Concurrent sentences
Concurrent sentences refer to a judicial decision where a defendant serves multiple sentences at the same time, rather than consecutively, meaning one after the other. This arrangement typically applies when a defendant is convicted of more than one crime simultaneously. When sentences are served concurrently, the total time spent in prison is often equivalent to the length of the longest individual sentence imposed. Judges have the discretion to order concurrent sentences based on various factors, including the nature of the crimes and the circumstances of the offender. In some cases, concurrent sentences may be the result of plea bargaining, where defendants negotiate with prosecutors for a more lenient punishment.
However, state laws can dictate when judges are permitted to impose concurrent versus consecutive sentences, often requiring consecutive sentences when the crimes are distinct in nature. Critics of concurrent sentencing argue that it may result in offenders receiving less punishment than warranted, as they serve the same amount of time as for the most serious crime committed, potentially undermining accountability for additional offenses. This topic highlights the complex interplay between judicial discretion, legal frameworks, and the principles of justice.
On this Page
Concurrent sentences
SIGNIFICANCE: Judges determine whether defendants serve their sentences concurrently or consecutively based on factors related to the specific crimes and the offenders.
When defendants are convicted of more than one crime at the same time, the judges in their cases have the option of deciding whether the sentences for the individual crimes should run consecutively (one after the other) or concurrently (at the same time). When judges choose to order defendants to serve their sentences concurrently, the total time that the offenders serve—barring other complications—is equivalent to the lengths of their longest sentences.
Concurrent sentences sometimes arise out of plea bargaining. Additionally, judges may decide to be more lenient on particular offenders or view the crimes of which defendants are convicted as being so closely related to one another as to amount to a single crime. However, state laws may set the conditions under which judges can decide to have sentences run concurrently. Typically, state laws require judges to impose consecutive sentences, instead of concurrent sentences, when the crimes, or purposes behind the individual crimes, are distinct.
A major criticism of the principle of concurrent sentences is that offenders who serve their sentences concurrently spend only as much time in prison as they would if they were convicted of only the most serious charges brought against them. They thus go unpunished for their additional crimes, while other defendants who commit the same combinations of crimes may serve longer sentences.
Bibliography
Demleitner, Nora V., Douglas A. Berman, Marc L. Miller, and Ronald F. Wright. Sentencing Law and Policy: Cases, Statutes, and Guidelines. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2003.
Kettering, Lou. "US Supreme Court Rules That Federal Sentencing Law Does Not Require Consecutive Sentences." Jurist News, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 18 June 2028, www.jurist.org/news/2023/06/us-supreme-court-rules-that-federal-sentencing-law-does-not-require-consecutive-sentences/. Accessed 25 June 2024.
Tonry, Michael. Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
United States Sentencing Commission. Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2003. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, 2004.