Spotlight on Sentencing
Perhaps it's because the system doesn't feel the need to explain its decisions to the outside world - the news reports give no reasons for the appeal court's decision.
To my mind that's insane - reasons for decisions are given in just about every other court and tribunal in the land - as far as I'm aware.
So why not in this case - why does the subject go unreported and why is there so little public debate?
Now I know that reducing someone's minimum sentence - doesn't mean that they will be released after serving only 8.5 years rather than 13 years.
But that's not the point.
What I want to know is the logic behind reducing the minimum sentence in the first place.
Because like most people I imagine I find it surprising - sick even - that a person who would sexually attack and abuse a three month old child - could be sentenced to only 13.5 years in the first place.
All the evidence I've read points to the fact that such extreme paedophiles are dangerous recidivists - people who are highly likely to re-offend - and inflict misery on other victims.
The same is true of men who carry out violent sexual attacks upon women - but time and again we read about people who are allowed to acquire a long history of such crimes - until they are finally put away for good often after murdering one of their victims.
Or maybe not - because life in prison seldom means life in prison - in the UK at least.
Now I'm open to the argument that this is a much more complex subject than it first appears - but that doesn't mean the issues involved cannot be understood by and debated by the general public.
So why are we all kept in the dark - about something that is being done in our name?
