First, I expect that this sentence wouldn't be completely concurrent: he'd already been in prison for some time on the original offence, it seems, when this one was committed. Quite likely there would be some time left on the new sentence when the old one expired. That is not uncommon. For instance, in the case in which I was a victim, the offender was sentenced to the same amount of time on the charge involving me as he'd been sentenced to for another almost identical offence on the same weekend, but that sentence came several months later and so effectively extended the time by 6 months or so.
But basically, look at it this way. Say the person in the story had been sentenced to 10 years on the original offence. That's what that offence merited, in the opinion of the sentencing court. The bribery offence merited 4 years.
If he'd been sentenced to serve consecutive terms, he would have ended up with a cumulative sentence of 14 years. But nothing he did merited 14 years in prison.
We only have one lifetime, and it's finite, after all! If we lived forever, it would make sense to just pile up the terms; but in our reality, sentences have to be looked at as a fraction of that finite lifetime. An offence may merit a particular sentence, but it's the
person who is being sentenced for it. A bank robbery might merit 10 years; but a person who had committed 4 bank robberies before getting caught might end up in prison for, effectively, the rest of his/her life if consecutive terms were imposed (leaving aside parole considerations). The offences would have been committed in the space of a tiny fraction of his/her life, but the punishment would use up the rest of it.
There are also the rehabilitation/reintegration aspects to consider -- again, looking at the person rather than the offence. Is anyone more likely to be effectively rehabilitated and to reintegrate more successfully after quadruple the time? Not likely. Is someone who committed 4 similar offences in a short time less likely to be rehabilitated and to reintegrate than someone who committed only one? Probably not. (Not saying that anyone is at all likely to be rehabilitated or to reintegrate, but they probably aren't going to be more likely after a longer time, or less likely if there were multiple offences in a short period.)
Consecutive sentences have pretty much fallen into disuse in Canada, as far as I've noticed. The Criminal Code includes this provision in sentencing guidelines:
"where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh"
The Supreme Court of Canada has said this:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1996/vol1/html/1996scr1_0500.htmlIt is a well established tenet of our criminal law that the quantum of sentence imposed should be broadly commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Within broader parameters, the principle of proportionality expresses itself as a constitutional obligation. A legislative or judicial sentence that is grossly disproportionate, in the sense that it is so excessive as to outrage standards of decency, will violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the context of consecutive sentences, this general principle of proportionality expresses itself through the more particular form of the totality principle, which requires a sentencing judge who orders an offender to serve consecutive sentences for multiple offences to ensure that the cumulative sentence rendered does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender.
That's pretty much what I was saying about the case you cited -- nothing he did merited 14 years in prison;
his overall culpability (in the opinion of the sentencing court, whose job it is to determine that) didn't call for that much time.
In that Supreme Court case, some of the sentences imposed were imposed consecutively, precisely because the offender's overall culpability wasn't properly expressed by the length of the sentences if served concurrently: the maximum term for each individual offence didn't reflect the gravity of the offender's conduct:
It was open to the sentencing judge to reasonably conclude that the particular blend of traditional sentencing goals required a sentence of 25 years in this instance. Moreover, on the facts, the sentencing judge was entitled to find that a overall term of imprisonment of 25 years represented a just sanction for the accused's crimes. The accused committed a vile pattern of physical and sexual abuse against the very children he was entrusted to protect. The degree of violence exhibited in these crimes was disturbingly high, and the children will undoubtedly be scarred for life. The psychiatrist and psychologist who examined the accused agree that he faces dim prospects of rehabilitation. Without doubt, the accused deserves a severe sentence which expresses society's revulsion at his crimes.
Now, what *I* find bizarre is the US practice of imposing consecutive life sentences. I'm curious whether there is any reason for that other than what amounts to the court saying "you are really, really, really, really bad"; I suppose it might have to do with ensuring that the individual is never eligible for parole, but it strikes me that there are more reasonable ways of doing that. To my mind, the absurdity of "consecutive life sentences" doesn't make the judicial system look particularly rational.
.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
