• PunnyName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Concurrent = at the same time

    Consecutive = one after another

    Concurrent is almost always the better deal.

    • meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve never understood that. How is serving sentences concurrently at all the same punishment? Are there cases where someone has two sentences that can be ruled either to serve consecutively or concurrently? Who makes that decision and what goes into it?

      • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        The idea is to make sure that there isn’t an unjust stacking of time due to many little crimes being committed during a larger crime. As an example, let’s say a first time offender breaks into a bank and tries to rob it. If they applied the maximum for each individual crime, it is easy for the punishment to balloon into something that is much worse than the crime itself calls for—trespassing + robbery + destruction of property + whatever else you did = 80+ years for a first time offense.

        When the judge chooses to have the sentences run concurrently, the prisoner will serve the longest sentence they have gotten for one of the crimes, but will still have all the crimes on their record. This gives them a greater possibility to be released after a more reasonable amount of time (10-20 years), which gives them a chance of rehabilitation and reduces the burden on the taxpayer to house people for very long amounts of time.

        It is worth remembering that some people who commit crimes early in life go on to be productive and admirable citizens. Stephen Fry did time for fraud as a teenager, and then went on to be a beloved actor and writer. Sometimes those skills can be turned around to do good.

    • MsPenguinette@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indeed. What I intended when I said that was that the judge thought consecutive wouldn’t even be needed because she’s going to be spending way more than 15 in prison.

      A dig simular to if a judge only fined someone $1k instead of $10 and saying “you still won’t be able to pay 1k”