Concurrent Sentences

I like to think of myself as an intelligent person, but try as I might I just can't get my head around is this notion of concurrent sentencing.

Whereby a criminal after being convicted of multiple crimes is then deemed to be serving their mutliple sentences - at one and the same time.

I suppose it's the criminal justice equivalent of being in two places at one time - which is a strange concept.

But as you can't do that in real life - why should the universal laws of physics be suspended for people who deserve to go to jail? 

The former BBC broadcaster - Stuart Hall (83) - is as good an example as any  folllowing his 15-month sentence for 14 separate counts of indecent assault which is now being reviewed as an 'unduly lenient' sentence by the Attorney General. 

Which I think it is, by the way, because it represents just about one month in prison for each of his vile crimes - one of which involved a young girl of only 9-years-old - and he'll probably serve only half of that time in jail.

Some punishment, you might say, despite Stuart Hall's advancing years.  

But that's a whole different argument obviously, so getting back to concurrent sentencing - Hall was actually given sentences ranging from 3 months to 15 months in connection with his multiple crimes - which took place over a 20 year period between between 1967 and 1987.

Presumably each of the 14 separate counts of indecent assault attracted a sentence of between 3 and 15 months - before the judge decided that these would all run concurrently.

So that if they all added up to, say, 5 years in total - Hall's actual sentence would amount only to the length of time for one sentence, the longest or most serious sentence, which in this case amounted to 15 months.

The trial judge - Judge Russell - stated that hall would have received 20 months after a trial but that he reduced the sentence to reflect his guilty pleas, which only came after many months of denying the charges flat-out, of course.

Now if that's justice, then there's something very badly wrong with the system - because when all is said and done a sexual predator who preyed on young girls for 20 years will serve only  six months or so in jail for his terrible crimes.

Hall might not be a threat to the public any longer given his advanced years - yet that's not the point in this particular case - the point surely is to send a deterrent message to other potential sex attackers which clearly has not happened here.