Dear Editor,
I have never understood, and will never understand the rationale of "concurrent sentencing."
I mean, what's the point?
You kill somebody, get caught and face "life" (which, of course, never really means life anyway).
So, why not kill again if your sentences are just going to be imposed "concurrently?"
If that makes any sense to you, then why not "concurrent fines" for example?
That, at least, might have some popular support.
So, you speed, get caught and your fine is anywhere from $140 to maybe $450.
Applying that rationale, if you rack up a whole pile of speeding tickets, shouldn't you be able to pay all the fines with just one fine?
Where does this serve the concept of preventative punishment?
Greg Wilmot, Pitt Meadows
