Concurrent sentences

[Deluks]

I don't get the point of these.

They were sentenced to four years in prison, concurrent with the minimum 35-year life sentences they are serving

Surely that's a complete waste of a trial, and in no way a punishment or deterrent?

 

[JohnD]

I don't get this bit either:

"Sentencing the pair, Judge Beatrice Bolton said she thought the knifing was not intended to cause grievous bodily harm...

"To put it in a nutshell there was a prison fallout, the root of which is difficult to establish, which resulted in you two attacking him with a knife...

"Prison officers raised the alarm and found Piggott being held down on his bed by Shah, while Jamma was striking him.

Piggott suffered a number of stab wounds to his body and face but was not kept in hospital"

she thought the knifing was not intended to cause grievous bodily harm.

 

[Shytalkz]

The "wonders" of our legal system at work, I guess. Presumably some legal beagle would be able to say just how concurrent sentences really do punish the offender, but I'm búggered if I can see how, like you

 

[megawatt]

What's the point of adding the four years on the end of a 35 year term?

If they were to get released on appeal (say) for the 35 year term they would still have to serve the 4 years ... That's the real purpose of concurrent sentencing.

MW

 

[Trazor]

You don,t add it on, concurrent means at the same time, the longer sentence being the controlling one.

 

[megawatt]

Hmmmnnn ... Yes Trazor I know

I was making the point that concurrent sentencing makes sense because there's not much point adding the 4 years to the end of a 35 year sentence.

MW

 

[Trazor]

Read your post again, it reads exactlly how I read it.

You must be more precise.

 

[Deluks]

What's the point of adding the four years on the end of a 35 year term?

MW

So that they spend more time in prison.

Like they sometimes get released early for good behaviour, they should have to wait longer to get out, if they commit acts of bad behaviour.

If they were to get released on appeal (say) for the 35 year term they would still have to serve the 4 years ... MW

If your appeal theory is correct, then that would indicate that the judge thought this 4 year term necessary, on the basis that there may be a possibilty that they are innocent of the original murder, which would give credence to any appeal by their legal team if such an appeal was made. Otherwise, why would the judge sentence them to 4 years at all?

You are describing an "innocent until proven guilty, and then guilty until proven innocent again" situation.

 

[megawatt]

I made an assumption that everyone would know what concurrent meant and would assume I did also.

On that assumption my post is accurate.

I'll allow for you next time and be, as you say, more precise

 

[Deluks]

Read your post again, it reads exactlly how I read it.

You must be more precise.

You are right if MW's post is read by itself.

But if you read it in the context of the entire thread, which you should have done. then you are wrong.

 

[megawatt]

Like they sometimes get released early for good behaviour

Not when they've been given MINIMUM 35 year terms.

If your appeal theory is correct, then that would indicate that the judge thought this 4 year term necessary, on the basis that there may be a possibilty that they are innocent of the original murder

Errrmmm ... No.

Which would give credence to any appeal by their legal team if such an appeal was made.

Not at all.

Otherwise, why would the judge sentence them to 4 years at all?

Because they committed a crime which warrants a four year jail term.

You are describing an "innocent until proven guilty, and then guilty until proven innocent again" situation.

No, I'm describing a "what's the point adding four years to a 35 year term" situation.

35 years is one hell of a long time to be incarcerated and, over that time, people change ... Anyone here heard of the term rehabilitation?

MW

 

[kevnurse]

I understood MW's post, but I'm not sure that I agree with him. IMHO sentences for new offences while in prison should run consecutively. If the 35 year sentence ends ahead of time, the 4 years will kick in upon the early release date, so it will be a case of, "where the ferk do you think you're going, sonny?"

I don't get the concurrent thing at all. It means that the inmates have absolutely nothing to lose if they harm the officers (except a good discrete kicking)

 

[JohnD]

... Anyone here heard of the term rehabilitation?

I've heard of it, but for these two, it doesn't appear to have started yet.

 

[megawatt]

I understood MW's post, but I'm not sure that I agree with him

How dare you

I have never said that I agree with them and in cases of smaller sentences I think sentences should run consecutively also.

In this case though where the pair are already committed to minimum 35 year sentences adding 4 years on the end is hardly a deterrent either IMO.

So long as they are only attacking one another I think we should let them get on with it and, with any luck, the prison population we are all funding will be significantly reduced.

MW

 

[JohnD]

So long as they are only attacking one another I think we should let them get on with it...

permitting unrestricted violence in jails isn't going to encourage your rehabilitation, is it?