I'm sure there's some legal mumbo jumb reason for this, maybe on of you knows what it is.
Lately I've seen a lot of judges during the sentancing phase of a trial being left to determine whether a criminals sentance is to be served consecutively or cocurrently.
I don't get this AT ALL.
Why is serving it concurrently an option at all?
How can you be serving a sentence for one crime while already serving a sentence for another crime? What exactly is it they're taking away from you? It's not your freedom because you've already lost that.
If a guy is convicted on four counts of auto theft and one count of vehicular manslaughter, with the auto theft being a term of 3 years per violation and manslaughter being ten years, then by my count this guys got 22 years to serve in prison.
But if the judge makes them concurrent, he's only got the 10. WHY?!?!
I don't understand. Somebody help me understand the logic.
I agree about a deal being cut. Sometimes that's the only way the P.A. can get those multiple charges brought out in court and into the defendant's records...they cut a deal to do it.