Concurrent sentence

Millie · 15-02-2010 1:27pm #1

Guys, can you please clarify something for me.
If someone receives three, 10 month sentences to run concurrently.
What does this mean?? That they will be jailed for 30 months in total at the sametime??

johnciall · 15-02-2010 2:50pm

I'm open to be corrected but

three 10 month sentences concurrent = 10 months

three 10 month sentences consecutivly = 30 months

PCPhoto · 15-02-2010 2:56pm

johnciall wrote: »

I'm open to be corrected but

three 10 month sentences concurrent = 10 months

three 10 month sentences consecutivly = 30 months

this is correct - concurrent sentencing is when the sentences are served together.

consecutive is when they are served "on the lawful determination of the previous sentence" ... one starts when the other finishes.

although you forgot to filter in remission 20%off just for the hell of it (so you dont cause a riot in prison and life is easier for prison officers).

Millie · 15-02-2010 5:13pm

Thanks guys, I can't understand why they are not just given 10 months then.

All to do with a scumbag who robbed all round him, me included and was charged with the sentence above during the week.

10 years wouldn't be long enough to keep this piece of poo out of society.

Hooch · 15-02-2010 8:13pm

Millie wrote: »

Thanks guys, I can't understand why they are not just given 10 months then.

All to do with a scumbag who robbed all round him, me included and was charged with the sentence above during the week.

10 years wouldn't be long enough to keep this piece of poo out of society.

Open to correction but its for the purposes of previous convictions.....so if the offender is brought to court and convicted again evidence can be given that the person was convicted three times and for each served 10 months. So the judge can then be more severe.

Thats my take on it anyway....

Reloc8 · 16-02-2010 9:56am

nice guy always wrote: »

Open to correction but its for the purposes of previous convictions.....so if the offender is brought to court and convicted again evidence can be given that the person was convicted three times and for each served 10 months. So the judge can then be more severe.

Thats my take on it anyway....

Spot on - the conviction should be noted for the accuracy of the guy's record for future reference.

Also, leaving aside a debate on whether lengthier sentences/consecutive sentences are warranted/necessary/mandated/more fun, if there are three victims where concurrent sentences are imposed the Judge wants to be seen to recognise each one.

Finally, for the purpose of responding to an appeal against severity its important that three separate sentences are marked.

TheNewMe · 16-02-2010 5:12pm

Reloc8 wrote: »

Spot on - the conviction should be noted for the accuracy of the guy's record for future reference.

Also, leaving aside a debate on whether lengthier sentences/consecutive sentences are warranted/necessary/mandated/more fun, if there are three victims where concurrent sentences are imposed the Judge wants to be seen to recognise each one.

Finally, for the purpose of responding to an appeal against severity its important that three separate sentences are marked.

So to all intents and purposes the scumbag in question gets multiple extra crimes for free after the first one ? Where's the benefit to the law abiding citizen in this misguided policy ?

Reminds me also of the absurdness of having a crime of attempted murder - surely if you're guilty of attempted murder then you've formed the intent to murder someone so why should a criminal get a lesser sentence/charge as a result of their incompetence/inability to carry through on their murderous intent

Reloc8 · 16-02-2010 5:53pm

TheNewMe wrote: »

So to all intents and purposes the scumbag in question gets multiple extra crimes for free after the first one ? Where's the benefit to the law abiding citizen in this misguided policy ?

Reminds me also of the absurdness of having a crime of attempted murder - surely if you're guilty of attempted murder then you've formed the intent to murder someone so why should a criminal get a lesser sentence/charge as a result of their incompetence/inability to carry through on their murderous intent

yeah...taking your post in four parts :-

a) who said there was a policy ? And anyway, the criminal law is not there to give 'benefit' to the law abiding citizen (I've yet to meet one anyway frankly).

As regards getting to do 'em 'for free' - nah not necessarily. If he had only done 1 he might have not gone to jail, or gone to jail for less time - seeing them as 'free offences for the scumbags' is pretty jaundiced stuff.

b) concurrent sentencing (same principles apply to fines) is part of Irish law, subject to mandatory consecutive sentencing where offences are committed on bail or equivalent to bail. Scumbags get the benefit of it (the law generally and this specific aspect of it), same as yourself or myself and anyone else close to you or me who might end up on a charge.

c) if you follow these things (and I'm sure you do) its clear that the judge decided 10 months was the appropriate sentence. He/she having reached that decision, would it make you feel any better if they had imposed a sentence of 4 months, consecutive 3 months, consecutive 3 months ? OK so you want him to get 30 months not 10, but see the first line of this paragraph - the Judge who heard (all of the case decided 10 months was the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding that they knew there had been multiple repeat offending. Your issue is with that decision, not concurrent sentencing as a principle.

d) sometimes the fact that an attempted murder does not result in death has nothing to do with incompetence or inability - its just good luck (well, bad luck if you were trying to kill someone...lets just say its down to luck). Anyway its not thought to be unreasonable to provide a lesser sentence in respect of attempted murder versus as nobody is dead in consequence of your actions in the latter case. You presumably disagree and would sentence the two the same - i.e. mandatory life. I think you're wrong but that's just opinion.

In any event, to address your anger at there being two distinct offences, that of attempted murder versus murder - if you didn't have this you wouldn't be able to prosecute people appropriately for lots of attempts at murder which don't succeed, hence the need for the lesser charge on the books in the first place. Its not actually on the books as such (like murder itself) but is an offence contrary to common law, for which the maximum penalty is life. I can think of at least one case where a 15 year term was handed down for attempted murder, and upheld on appeal.

Don't get me wrong - I have no agenda in and am not looking for 'light' sentences...but if we're going to discuss it a bit of objectivity and less generalisation helps.

TheNewMe · 16-02-2010 7:10pm

Reloc8 wrote: »

yeah...taking your post in four parts :-

a) who said there was a policy ? And anyway, the criminal law is not there to give 'benefit' to the law abiding citizen (I've yet to meet one anyway frankly).

That's a little bit cynical isn't it. I know cynicism is all the rage these days but surely we all benefit by living in a society where there is a clear expectation that our person and property are protected by the law. There are many examples around the world of how unpleasant life is when there is no such expectation.

Reloc8 wrote: »

As regards getting to do 'em 'for free' - nah not necessarily. If he had only done 1 he might have not gone to jail, or gone to jail for less time - seeing them as 'free offences for the scumbags' is pretty jaundiced stuff.

b) concurrent sentencing (same principles apply to fines) is part of Irish law, subject to mandatory consecutive sentencing where offences are committed on bail or equivalent to bail. Scumbags get the benefit of it (the law generally and this specific aspect of it), same as yourself or myself and anyone else close to you or me who might end up on a charge.

I don't have any intention of engaging in criminal behaviour and I expect my fellow citizens to refrain from criminal activity also. Therefore I am quite comfortable in demanding that the criminal justice system concentrate on minimising criminal activity and for me part of that is ensuring that felons spend suitable periods of time in incarceration for each and every crime they commit.

Reloc8 wrote: »

c) if you follow these things (and I'm sure you do) its clear that the judge decided 10 months was the appropriate sentence. He/she having reached that decision, would it make you feel any better if they had imposed a sentence of 4 months, consecutive 3 months, consecutive 3 months ? OK so you want him to get 30 months not 10, but see the first line of this paragraph - the Judge who heard (all of the case decided 10 months was the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding that they knew there had been multiple repeat offending. Your issue is with that decision, not concurrent sentencing as a principle.

Completely the opposite tbh. I believe that the principle of concurrent sentencing is fundamentally dishonest. It diminishes the link between punishment and crime. I believe if consecutive sentences were given then it would be clear what sentence is attached to each crime. By all means let judges reduce each of the sentences so the sum total is the same as if they gave a concurrent sentence. With transparency and 'truth in sentencing' it becomes much harder to hide from the citizenry the nature of the justice being administered in their name.

Reloc8 wrote: »

d) sometimes the fact that an attempted murder does not result in death has nothing to do with incompetence or inability - its just good luck (well, bad luck if you were trying to kill someone...lets just say its down to luck). Anyway its not thought to be unreasonable to provide a lesser sentence in respect of attempted murder versus as nobody is dead in consequence of your actions in the latter case. You presumably disagree and would sentence the two the same - i.e. mandatory life. I think you're wrong but that's just opinion.

In any event, to address your anger at there being two distinct offences, that of attempted murder versus murder - if you didn't have this you wouldn't be able to prosecute people appropriately for lots of attempts at murder which don't succeed, hence the need for the lesser charge on the books in the first place. Its not actually on the books as such (like murder itself) but is an offence contrary to common law, for which the maximum penalty is life. I can think of at least one case where a 15 year term was handed down for attempted murder, and upheld on appeal.

Don't get me wrong - I have no agenda in and am not looking for 'light' sentences...but if we're going to discuss it a bit of objectivity and less generalisation helps.

Don't assume I am angry or that I am not objective just because you disagree with me

Perhaps my point wasn't well phrased - I don't care so much whether there is a crime of attempted murder on the books what I find absurd is that the penalty is not the same as for murder i.e. life. While for the victim it makes a big difference if a murder is successful or not from the point of view of society the issue is that someone formed a murderous intent and then acted upon it.

Reloc8 · 16-02-2010 7:50pm

Nothing you've said goes towards the real question - should the guy have gotten 10 months, or 30 months - of course, we just don't know, but who is to say that 10 months was not appropriate, and that because he got 3 10 month sentences he must necessarily be deserving of 30.

We don't even know of what he was convicted.

Perhaps he was very harshly treated and shouldn't have been jailed at all

pirelli · 16-02-2010 8:19pm

TheNewMe wrote: »

I don't have any intention of engaging in criminal behaviour and I expect my fellow citizens to refrain from criminal activity also. Therefore I am quite comfortable in demanding that the criminal justice system concentrate on minimising criminal activity and for me part of that is ensuring that felons spend suitable periods of time in incarceration for each and every crime they commit.

I agree with you TheNewMe, and its a struggle for the ordinary decent citizen. Trying to make ends meet and carve out a career and being genuinely honest.
You will also find that white collar cheats are plentiful and will make that task more difficult. You should look at other areas of Justice. Innocent projects and supporting workplace projects and look to bring prosecutions to those in higher office that cause much suffering and misery and even poverty to people. A manager in HR should not be allowed to be dishonest and biased but short of fraud its hard to prosecute them and fraud is so hard to prove in the workplace if not impossible.

Unfortunately some people lifes revolve around some asshole in HR ( human resources ) and the odd robbery seems trivial in comparison. If a little brat is caught stealin your cheap 20 euro bike the police will lock them up but the garda won't even listen to a complaint that involves a workplace scenario (even if their is a loss of income through misrepresenation) and will only get involved if their is violence or something that is particuarly nefarious.

I assume this chap was convicted more serious than stealing a bike but how you can not be satisfied with 10 months imprisonment. Imagine the white collar cheat ( deceit) (basically non commerical fraud ) in HR ( human resources ) getting 10 months in imprisonment. That would be wonderful even 10 days would be great.

The problem is prison space. A large efficently run prison designed for white collar cheats is the only way you will ever come close to tackling crime. Criminals are 6 times more likely to be victims of crime and are much more likely to be murdered. Some of these people are just victims of crime as much as you are.

funnyname · 23-06-2010 12:16pm

What bloody good are they?!

A PAEDOPHILE father who received a record 238-year jail sentence was back behind bars yesterday.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/beast-of-sligo-back-in-jail-for-child-porn-2230801.html

How the hell was he not always behind bars with that length of a sentence, obviously it was a concurrent one.

If a person kills 5 people in Ireland they'll probably get 5 life sentences and be out after 25 years or thereabout because the sentences were concurrent.

What's the point in concurrent sentences!

Concurrent sentence

Comments