Sentences to serve concurrently?? Explain please.

[mariner2]

Is there anybody in the known universe that can explain to me what possible iota of sane thinking lies behind the idea that there is any crumb of justice involved when a criminal is found guilty of a pile of different offences and then the sentences for those crimes are allowed to be served at the same time, ie concurrently, in other words punishing the criminal for only ONE crime instead of six or whatever.
I think it's fairly obvious that I am utterly incredulous about this, but as it actually happens, I just have to know why, before I can sleep again.

[meglet]

I should imagine this haapens if its deemed not to be in the public interest to put the criminal away for a long time i.e it cost a fortune and the prisons are full. If someone was done for 6 counts of shoplifting for example and those crimes attracted a sentence of, say, 3 months then putting that person away for 18 months which would cost the taxpayer an awful lot.

Would depend on the crime I would have thought.

[helpmetoo]

shame they wouldnt adopt the same policy if...

get caught the same day for speeding at say 90 mph on the m3,m25,m4,m40

cheers that will be �60 and three points for the lot!

i dont think so

i agree, each offence is seperate and should be served individually...

the old saying applies otherwise and encourages repeat offenders..

better to be hung for ( stealing) a sheep than a lamb.

[arduncan2002]

True, the prisons are too full and the costs of incarceration too high. The basic reason for this occurance is 'Pleading Guilty' which carries an automatic reduction in sentence of up to a third, ergo concurrent sentences (saves court time/costs too!). Also depends if the offender is better off at work - if they work? Or a drug program, which is usually more to the point....