NOT A RANT: Why is it that in the UK, sentencing for serious crimes APPEARS so lenient?

Ade

New member
Rather than asking for others to chip in with their 'Sun Says' opinions, I'm asking those with a good knowledge of Law and the legal system. There seems to be a large discrepancy between the sentences handed out for many crimes such as murder and serious child abuse and what most people would expect as a proportionate punishment...life sentences seem to be rate and killers seem to be free with a new identity in just a few years. Where do the sentences come from? I hate the idea of mob justice or trial by media, but surely there must be be some kind of political or public accountability somewhere down the line?

(Only answers by those knowledgeable of the legal system please).
 
1. Pleading Guilty
If you plead guilty to any offence at the first oppertunity you are likely to get about a 1/3rd reduction in sentencing. What's published is the final sentence given, not what the judge regarded as the right sentence for the crime.

2. Selective Reporting
There is very little percentage in reporting cases where someone commits an ordinary crime and gets a reasonable sentence. The media will only report it if the crime is unusual, or the sentence is obviously insufficient or excessive. It's not even considered particularly newsworthy to report long sentences, unless the crime involved is also interesting.
In one terrorist trial, a defendant, requesting an estimate of sentence, was told that, taking into account that he was neither an instigator, nor principle planner or participant in an intended attack, he should expect a sentence of around 50 years...

3. Misunderstanding of Sentencing
The media like to report figures. They like to say that someone got 5 years or whatever, when in fact they got *life* with a recommendation that they serve *at least* 5 years. That does not mean they get out after 5 years, it means after 5 years the probation authorities (not the judges) can *consider* letting them out. The media do not understand, or do not bother to explain, the meaning of sentences given.
Take the case recently reported of a teenage rapist, the media generally reported that he got 3 years. What he actually got was an indeterminate sentence for the public protection, which is similar to a life sentence. Again, he can be considered for release after 3 years, but the decision is for the probation service, as to whether they believe he is still a threat. If he remains a threat he will (in theory) remain in prison. Indefinately.

4. Sentencing Guidelines.
Judges do not just make it up as they go along. For many of the more common crimes there are sentencing guidelines on which sentences are based. Departure from those guidelines can result in an appeal against sentence. The guidelines are not written by the judiciary, and are influenced by politics and administrative considerations (like the number of prison places).

5. Memory.
Injustice is more keenly felt than justice. People are more likely to recall an inadequate sentence than a satisfactory one, and it is more likely to come to mind next time the issue arises.
 
over crowding = cost
US prison governs instead of releasing people early because of over crowding are prone to stick up tents and bunks in the prison yards, which is a good idea.

Sentences in the UK are becoming shorter and then prisoners face only doing only 2/3rd or less time plus they can get time off for good behaviour.

AGAIN it's all down to money over the victims rights for justice.
 
Back
Top