cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1175741
Archived version: https://archive.ph/iGl8S
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230807194307/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66429735
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1175741
Archived version: https://archive.ph/iGl8S
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230807194307/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66429735
I don’t even understand why concurrent sentences exist. if you do multiple crimes you should serve time for them all, regardless of who you are.
Because prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation and not punishment. If you ban concurrent sentences, you might as well just shoot anyone with 50+ years of consecutive time in the head, it’s a whole lot more humane.
No, apparently it’s more humane to abolish the death penalty and let them rot,
I personally disagree, but most people seem to agree. But I also have never been in a situation where I’d seriously have to choose, so obviously my opinion ins somewhat academic.
It makes some sense when multiple crimes were committed but it was one event. Robbing a liquor store becomes several different crimes with their own max sentences. Sure there were multiple laws broken but they only did one thing. The issue is how grey that line becomes and how much authority a judge has over a crime’s punishment and when you factor in things like if the robber shot the clerk.