Consecutive vs Concurrent sentences

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.

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.

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.

LVSteve said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

len917 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

JDBoardman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

BLACKHAWKNJ said:

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

Click to expand...

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.”

johngalt said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

JDBoardman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".