dissenting.
I.
I must respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which reverses the convictions of Jackson and Riggsbee.
As I previously noted in my dissent in Fair v. Commonwealth, Ky., 652 S.W.2d 864, at p. 868 (1983), the mere fact that a variety of property was taken at one time should not automatically provide a kind of judicially-approved volume discount for the thief. There is no reason for a criminal to limit his loot if he does not incur a greater penalty because of how much he steals. There is no real disincentive by means of punishment. The shrewd criminal will soon learn that the percentages are in his favor because the more you steal the relative chances of receiving a more serious penalty do not increase proportionately.
It is time to reexamine the basis for the decision in Nichols v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 180 (1879). Larceny is both an offense against the public and the individuals who suffer loss of their specific property. It is long overdue that this Court carefully reviews its entire legal philosophy about the ancient case defining the degree of punishment for the theft of 21 chickens and 7 geese more than 104 years ago.
Less than four years ago, this Court determined that separate convictions on separate counts for robbery of a hotel and robbery of the employees thereof was proper. Douglas v. Commonwealth, Ky., 586 S.W.2d 16 (1979). We should not continue the esoteric precedence of a century ago in a time when we have surely lost much of our innocence, and the crime of theft is a big and potentially profitable criminal business. I believe the decision in Douglas, supra, could be extended to the unlawful-taking provisions of the criminal code.
It appears that the legislature has attempted to address this problem by enacting KRS 514.030 and KRS 514.110. Although a prudent prosecutor should proceed with caution in using these statutes, I do not believe this marginal weapon should be removed from a prosecutor’s arsenal arbitrarily. There certainly may be cases where the two offenses presently denounced by these statutes could be used together. Sutton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 623 S.W.2d 879 (1981), indicates that theft and possession may result in two convictions. It does not necessarily mandate such a conclusion. The dicta which the majority complains of should be considered as guidance to prosecutors to carefully apply the laws to the facts in a given situation.
II.
I must respectfully but strongly disagree with some of the views regarding sentencing expressed by Justice Leibson in his opinion concurring with the majority.
Obviously a sentence beyond life will never be served. However, it is also commonly known that criminal sentences of forty years or more are now subject to being reduced to eight years depending on good behavior in prison. See 501 KAR 1:010. The practical result is that a sentence of 535 years as originally imposed here could actually be satisfied in eight years. The criminal element knows this. Prosecutors and defense lawyers know it, so why do we persist in believing like Alice-in-Wonderland that judges and juries do not know it. One of the principal purposes of punishment is to deter criminal conduct. The widespread frustration of the public with the criminal justice system is largely centered on the weak and ineffective punishment of professional criminals who repeatedly commit major offenses.
I do not believe the impact of sentencing should be conceived of as affecting the independent decision of the parole board. Punishment must clearly apply to the criminal. I can agree that the parole system should be changed by the legislature. I believe the system should more clearly address the need for an effective reduction and control of crime in our society.
I do not believe the legislative intent of the statutes noted in the concurring opinion requires a softing or reduction of any pen*837alty properly provided. I cannot entirely quarrel with the analysis placed on the language of the statutes by Justice Leib-son. However, I believe the General Assembly might wish to consider a clarification of the words in the cited statutes so as to more accurately reflect what I believe is their true intent.
The constraints of time prevent me from developing a more comprehensive and scholarly analysis of the legal philosophy which is the foundation of this entire question. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to speak to the matter in subsequent proceedings.