 70 year old again knocking him again to the ground. Another flurry of kicking and stamping. Assailant leaves a second time.

Police arrive. Assailants nicked nearby. Already wanted by Police for domestic assault. In possession of 20 wraps crack. Victims blood on his hands and clothing.

All captured on Cctv within restaurant. Old boy never made eye contact with attacker and had never seen him before. Random attack. 8.24pm on a spring evening. 2 fractured ribs, broken wrist and broken jaw.

Not guilty plea. Assailant takes a plea in fear of Cctv playing out in court. Sentenced ‘concurrently’ so his sentence for possession with intent to supply, affray and section 18 GBH are all served at the same time. Eighteen months in total so he served under 9.

This is why consecutive sentencing is needed. Not for two bob weed dealers or Johnny 9-5 going a tad over the speed limit. For nasty broken people to stop them ruining the lives of innocent people who are just living their lives.

I feel for the Police who do their best inside an ineffective system that seems unable to punish or improve the lives of those moving through it.

It’s very well to have empathy for those who are quick to resort to violence as they may well have been victims themselves at some point. However, when their behaviour is such that others are at risk of serious harm,then long term custody is the only viable option.



ElectricPics

761 posts

80 months

Tuesday 26th December 2017
quotequote all
Concurrent sentences are perfectly acceptable in my view for offenders that are no threat to the public but I've got serious doubts about their use for anything other than minor offences. Serious concurrent sentences still count towards the three strikes that can put offenders down for life though. I had the unusual pleasure a few years back while waiting for another case seeing a judge finishing her guilty plea sentencing for a particularly vile piece of st by quoting section 111 which had his barrister fly out of his seat in protest before she shut him up and handed out a life sentence with an 11 year tariff. He'd previously been sentenced concurrently but if he hadn't been, he wouldn't have been at liberty to commit the crime that got him 11 years, but perhaps getting a life sentence sooner than later was better.

PorkInsider

5,877 posts

140 months

Wednesday 27th December 2017
quotequote all
Mike335i said:
How much more tax are you willing to pay to house all these criminals then?
I'm with you in the theory of it and the principle makes sense, but will cost too much.
I’d willingly pay more tax if the capacity limitations caused my lack of funding mean criminals aren’t being sentenced properly.

Terminator X

14,921 posts

203 months

Wednesday 27th December 2017
quotequote all
TVR Moneypit said:
There's a little something called "totality" for starters. That is the overall sentence must fit the crime.

Let's luck at a few examples. Burgler Bill breaks into your garden shed and nicks 10 items. Let's say that theft carries a two year sentence, are you therefore suggesting that Burgler Bill should get a 20? Or perhaps a drug dealer who has been under ob's for a couple of months for selling a bit of weed, but in that time the police have seen him do 500 deals. Are you suggesting that someone in their early 20's should spend the rest of their life in prison for 1/2kg of weed?

Or to put it into terms that you may more easily relate to, Mr (tax paying, middle class, middle management, wife and two kids), Average Joe travels along the M1 in his mid range Mondeo for 25 miles in light traffic and good weather at 80 mph. Under your rules, that would mean 25 x SP30's = 6 1/4 consecutive driving bans, which would likely mean loss of job, which would likely mean loss of home.

How many times have you driven even slightly above the speed limit for mile after mile?

Added to which, people do stupid things. Some learn lessons and reform, some don't. I you suggesting that people shouldn't be given a second chance? And if consecutive sentences were the norm, where's the money going to come from to build, staff and run all the new prisons that would be needed, plus the £38'500 p/a it costs to incarcerate a prisoner?
Petty theft perhaps but serial killers?! Especially when life seems mostly to not mean life.

TX.

ferrariF50lover

1,834 posts

225 months

Wednesday 27th December 2017
quotequote all
Absolutely. We should be locking up every minor herbert for at least 1000 years and bringing back the death penalty too. That always works, just look at America, there's almost no crime there...

Silenoz

856 posts

152 months

Wednesday 27th December 2017
quotequote all
Isn't there somewhere far away where we can transport these criminals to?

98elise

26,376 posts

160 months

Wednesday 27th December 2017
quotequote all
TVR Moneypit said:
There's a little something called "totality" for starters. That is the overall sentence must fit the crime.

Let's luck at a few examples. Burgler Bill breaks into your garden shed and nicks 10 items. Let's say that theft carries a two year sentence, are you therefore suggesting that Burgler Bill should get a 20? Or perhaps a drug dealer who has been under ob's for a couple of months for selling a bit of weed, but in that time the police have seen him do 500 deals. Are you suggesting that someone in their early 20's should spend the rest of their life in prison for 1/2kg of weed?

Or to put it into terms that you may more easily relate to, Mr (tax paying, middle class, middle management, wife and two kids), Average Joe travels along the M1 in his mid range Mondeo for 25 miles in light traffic and good weather at 80 mph. Under your rules, that would mean 25 x SP30's = 6 1/4 consecutive driving bans, which would likely mean loss of job, which would likely mean loss of home.

How many times have you driven even slightly above the speed limit for mile after mile?

Added to which, people do stupid things. Some learn lessons and reform, some don't. I you suggesting that people shouldn't be given a second chance? And if consecutive sentences were the norm, where's the money going to come from to build, staff and run all the new prisons that would be needed, plus the £38'500 p/a it costs to incarcerate a prisoner?
I'm pretty sure you know that's not how it works, nor what's being suggested.

If someone is convicted 3 seperate offences of burglary, then they should serve 3 seperate sequential sentences.



anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 27th December 2017
quotequote all
Loyly said:
Mike335i said:
How much more tax are you willing to pay to house all these criminals then?
I'm with you in the theory of it and the principle makes sense, but will cost too much.
They should make prisons more cost effective. Get rid of the televisions, hot food, medical care etc and put the convicts to work, then they could justify running full sentences.
Yes, perhaps get them out fixing potholes, at least that would be useful to society.

mickmcpaddy

1,445 posts

104 months

Wednesday 27th December 2017
quotequote all
TVR Moneypit said:
I do like how folk who have zero experience of prison are quick to make unrealistic suggestions on how to make improvements.

TV's.
There's 90'000 cons in UK prisons, (approx), which will = I'd estimate mean 60'000 dirt cheap, bog standard 16" TV's at, I estimate, a unit cost of £30 each. 60'000 x 30 = £1.8m. Yep, that's a lot of money.

OK, so let's look at why TV's were put into cells shall we? It was done to reduce incidents of self harm, suicide, prisoner on prisoner and prisoner on prison staff violence. I'm sure that if you asked any Con, Screw or Governor if they think it would be a good idea to remove TV's and the answer across the board would be a resounding NO! If you removed TV's, prisons would go up in flames. I've been in nicks when it all kicks off big time and it ain't nice for cons or screws. I've also, because of staff shortages, done plenty of 3+4 day bang up. After spending 100 hours solid bang up, two to a room smaller than your average bathroom, no shower and food delivered to your door, the TV is about the only thing keeping you sane.

Hot Food.
I hate to burst your bubble, but prisoners don't quaff Champagne and Caviar for every meal.

Under a PSI, (Prison Service Instruction), prisoners receive a breakfast pack, (if you're lucky), which, if you get one, contains three tea bags, four sugars, four whiteners, a very small bag of dirt cheap serial and 180ml of milk, sometimes curdled / off, sometimes not. Lunch is a sandwich. Two slices of bread, sometimes mouldy, sometimes not, occasionally there'll be a hint of marge on it and the absolute smallest amount of filling, about 25% of what you'd put in a sandwich at home. You might get an apple or an orange if you're one of the first through the servery.

It's only your evening meal that is 'hot', if you could describe it as thus. Even then the ingredients are the absolute cheapest and the portions would be what you'd give an infant school age child.

According to the PSI on prisoner food allocation, there is a minimum calorific amount that prisoners should receive to allow them to be sustained. Believe me when I tell you that prisons do feed the Con's the bare minimum to allow them to survive. In some prisons genuine malnutrition is rife. It costs around £1.20 to £1.30 a day to give prisoners three 'meals' if you could call them that.

Additionally it's prisoners who work in the kitchens, thus learning some vital skills that may enable them to get a job and pay tax upon their release.

Medical Care
What, you mean Medical (Un)Care?

I was in 6 separate nicks, and only one of those offered humane healthcare. I could tell you about the guy who had a heart attack and was left unattended in his cell for four hours, or the diabetic who wasn't allowed his insulin injections, fell into a diabetic coma and died? Is that the sort of healthcare that you mean, the inhumane kind?

Added to which, I assume you have heard of human rights?


Putting Prisoners to Work.
Most Con's do want to work. Hell, owts better than being banged up in your tiny cell 22 hours a day. The problem is that there isn't the workshop capacity or the staffing levels to line the route to escort prisoners to their workshops.


If you really want to reduce the burden prisoners cause the taxpayer and reduce reoffending rates, then their needs to be a much greater emphasis on rehabilitation, training, education, preparing prisoners for release and supporting them in the community post release to enable them to get a job, pay their taxes, stay away from crime and not go back to prison.

That of course, will never, ever happen, even though it would save the taxpayer in excess of £100 mill p/a.

Edited by TVR Moneypit on Tuesday 26th December 21:03
I thought the idea was for prison to be a deterrent? Surely we want potential criminals to not want to go there, not see it as an occupational hazard.

Far better for the potential criminal to think I don't want to be banged up in a windowless cell 24 hours a day with nothing to do for the next 10 years stting into a bucket and eating stale bread, so I wont kill that young mum today and steal her purse. Doing it your way we still end up with a dead mum but gain a dodgy mechanic who no-one trusts with the wheel brace.

Allsmokeandmirrors

Original Poster:

42 posts

76 months

Wednesday 27th December 2017
quotequote all
ferrariF50lover said:
Absolutely. We should be locking up every minor herbert for at least 1000 years and bringing back the death penalty too. That always works, just look at America, there's almost no crime there...
Theres always one,

How to reduce the tax burden?
Well some ideas others have already laid out, such as prisoner work details, make them work for their food, luxuries etc doing useful work to repair infrastructure and to rehabilitate them would be a good start.

For the serious cases, the hardenened drug dealers, rapists, murderers and child abusers etc, ie those who never can be helped, a prison island out in the atlantic such as ascension island could make a nice diversion for them.
Just drop them off and let them live out their lives how they act in society.


mickmcpaddy

1,445 posts

104 months

Wednesday 27th December 2017
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If prison is viewed as a fix then we still end up with raped and murdered children, pensioners battered black and blue, people fleeced out of their life savings, etc. etc. etc. How can that be right?