Callistemon21
No, it's not. Miscarriages of justice are not unknown.
I do sometimes wonder, though, if someone is convicted of more than one heinous crime, why their sentence should be current.
A consecutive sentence of sufficient length would mean they will not be released and cause terror again.
Rapist Metropolitan Police officer David Carrick has been handed 36 life sentences, with a minimum term of 32 years, after committing “violent and brutal sexual offences” against a dozen women.
They are to run concurrently.
Consecutive sentences are a feature of American justice, but I don't believe they prevent people from committing crimes.
I have always been and still am opposed to capital punishment, and I find it hard to believe that if you risk the death penalty for having murdered someone the temptation to do away with any potential witness won't be very strong.
Longer sentences would of course increase public expense. Whether they would work as a deterrent, I have no way of judging, but I suspect they would not.
Perhaps murders and rapists should like the criminally insane be kept in prison until a board of psycologists is willing to certify that they will not repeat the crime.
This too will cost money, but surely it is more important to protect people against those that commit violent crimes than to cut the costs of public expenditure?