For those who may not be familiar with the difference between a "Concurrent" Court Sentence and a "Consecutive" Court Sentence..

A "Concurrent" Sentence means the Defendant has been found guilty of committing 2 or more crimes, but the sentences run all at the same time.

A " Consecutive" Sentence means that the sentence for each crime is run one after the other until all have been served.

I also believe it is time to stop remission (time off the Sentence) which can amount to the prisoner serving only 60% of the declared Sentence.

I think all sentencing should be served consecutively.

I wonder what your views are on this.

100% yes i agree with you. Life should mean life or whatever setence is given to someone who has commited a crime they should serve the whole lot ,no time of for good behaviour that is just rubbish.

Huge subject!
My main cripe is when you hear of people 'asking for other offences to be taken into account' knowing sentences will run concurrently. Effectively reducing the punishment for each individual crime.

Allowing a sentence to be cut short a bit I dont mind, presumably it is there as an incentive to behave when inside. Which can't be a bad thing.
However, in accepting this incentive I would like to think the original sentence is a bit longer than what the judge deems appropriate to make up for such shortening of sentence.
That make sense at all?!

Huge subject!
My main cripe is when you hear of people 'asking for other offences to be taken into account' knowing sentences will run concurrently. Effectively reducing the punishment for each individual crime.

Allowing a sentence to be cut short a bit I dont mind, presumably it is there as an incentive to behave when inside. Which can't be a bad thing.
However, in accepting this incentive I would like to think the original sentence is a bit longer than what the judge deems appropriate to make up for such shortening of sentence.
That make sense at all?!

I think if the prisoner doesn't behave whilst inside, the sentence should be lengthened until they do personally:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4746642.stm
I understand this as 14 years + 5 years so in theory 21 years.
To run concurrently so actual time becomes 14 years.
But the judge says he must serve 22? I'm no mathmatician but I am confused!

I think if the prisoner doesn't behave whilst inside, the sentence should be lengthened until they do personally:)
Not a bad idea.
I do feel there should be some sort of reward for behaving/punishment for not whichever way you want to cut it.

People who do the crime deserve the time in my book.... consecutive terms with no remission or what is the point of the sentence handed down? :confused:

Surely a lot of it depends on how full the prisons are at the time? Somehow, the people responsible for sentencing must get advice from above that the prisons are nearly full so look to reduced tariffs or non-custodial sentences wherever possible. Similarly, those responsible for determining whether prisoners should be released on licence will be encouraged to look upon applications for early release favourably.

I'm definately in favour of stopping sentences running concurrently (or at least for most cases) - it would reduce petty crime no end, I'd imagine.

However, remission is a good thing - it is an incentive to behave inside, and I'm sure that remission was taken into account when setting the original tariff

Second crime and onwards should = no remission.

But as max said, prison capacity is a massive issue - its all very well saying build more prisons, but where?

Surely a lot of it depends on how full the prisons are at the time? Somehow, the people responsible for sentencing must get advice from above that the prisons are nearly full so look to reduced tariffs or non-custodial sentences wherever possible. Similarly, those responsible for determining whether prisoners should be released on licence will be encouraged to look upon applications for early release favourably.

Max, I entirely see your point. However, we should build more prisons in the short term, to accommodate punitive sentencing for the criminals in our midst.

Perhaps when the punishments start to reflect the disruption, aggravation and sheer anguish of the law abiding public, the level of recidivism will mean that we need fewer prisons in the medium term.

But as max said, prison capacity is a massive issue - its all very well saying build more prisons, but where?

No problem building more prisons......there are plenty of little uninhabited islands "oop" North, and plenty of rural land begging to be purchased throughout the rest of our Country. John Prescott is buying it up as though there was no tomorrow for his plans

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4746642.stm
I understand this as 14 years + 5 years so in theory 21 years.
To run concurrently so actual time becomes 14 years.
But the judge says he must serve 22? I'm no mathmatician but I am confused!

That's because he's got a life sentences as well, the 14 years and 5 years are for the grievous bodily harm and cruelty, the life sentence for the murder. I assume the 14 and 5 years are running concurrently with the 22 years for the life sentence. Shocking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4746642.stm
I understand this as 14 years + 5 years so in theory 21 years.
To run concurrently so actual time becomes 14 years.
But the judge says he must serve 22? I'm no mathmatician but I am confused!

I agree it was not the clearest of reports, but:

He was given LIFE for murder. Judge says minimum 22 years.

IN ADDITION he was given sentences of 14 years for causing grievous bodily harm and 5 years for cruelty.

Because they will run concurrently, they actually add no extra time.


edit:
like wot he sed abuv!:hihi:

There is little proof to support this but anecdotal reports suggest that this whole "concurrent" business was encouraged to get people to confess to additional crimes that would naturally help the police improve their crime solving figures.

Why not "ask for 20 similar cases to be taken into account", after being found guilty of one, when it actually may reduce your sentence?

I think if the prisoner doesn't behave whilst inside, the sentence should be lengthened until they do personally:)

Hi Shoeshine,

To clarify that point, only in the case of prisoners who have been awarded a life tarriff can their sentence be lengthened. For instance if a man were convicted of rape and given a tarriff of 10 years, should he not accept responsibility and that he had committed a heinous crime he would be reccommended to carry on serving his sentence until a point where he takes responsibility for his actions and the chances of his reoffending are minimal.

In the case of a non lifer there is a system called IEP ( Incentives and Earned Privilages) which dictate the prisoners level of comfort in jail. If they act in a disruptive fashion they can spend their entire sentence at the lowest level with only very basic facilities. If they knuckle down and "do their rip" then they can be under a very cushy reigieme indeed - The sooner that they attain and maintain this level the better it looks for either HDC or parole.

T.I.C's are a major bugbear with me as well, I feel that the individual offence should be treated as such and not as an addendum to the index offence. Some police officers have been known to get arrested offenders who have a 99.9% chance of getting a sentence to put their names to unsolved offences of a similar M.O. It's no skin off of the criminals nose and goes some way to making their life easier, Police look better on their detection rates - Home office can say "Crime is on the decrease".


Special legal spleen vented! :D

cgksheff, Swan Vesta...many thanks for your comments, and also thanks to other contributors to this Thread.

I am aware that the "System" fits other crimes to the individuals concerned, and the reasons for doing so, both from the individual's viewpoint, and the beauty of the systems used to suit the Police and Political vested interests.

With things as they are in terms of "Crime" these days, I think it is well past the time when these manipulations of Criminal Sentences, for whatever reason proffered by "The State" will continue to satisfy us. The innocent victims and their families should be able to see justice truly metered out, and true justice served on the wrongdoers.

I know this thread has been indirectly linked to another thread running on SF at the moment, and I am not surprised.

This thread I have OP'd comes after several years of my seeing excuse after excuse by the "Authorities" doing nothing to make the punishment fit the crime.