Can someone who is/was an LEO or lawyer/judge explain to me the logic behind concurrent sentencing?

Seems to me that if it's a 10 year sentence for a robbery, and a whole bunch more are served concurrently, why not go for it and gamble on not getting caught? Worse case is 10 years.

I'm almost completely ignorant about this stuff, but on the face of it, it seems ridiculous. What's the deterrent at that point.

Thanks, I hope to be enlightened.

It's generally seen as a means toward achieving a plea bargaining agreement favorable to the state. In many criminal cases there is a lead charge, followed by several lesser and included offenses. The more the prosecution can pile on, the more likely the defendant will plead out in exchange for dropped charges and concurrent sentencing on the remaining ones. You have to remember that the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial cuts both ways. Plea bargaining is essential. Our criminal justice system would collapse without it.

Concurrent sentencing allows the State to build up a defendant's criminal history as well. In states with sentencing guidelines, the length of sentence is often based on criminal history, the more extensive history meaning a lengthier sentence.

It’s all about bed space.
Concurrent sentencing allows for the speedier turn over of inmates in any correctional setting.
Consecutive sentencing, as a matter of practicality, is reserved for the most heinous, who by their nature, require longer periods of incarceration.

__________________
Stand your ground, 1775

Concurrent sentencing was the norm back in the UK. I think this was because of a quirk in English law regarding multiple crimes in one incident. If the top sentence in a consecutive list went away at appeal, so did all the others. Weird, huh? Maybe some states here have there laws written in a similar way.

__________________
Release the Kraken

I guess I understand in principle. I just remember a case written up in the American Rifleman in the mid '90s I think.

Felon transported 5 stolen handguns across state lines, all with defaced ser #s. And He sold them to known felons. I think the total of the 22 charges was something like 422 years was the max sentence. He got 10. Where is the deterrent when someone thinks they won't serve much time even if they get caught?

How hard is it to actually prove, yes, he was a convicted felon. Yes, these are 5 stolen hanguns, in his possession. Yes, defaced ser#s. Yes, he took them from Chicago to Iowa?, yes, he sold them to these 5 criminals. We know this because we got it all the sales on video, and we are in Iowa?

As Joe Citizen, looks pretty straightforward. I would NEVER be allowed to sit on a jury. I have done mock juries for laws school students though.

A lot of concurrent sentencing involves exactly this - multiple crimes in a single incident. The goals of sentencing are much broader that just deterrence or punishment. Courts are also required to consider rehabilitation, remorse, cost, etc. Oftentimes it seems there is little purpose to be served in sentencing someone to what might amount to a life sentence over a single incident, especially if it is a non-violent incident and they do not have a significant criminal record. Or you might see it in, for example, a sentence for aggravated assault where someone pointed a gun at the victim but no shots were fired and no one was injured. As opposed to an aggravated assault where someone actually got shot or maybe multiple people got shot. Same crime, different facts. The facts matter, even where the charges are the same, and all of the factors above have to be taken into account. This is the type of situation where you see the majority of concurrent sentencing.

Another factor is expense. Frankly, it costs a lot to keep people in prison. I used to have lots of people tell me to "throw the book at 'em!" OK, fine, do you want to pay for that? For a few thousand people? Would you like to use the money scheduled to build schools used instead to build prisons? We can't hire enough guards in Wyoming now. Imagine how much worse it would be with a couple thousand more inmates.

In the more violent crimes that truly deserve long sentences, consecutive sentences are often used to insure just that. The formulas used by corrections departments to reduce time served for good behavior are too much to explain here but, at least in Wyoming, a ten year sentence might actually get only about 6 years actually in jail. The courts have no authority over those rules. So if I thought someone needed to be there longer, I would stack up a few lengthy terms to be served consecutively. That is, you don't start serving #2 until you've finished #1 and so on. You could run up a lot of years pretty quickly that way.

It's a complicated question that tends to be very specific to individual cases, way too much to try to get into in detail here, but maybe this will at least give you an idea as to the thinking that goes into the question.

__________________
Everybody could shoot

Off subject a little. 3 strikes and your out does not have the same meaning it used to have for a felon. It now means 3 strikes and your still out on the street.

That is a relevant part of the question, honestly. 5 felonies in a crime spree doesn't result in a "your out" sentencing.

There are a lot of people with no regard for other humans, or society as a whole, but they get back out. Not saying that is a 100% fact, but that is a wide spread perception.

Thanks everyone for the insights and education!

Concurrent sentencing, while distinct from prohibition against double jeopardy, is loosely rooted in the same underlying principles. For example, if someone is charged with two offenses, and one of them can't be committed without committing the other, under the double jeopardy clause they can't be convicted of both. This is known as the Blockburger test.

Blockburger v. United States - Wikipedia

But, depending on the state, even if conviction for two offenses doesn't violate the Blockburger test, concurrent sentencing may be required if the crimes arise out of the same act. As an example, here's Arizona's statute:
13-116 - Double punishment

The one I don't understand is being charged and convicted of multiple versions of the same crime. For example, here in MN I think Chauvin was convicted of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. He killed 1 guy, not 3.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

My agency had a saying " If Hitler was tried in this county, he would be given 50 hours community service-supended

Concurrent sentences require semicolons. Consecutive sentences require periods.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

Now to toss a grenade in the cesspool: What about the death penalty? I understand that many believe the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent, but it surely does prevent recidivism. What chaps my gonads is the situation that many states find themselves in where the drug companies will not sell the drugs that may be used in execution. th entire idea behind the needle was that it was more "humane" thatthe electric chair, the gas chamber, hanging, whatever. I have had to put down my dogs when their time came, and the vet just used a single shot of a sedative; so why not just use a "hot shot" of fentanyl. for example? I would think that should be painless, so the "inhumane" part of the 5th Amendment wouldn't apply.

The South Carolina serial killer Peewee Gaskins pled guilty, received 10 life sentences, he observed he couldn't serve more than one of them.

Lethal injection was never humane for the inmate, it was for the witnesses.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

We had a guy here some years back who was sentenced to death plus two consecutive life sentences. He told the judge he didn’t think he could do that. The judge told him “Well, you’ll just have to do the best you can.”

__________________
Everybody could shoot

I too have always wondered why a massive dose of opioid something wouldn't be humane. Gotta be some lying around in some forgotten evidence room they could use. Seriously. Just drift off and its done.

The folks who are opposed to capital punishment will always find something objectionable about the method used, no matter what that is...their goal is to end executions, period.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether some violent sociopath feels a little bit of momentary pain as he begins his trip to the great hereafter.

Much easier to understand if you think of this as the "frequent offender discount plan".

__________________
Life of the party until 8:00PM

I don't know about the felons, but there's no way I'd want to do 10 years in a Federal pen.
I had a nephew who died of covid last month or so at 44 years old. He spent most of his adult life behind bars. But somehow managed to father 6 kids, 4 of them behind bars right now. I saw him once maybe 35 years ago. No way I ever want to do time.

__________________
Waiting For The Sun.

Whether someone serves multiple sentences consecutively or concurrently is up to the judge; the judge does not have to honor any plea agreement made between prosecution and defense, once the defendant makes a guilty plea. Concurrent sentences run the length of the longer sentence; if someone gets 10 years for armed robbery, but 5 years on possession of a stolen handgun, for example, his concurrent sentence would run 10 years. It also depends on state and/or Federal conviction and jurisdictional priorities. There seems to be very little simplicity in sentencing guidelines, have a read here:

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...17/BOP_FSS.pdf

So a plea deal doesn't need to be honored by the judge? Do they just take it under advisement as a request? So they plead guilty hoping that the judge agrees?

Correct. A deal between defendant and prosecutor is contractual in nature but does not have to be honored by the Court.

What I hate is when someone goes to trial and is found not guilty but the feds don't like it so they call the crime something else which is a fed crime and try him again on the same crime. The courts have held that this is not double jeopardy but sorry I don't agree.

Likely a mistake to state my opinions; it frequently is.

I don't "believe" in capital punishment - mostly because it has been repeatedly confirmed it costs the state's taxpayers more than a life sentence what with automatic appeals and the delays common to carrying out a death sentence. Too, I think just one mistake regarding the execution of a convict, that is killing an innocent person, is one too many. Plus it has been well-demonstrated it does not serve as an effective deterrent.

I believe in something potentially worse for the worst of crimes against society; life at hard labor. I know it no longer exists but can't imagine why it should not.

__________________
Ordnung muss sein
SWHF #789

Incarceration of bad folks is far cheaper than their recidivist behavior, but that is not well accepted and sometimes denied. The consecutive vs. concurrent issue is usually a matter state law. It is part of our felony sentencing statute here; there are specific standards for when sentencing can be consecutive. Multiple convictions for the same case, if the crimes do not merge, means that they score against each other and impact the sentencing range.

The scoring is so complicated that there is a 400+ page manual with many hundreds of score sheets to guide us. In reality, much of it is driven by trying to control corrections cost, without considering that truth I pointed out in my first sentence (pardon the pun). Misdemeanor sentencing is not controlled by in the same way, so some folks can end up with years in a county jail.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Capital punishment is one of those issues where I could argue either side with equal passion, and over the course of my life I have changed my opinion on it from time to time.

I will say this: We humans are the only species on earth that tolerates the presence of violent predators. If we are not going to execute the monsters amongst us, we need to ensure they are never, ever allowed to breathe as free men again.

Just an observation - it is interesting to see how sentencing varies from state to state. Washington and many other states have "sentencing guidelines" that limit the court's discretion in sentencing, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Wyoming has no sentencing guidelines at all. We have a statute that sets a maximum sentence for a given crime and that's it. Some would say that's good, some would say otherwise, but I sure liked the ability to make decisions without undue interference from the legislators and the bureaucrats.

__________________
Everybody could shoot

My opinion of most of the legislature and their gross ignorance of the reality of bad people would peel the paint off a battleship, and cause any moderator whose heart could take seeing what I think to ban me and all of my relatives. The polite version is that they are on the wrong side of Dunning-Krueger.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

True, except in those cases where the legislature specified that sentencing for a particular crime(s) had to be consecutive. A usual example would be use of a firearm while commiting a crime. Legislators appear to have little patience with judges who tend to overwork concurrency.

Example, there was a dude who's typical "employment" when not a guest of the state was armed robbery. He'd gotten used to the 2-4 years concurrent typical sentence. Then, after passage of the use of a firearm in a crime law, he got tried & conviced for 6 armed robberies. The judge gave him 2-4 years concurrent for the robberies, apologized and then gave him 5 years on each count consecutive.

Dude: "What that mean?"
Public Defender (PD): "32-34 years".
Dude: "He can't do dat."
PD: "He just did."

Did do wonders for the local shop keepers.

A concurrent sentence refers to a type of sentence judges are able to give defendants convicted of more than one crime. Instead of serving each sentence one after another (consecutive sentences), a concurrent sentence allows the defendant to serve all of their sentences at the same time, where the longest period of time is controlling.

__________________
213th FBINA

Yes, because of our ledger driven society. Incarceration appears on one ledger, the public purse, where everyone can see it and complain. Recidivist behavior is spread between the insurers, people paying out of pocket, medical bills, etc,. so it becomes diffuse, effectively invisible.

__________________
Release the Kraken