An old chestnut....

[conny]

Why, when someone gets convicted of several/numerous crimes, (especially violent or sexual ones), do they get separate sentences but serve them concurrently?
Surely they should be consecutively, or else why bother giving them?
You kill someone and get life with a minimum tariff. You separately assault someone causing them severe brain damage. You get 4 years to be served at the same time as you are doing 19 years. If the sentence isn't going to be increased, then why bother prosecuting?

 

[Mottie]

To clear up the crime rate. It’s not unknown for a crim to put his hands up to crimes they haven’t committed in exchange for a more lenient sentence. I know someone that has actually happened to.

 

[fillyboy]

To clear up the crime rate. It’s not unknown for a crim to put his hands up to crimes they haven’t committed in exchange for a more lenient sentence. I know someone that has actually happened to.

I wasn't a witness to it so purely hearsay, but I did hear of someone on being sentenced for a burglary when asked, that he requested another 180 cases to be taken into consideration.

I might be wrong but I think when they do this, it safeguards them for prosecution of those 180 crimes at a later date.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

I wasn't a witness to it so purely hearsay, but I did hear of someone on being sentenced for a burglary when asked, that he requested another 180 cases to be taken into consideration.

I might be wrong but I think when they do this, it safeguards them for prosecution of those 180 crimes at a later date.

I can vouch for this happening - albeit a rather long time ago....a school friend who was a bit naughty was arrested for burglary and told me that the police persuaded him to "confess" to umpteen other burglaries (that he hadn't done) in order to clear their books. These were known as "TICs" (taken into consideration). TICs were a big thing back then.