For two reasons, I think.
1. To ensure the convicted is not overly punished for his crime. If he’s already serving a sentence that will take up most of his productive life, there is no sense in adding to it.
2. To get an easy conviction. Unfortunately, inmates have figured out that the system can’t punish them more than it does so it becomes a bargaining chip for him to trade admitting to a crime in exchange for consideration of sentencing.
The system only has so much money to investigate and prosecute a crime, so it can save some trouble by getting an inmate to admit to a crime if his sentence will be included in time that he’s already serving. It’s a money factor in that situation. Is it in the state’s best interest to spend millions of dollar on a case where the convicted is already serving a severe sentence for something?
Thanks for the answer.
On #1 he killed 2 women…I don’t see how anything could be excessive punishment. Including death.
On the rest yes that makes sense.