Is there any point to concurrent sentencing?

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

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?

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

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.

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

ferrariF50lover said:

Stuff......

Its easy for such as yourself to sit there all cosy in your safe space whilst those commiting crimes, you seem intent on justifying continue on their merry ways impacting on the vastly law abiding citizenery of the land.

You post up plenty of obstructive reasons as to why nothing but nice soft fluffy sentencing is the best way, yet ignore the evidence of your own eyes; Criminals leaving prison after being treated well continue to act as previously.
Thats known as a fail in any language you care to use, kind of the point I was originally making regarding the obvious idiocy of concurrent sentencing.

Since youve not even considered making things harder for them youve automatically hamstrung the population and sentenced them to a life of misery, all because youre unwilling/afraid/ unaware to utilise harsher alternatives.
Aversion therapy works and some people only ever learn after multiple instances of it.

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

A) Prison should ideally be all the above should it not?

B) When you say "works" explain what you mean and give the costs associated with achieving it.

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Shouldnt need to be. You can have both aspects, the hardest regime for those who are the hardest to crack and options for rehab amongst those that want to change.
I dont see that the public should have to continue carrying the can for failures in the system though.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Course not and as you well know it was never meant to fulfill such a role. Its specifically for those kinds of offenders that will always pose a threat and cant be released due to that fact.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But equally wheres the evidence to show that softer sentencing such as concurrent options is a deterrent and "works"?

In the final analysis, offenders are the problem, the public shouldnt have to put up with their negative actions nor pay the price when theyre released, to my mind the sentencing options are not being properly applied, suspended sentences for rape etc arent good for the public safety.

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

ferrariF50lover said:

Concurrent sentencing serves a number of important roles. It ensures that all crimes are properly accounted for, that all sentences are undertaken and that the totality principle is upheld.

So using your example of all crimes being accounted for, should Peter Sutcliffe now be released?
He has 13 murders under his belt, and attempted seven others, yet under your concurrent sentencing rule, if he got [sarc] life [/sarc] and was released after 20 for being a good boy inside his debt would be paid in full? Is that about the size of the point you were trying to make?
You and others like you are forgetting one thing- the victims and what remains of their families.

ferrariF50lover said:

Christ, this again. Punitive, draconian punishment doesn't work. The threat of the death penalty doesn't work. Life plus 1000 year sentences don't work.

Talk about snow blindness.
When theyre not IN society theyre not HURTING society. Thats the point of putting them away.
When theyre locked behind bars theyre not raping your kids, so I beg to differ, jailtime DOES work, it physically prevents offenders from continuing onwards.

Whether it deters or not is as youve suggested, questionable, but in the first instance I wasnt making any judgements on that point, Im still questioning the con of concurrent sentences.

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

TVR Moneypit said:

I missed this one yesterday.

Please, tell me from your own personal experience, examples of prisoners being treated "well" and what prison they were at, as I'd love to hear all about it?

It wouldnt matter what I said, youre in an entrenched position.

TVR Moneypit said:

Also, when looking at re-offending rates, there is one small fact that often gets overlooked. Namely the fact that the homeless will often commit low level crime and get caught on purpose in order to secure a roof over their head and fed, abelt in prison, in preference to sleeping on the streets, especially as winter draws in.

And thats a damning indictment of societies failure to address the issue raised, its got nothing to do with concurrent sentencing rules being applied.

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

ferrariF50lover said:

Lots.

A family member when in their younger days embarked on a career that involved doing certain things which society and the rest of their family deemed downright criminal at least,
No amount of threats worked, no amount of warnings had any effect whatsoever and they persisted in their criminality until their eventual arrest and trial at crown court after a varied criminal career.
Ill not go into the specifics of what they were doing except to say that what they did marked their card for some considerable period of time and they received 3 years in jail, rightly so.
Had they been of a more amenable nature at that time in their life they would have probably been released before their due date, but far from accepting the fact that they had gotten themselves into this predicament, they continued to kick against the system they found themselves in and in the end served over the 3 year term originally handed out, youd never get that these days.

The person in question always reckoned it was cushy in their jail, drugs were easily aquired to pass the time, booze, smokes etc and they wernt locked up for 24 hours a day, had their own tv and video games, plus a job inside which all made it more bearable.
The hardest thing to deal with was the lack of freedom to leave the place though.

After serving their time, they took up a local job, low paid and long hours but it kept them out of trouble and they slowly improved themselves to the point that they became a stable member of society, not a burden to it.

Some 30 years later that person hasnt re-offended even once and they ascribe their lack of re-offending down to one simple aspect- deprivation of their liberty.

Every copper will tell you that when a high profile offender gets removed from society then criminal offences drop whilst theyre inside, I feel that fact alone makes a mockery of the concurrent sentencing option, it shortens terms and has zero to do with justice, its all about paper shuffling and keeping costs down at the end of the day.

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If current breeding rates amomgst the imports is anything to go by, youll be proven wrong on that score very quickly.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What Pap! Just what is so great about your London multicultural paradigm?
Four terror attacks in one year by the enriched population of the place isnt what I'd term a success, unless of course youre counting casualties.
But this is all a thread drift from the original subject, dont you think?