If we're being honest about the legal zeitgeist, judges are not piling on multiple life sentences because they're trying to shore up a wall of convictions, like some kind of sentencing severability clause. They do it because it's flashy and the mob likes it. That there exists a kernel of grounded benefit in it after the fact doesn't make it less ridiculous, because it's an absurdly inefficient way to handle nullifications.
> If we're being honest about the legal zeitgeist, judges are not piling on multiple life sentences because they're trying to shore up a wall of convictions, like some kind of sentencing severability clause.
No, they are doing it for a number of reasons, including early release calculations; which is why they aren't doing it in the US federal system which doesn't have early release on parole, and does use holistic sentencing with the aggregate maximum sentence of crimes in the same proceeding as the outer limit, but sentencing usually determined by a complex holistic formula based on various factors surrounding the crimes under the federal sentencing guidelines.
That's not necessary true in a system with early release where release eligibility is based on the original sentence.
Heck, even in a system without that, if there is a possibility of one the verdicts later being nullified or the associated sentence altered, there is a potentially signficant practical difference.