Imposition of Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences in American Federal Criminal Law

Öz

In the American criminal justice system, the execution of sentences for individuals convicted of multiple crimes constitutes a complex and highly debated aspect of the criminal justice system. This study aims to analyze the legal framework, case law, and practical issues regarding the consecutive and concurrent application of sentences in the American criminal justice system. It examines the broad discretionary power granted to federal judges under 18 U.S.C. §3584 concerning consecutive or concurrent application of sentences and the limits of this authority, while also comparatively and briefly examining the relationship between the merger doctrine and the institution of joinder of crimes in Turkish and German law. It is observed that the American system has not adopted a more distinct principle of the joinder of crimes, unlike Turkiye and Germany where offenses are combined. Additionally, the interpretation differences in the application of distinct provisions such as §924(c) and §924(j), as well as the legal basis of coterminous sentences, are controversial. The findings of the study reveal that there is no systematic regulation regarding the consecutive or concurrent execution of sentences in American federal criminal law, and uniformity in practice among courts cannot be achieved. The study concludes that this situation undermines the principles of legal certainty and predictability and that a uniform application and effective standardization need to be ensured.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Imprisonment
• Multiple Sentences
• Consecutive Sentence
• Concurrent Sentence
• Joinder of Crimes and Punishments

Kaynakça

1. Albrecht HJ, ‘Sentencing in Germany: Explaining Long-Term Stability in the Structure of Criminal Sanctions and Sentencing’ (2013) 76(1) Law and Contemporary Problems 211 google scholar
2. Ashworth A, Sentencing and Criminal Justice (6th edn, Cambridge University Press 2015) google scholar
3. Bacigal RJ, Criminal Law and Procedure (3rd edn., Cengage Learning 2009) google scholar
4. Berry W W III, ‘Capital Felony Merger’ (2021) 111 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 605 google scholar 
5. Binder G, ‘Making the Best of Felony Murder’ (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 403 google scholar 
6. Bixon Law, ‘The Merger Doctrine’ (Bixon Law, 21st December 2023) [suspicious link removed] accessed 18 January 2025 google scholar
7. Bohlander M, Principles of German Criminal Procedure (2nd ed. Hart Publishing 2021) google scholar
8. Boyce RN and Perkins RM, Criminal Law and Procedure (7th edn, The Foundation Press, 1989)google scholar

9. Cardwell J W, ‘Criminal Law - Double Punishment - Intent and Objective Test’ (1964) 18(2) SMU Law Review 275 google scholar
10. Escobar Veas J I, Ne Bis in Idem and Multiple Sanctioning Systems (Springer 2023) google scholar 
11. de la Vega C and others, Cruel and Unusual: U.S. Sentencing Practices in a Global Context (University of San Francisco School of Law Center for Law and Global Justice 2012) google scholar
12. Dutcher-Walls W, ‘Aggravated Disproportionality: The Merger Doctrine, Contemporaneous Felony Aggravators, and Intuitive Fairness’ (2017) 3(4) Criminal Law Practitioner 1 google scholar
13. Edwards B and Travis L, Introduction to Criminal Justice (9th edn, Cengage Learning 2024) 276 google scholar
14. Finkelstein, C., ‘Merger and Felony Murder’ in RA Duff and Stuart Green (eds), Defining Crimes: Essays on The Special Part of the Criminal Law (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice, Oxford University Press 2010) google scholar 
15. Frase, R. S., Just Sentencing: Principles and Procedures for a Workable System (Oxford University Press, 2013). google scholar 
16. Goffette E, ‘Sovereignty in Sentencing: Concurrent and Consecutive Sentencing of a Defendant Subject to Simultaneous State and Federal Jurisdiction Federal Jurisdiction’ (2003) 37(3) Valparaiso University Law Review 1035 google scholar
17. Göktürk N, Fikri İçtima (Suçların İçtimaı) (Adalet Publishing 2013) google scholar
18. Hall DE, Criminal Law and Procedure (6th edn., Cengage Learning 2012) google scholar
19. Hansmeier D, ‘Concurrent v Coterminous Sentences’ (Casetext, 14 November 2014) https://casetext.com/analysis/concurrent-v-coterminous-sentences accessed 30 December 2024 google scholar
20. Johnson P E, ‘Multiple Punishment and Consecutive Sentences: Reflections on the Neal Doctrine’ (1970) 58 California Law Review 357. google scholar
21. Koca M and Üzülmez İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (14th ed. Seçkin Publishing 2021). google scholar
22. Lippman M, Contemporary Criminal Law (5th edn, Sage, 2019) google scholar
23. Mahmutoğlu F S and Karadeniz S, Türk Ceza Kanunu Genel Hükümler Şerhi (2th Press, Beta Publishing, 2021) google scholar
24. Nemeth C, Criminal Law (Routledge 2023) google scholar
25. Note, ‘Stacked: Where Criminal Charge Stacking Happens-And Where It Doesn’t’ (2023) 136(5) Harvard Law Review 1390 google scholar
26. Obrecht A K, ‘Criminal Law - Merger of Sentences: The Legislature Says You Criminal Law - Merger of Sentences: The Legislature Says google scholar
27. You Can’t Hang ‘Em Twice; Najera v. State, 214 P.3d 990 (Wyo. 2009)’ (2012) 12 Wyoming Law Review 141google scholar
28. Özgenç İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (20th ed. Seçkin Publishing 2024) google scholar
29. Padjen I L, ‘Systematic Interpretation and the Re-systematization of Law: The Problem, Co-requisites, a Solution, Use’ (2020) 33 International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 189 google scholar
30. Palsikar A, ‘Critical Analysis of Literal Rule of Interpretation’ (2020) SSRN Electronic Journal 5 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348109146_Critical_Analysis_of_Literal_Rule_of_Interpretation#fullTextFileContent accessed 1 October 2025 google scholar
31. Robinson P H, The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2016) google scholar
32. Rogers, E, ‘The Unsystematic Issuing of Consecutive Sentences in America: A Report for the Ohio Criminal Justice Recodification Committee’ (Center for Prison Reform 2015) google scholar
33. Ross J E, ‘Damned Under Many Headings: The Problem of Multiple Punishment’ (2002) 29(2) American Journal of Criminal Law 245 google scholar
34. Sadowski H J, ‘Federal Sentence Computation Applied: The Interaction of Federal And State Sentences’ (2000) 38 The Champion 39 google scholar
35. Sady S, ‘State Sovereignty and Federal Sentencing: Why de facto Consecutive Sentencing by the Bureau of Prisons Should Not Survive google scholar
36. Bond v. United States’ (2014) 27(1) Federal Sentencing Reporter 56 google scholar
37. Sample J, ‘The Sentences That Bind (The States) (2003) 103 Columbia Law Review 969. google scholar
38. Siegel L and Worrall J, Essentials of Criminal Justice (11th edn, Cengage Learning 2019) google scholar 
39. Schmalleger F, Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21st Century (14th edn, Pearson 2016) google scholar
40. Summers S J, Judicial Imposition of Punishment, Sentencing and Human Rights: The Limits on Punishment (Oxford University Press, 2022). google scholar 
41. Taay W E, ‘Criminal Law-Double Jeopardy-Single Act as Constituting an Offense Against Two or More Persons’ (1938) 23 Marquette Law Review 37 google scholar
42. Tonry M, Sentencing Fragments: Penal Reform in America, 1975–2025 (Oxford University Press 2016)google scholar 
43. Ulmer JT and Galvin MA, ‘The “Dark Figure” of Incarceration—The Imposition of Consecutive Incarceration Sentences as a Window of Discretion’ (2025) 62(1) Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 3 google scholar
44. Worrall JL and Moore JL, Criminal Law and Procedure (Pearson 2014) google scholar