Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
12 Jun 19
13:48
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jul 18
Reading about a bird who tried armed robbery at a chippy (failed) then tried again at co-op next door.
Each sentence 3.5 years to run concurrently.
Why do they do it?
Each sentence 3.5 years to run concurrently.
Why do they do it?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 26
|
By:
Did any fish get battered
 |
|
By:
Did she get the wrong plaice at first?
|
|
By:
its really like
 drink drivers ,,ask yourself why you did that,, |
|
By:
Imagine if they didnt have concurrent sentences at how massive the prison population would be
|
|
By:
They cant even control jails as it is btw
|
|
By:
Sometimes sentences do run consecutively. It depends on a number of factors, including the seriousness of the crimes.
If a person receives a sentence of two years for one robbery, another individual won't get 20 years for 10 similar offences. |
|
By:
If a person receives a sentence of two years for one robbery, another individual won't get 20 years for 10 similar offences.
I don't think that's true. Don;t serious criminals serve 2/3 with longer on licence and lifers do it all and 99yrs probation. The argument is that it's harder to get paroled multiple times in a row. Smaller/cheaper prison population makes sense. They're almost incentivising spree crimes. |
|
By:
The person who commits 10 robberies might get five years.
I agree with your point about parole. If you only have to overcome one hearing, it could be an incentive to good behaviour. Prison population? Maybe. The prison population is currently around 90,000; I think it was around 60,000 in 1990. |
|
By:
They seem to get much longer sentences in America, I suppose they don't do the concurrent fiddle so much over there.
If you're trying to keep the prison population down by handing out lenient sentences, it can only have the opposite effect on crime. |
|
By:
I'd guess that a 1.5x population increase over 30 years costs a lot. in any case, total population has not increased at that rate.
Inflation, health + safety, greater incidence of mental health problems. Anyway, I'm saying that if you do 2 crimes, you should pay for both. |
|
By:
Don't worry about the cost of locking people up we can well afford it
I sometimes think the cuts which make prison more uncomfortable for prisoners, are done mainly for that reason. |
|
By:
Total population would not need to rise at the same rate if some sections of society contain a highly disproportionate number of criminals.
|
|
By:
Logical extension of the Buy One Get One Free concept.
|
|
By:
Plea bargaining might be a factor.
|
|
By:
I agree with R_B, a string of crimes should result in a string of sentences.
This rubbish about bribing criminals with concurrent sentences to make them confess to other crimes, is only there to help the police with their clear up figures. |
|
By:
Dr Crippen • June 12, 2019 2:51 PM BST
Don't worry about the cost of locking people up we can well afford it I sometimes think the cuts which make prison more uncomfortable for prisoners, are done mainly for that reason. Whats all the non prison related spending cuts all about then? |
|
By:
They're to reverse the state dependency amongst the population created by Labour when they were in charge, and of course to get the deficit down.
We're still finding plenty for stuff like HS2. There was no urgent need for the cuts to prison services. |
|
By:
There's no point in throwing money down the drain on stuff like benefits for people who are too idle to work.
It simply encourages others to follow their lead and live off the state as well. |
|
By:
It would be more accurate to say 'if it's not us effected by cuts then they are ok and all others be damned'
Everything has been cut, even police budgets. |
|
By:
All well and good arguing for a prison reform system to retain funding when coppers shelve 60% of crimes without investigating them, even worse for fraud crime....and the origin of funding cuts for the worse off leads to a cycle of crime too anyway.
|
|
By:
This may come, this may come as some surprise
But I miss you I could see through all of your lies But still I miss you  |
|
By:
and the origin of funding cuts for the worse off leads to a cycle of crime too anyway.
So are you saying that the worse off are basically criminal? |
|
By:
certainly more likely to be due to desperation
|
|
By:
The irony is ofc that they are slow learners....if they realised white collar crime rewards more and punishes less theyd perhaps be more of that sort of criminal
|
|
By:
So you are saying that the worse off are basically criminal. I see.
|
|
By:
Im saying they are driven to it yes.
Still pales into insignificance though compared to the collective theft from those who do it for greed rather than need  |