Not doing consecutive sentencing seems like it would introduce a moral hazard wherein the criminal feels free to commit lesser crimes than their worst crime in

Not doing consecutive sentencing seems like it would introduce a moral hazard wherein the criminal feels free to commit lesser crimes than their worst crime in a crime spree (e.g. if he robbed someone at gunpoint, then breaking into houses should be done without fear of additional penalty and only avoided bc it increases the likelihood of being caught). Of course, my above statement assumes some rationality on the part of the criminal (and econ of crime analysis by Gary Becker, which presumes as such, has been mostly debunked -- most criminals aren't rational)