Sentencing Policy
The Westminster government signalled today that it is backing away from a proposal to give criminals a guaranteed 50% reduction in their sentences.
The logic being that if they owned up and plead guilty at the start of criminal proceedings - many victims of crime would be spared an ordeal and the taxpayer would save lots of money.
Now I can't see too much wrong with that proposal - given that criminals already receive 33.3% off their sentences more or less automatically - and have done for many years.
What's the big principle at stake if a criminal sentenced to 6 years - ends up serving 3 years (50%) in jail or 4 years (33.3%) as happens now anyway.
The real problem is that sentences for some crimes are far too low - and this is what has created a public furore - not the proposal to have a 50% versus 33.3% reduction in time served.
Sex attackers, rapists and other violent criminals are routinely given sentences that seem terribly lenient to the general public - and often these same violent offenders come out and do the same thing again.
So the real issue is about having the punishment fit the crime - by increasing the tariff served for crimes of violence instead of applying a blanket reduction - be it 50% or 33.3% for that matter.
Taking violent crminals and likely repeat offenders off the street - is the real issue.
And that is an approach that most sensible people would endorse - I think.
The logic being that if they owned up and plead guilty at the start of criminal proceedings - many victims of crime would be spared an ordeal and the taxpayer would save lots of money.
Now I can't see too much wrong with that proposal - given that criminals already receive 33.3% off their sentences more or less automatically - and have done for many years.
What's the big principle at stake if a criminal sentenced to 6 years - ends up serving 3 years (50%) in jail or 4 years (33.3%) as happens now anyway.
The real problem is that sentences for some crimes are far too low - and this is what has created a public furore - not the proposal to have a 50% versus 33.3% reduction in time served.
Sex attackers, rapists and other violent criminals are routinely given sentences that seem terribly lenient to the general public - and often these same violent offenders come out and do the same thing again.
So the real issue is about having the punishment fit the crime - by increasing the tariff served for crimes of violence instead of applying a blanket reduction - be it 50% or 33.3% for that matter.
Taking violent crminals and likely repeat offenders off the street - is the real issue.
And that is an approach that most sensible people would endorse - I think.
