John MacDonald: Where's the justice in concurrent prison sentences?

Nothing brings out the redneck in me as much as a judge handing out a concurrent prison sentence. 

You know the situation. A person’s found guilty on, say, two charges —let’s say they get two-year sentences for each— but they don’t go to prison for two years plus two years (four years), instead, they serve the sentences concurrently. Meaning they’re serving both sentences at the same time. 

It’s something the Government is turning its attention to with these tougher sentencing laws it’s cracking on with, but I don’t think it’s going far enough. 

It’s introducing legislation to deliver the tougher sentences it promised prior to the election. Paul Goldsmith, the Justice Minister, says the changes are going to mean criminals will “face real consequences for crime and victims are prioritised”, saying there has been a trend in recent years where courts have handed-out fewer and shorter prison sentences. 

Stupidly, he’s saying that the legislation changes will help ensure there will be 20,000 fewer victims of crime within five years and that serious repeat offending by young people will be down by 15 percent. 

I say stupidly because the Government has no idea whether that will happen or not. It might be its target. But, anyway, they’re a couple of outcomes the Government thinks we will see as a result of these tougher sentences. 

And it’s all the stuff that people have been talking about and the politicians have been banging-on about for a while: the legislation is going to put limits on sentencing discounts judges can apply.  

It’s going to mean harsher penalties for anyone involved in crimes against sole-charge workers or at places where people live and work. So that’s your dairies, where the family lives out the back or upstairs. 

Young people who commit crimes over and over again can forget about sentence discounts because of their age or because they say “sorry”. 

But the one that I’m most interested in, is what the new legislation is going to do about concurrent sentencing. Which I think is a good start, but I also think the Government should be doing more, going further on this one. 

As it stands at the moment, through this new legislation, the Government is going to encourage judges to hand out cumulative sentences for crimes committed by people on bail, in custody or on parole - instead of concurrent sentences.  

So if they’re in custody and commit a crime in prison, that’ll get added to the time they’re already serving. If they’re on bail and commit more than one crime and they’re sent back to prison, they’ll serve time for each crime. Not concurrently. The same if they’re on parole.   

And, as far as I’m concerned, these are all good things. I don't necessarily think that this will stop these people from re-offending, because I’ve never bought the argument that tougher sentences stop people from offending.  

Because, most of the time, their heads aren’t screwed on properly, anyway. And thinking about the punishment they might get if they’re caught is probably the last thing they’re thinking about at the time. 

But these changes are great for victims of crime and their sense of justice. But, as I said earlier, I don’t think the Government is going far enough. 

I think we need to pretty much do away with concurrent sentences for all crimes. For all criminals. Because how can anyone think it is fair and reasonable to send someone away for the least amount of time? 

Which is what happens when someone serves their sentences concurrently. They’ve done multiple crimes, they’ve been found guilty on each of them, there is a punishment for each crime, but —in real terms— they are punished as if they’ve only c

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talks, EDB, News and Views You Can Trust
Canary Mornings with John McDonald and Smote Grass where the
grass is Always Greener.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
News Talks EDB, Mornie Kenedy. We are with you till midday.
If you, by the way, if you know any muppets
who like to do a bit of tailgating and weather
like this, or who screaming along at the normal speed
and weather like this, can you just get them to
stay off the roads today plays or buy them a
bus ticket. Speaking of driving, a guy in Auckland decided
today that it was shocking as well. He saigned shocking

(00:43):
at a police officer called him up on as mobile
phone while he was driving to tell him to stop
using his phone. It was mounted on the dashboard, you see,
and he was looking at Google Maps when the cops
spotted him, looked up the records on the computer and
gave him a phone call. And he says, given all
the talk from the police about not getting distracted by
things like phones, the cop was wrong to ring him
while he was still driving. We'll get to that one
after eleven and remember too, to make sure you've got

(01:05):
the Iheartradi app loaded onto your phone, because then you
can listen to us anywhere anytime, whether you're you're at
radio or not. You can also follow the Canaban Mornings
podcast twenty four to seven on iHeartRadio or wherever else
it is that you get your podcasts right now though
at eight minutes past nine, you know, nothing brings out
the redneck in me as much as a judge handing

(01:27):
out a concurrent prison sentence. You know, the situation a
person's found guilty on say, let's say found guilty on
two charges, and let's say hypothetically they get two year
sentences for each of those convictions, but they don't go
to prison for two years plus two years equally four years.

(01:50):
That doesn't happen. And said, they serve the sentences concurrently,
meaning they're serving both sentences at the same time. They're
on in cyber two years. Like I say, if there's
anything that brings brings out the red neck and mean,
it's that those concurrent sentences, and it's something that government's

(02:10):
turning its attention to with these tougher sentencing laws. It's
cracking on with this week. But I don't think I
don't think it's going far enough. So this week it's
introducing legislation to deliver what it promised prior to the election,
and Paul Goldsmith, the Justice Minister, says the changes are
going to mean criminals will quote face real consequences for

(02:32):
crime and victims are prioritized end of quote, saying that
there's been a trend in recent years where courts have
handed out fewer and shorter prison sentences and so the
government's going to do something about it. Stupidly, though, he
is saying that the legislation changes will help ensure that
there'll be twenty thousand fewer victims of crime within five years,

(02:56):
and that thanks to the legislation, serious repeat offending by
young people will be down by fifteen percent. I say
stupidly because the government's got no idea whether that will
happen or not. Might be its target, but anyway, there
are a couple of outcomes the government thinks we will
see as a result of these tougher sentences, and it's

(03:18):
all the stuff that people have been talking about and
the politicians have been banging on about for a while.
Legislation is going to do things like put limits on
sentencing discounts judges can apply. It's going to mean harsher
penalties for anyone involved in crimes against sole charged workers
or at places where people live and work. So that's
what your daries, where the family lives out the back
or upstairs. Young people who commit crimes over and over again,

(03:41):
they can forget about sentence discounts because of their age,
because they say sorry, sorry afterwards. But the one that
I'm most interested in and the one that I want
to get your thoughts on today, is what the new
legislation is going to do about concurrent sentencing. I think
it's a good start, but I also think the government

(04:03):
should be doing more going further on this one. When
it comes to concurrent sentencing, I hate it as it
stands at the moment. Through this new legislation, the government's
going to encourage judges to hand out cumulative sentences for
crimes committed by people on bail, in custody or on
parole instead of concurrent sentences. So if they're in custody

(04:28):
and they commit a crime in prison, that'll get added
to the time they're already serving. If they're on bail
and they commit more than one crime and they're sent
back to prison. They'll serve time for each crime, not concurrently,
same if they're on parole. Now, as far as I'm concerned,

(04:49):
these are all good things. I don't necessarily think that
this will stop these people from reoffending, because I've never
bought the argument actually that tougher sentences stop people from offending,
because most of the time their heads aren't screwed on
properly anyway, are they? Are they and thinking about the
partnishment they might get if they're court is probably the
last thing they are thinking about at the time and

(05:11):
the heat of the moment. But these changes are great
for victims of crime and their sense of justice. But
as I said earlier, I don't think the government is
going far enough. I think we need to pretty much
do away with concurrent sentences for all crimes, for all criminals,

(05:31):
because how can anyone think it is fair and reasonable
to send someone away for the least amount of time,
which is what happens. This is what happens when someone
serves their sentences concurrently. They've done multiple crimes, They've been
found guilty on each of them. There is a punishment
for each crime, but in real terms. They're punished as

(05:53):
if they committed one crime. It's nuts, isn't it. And
I reckon that if the government was really serious, it
would be doing a way with concurrent sentences all together.

Speaker 1 (06:06):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news Talks at be Christchurch from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.