So as it all appears quiet on the riot front, the fallout begins on the sentences for the perpetrators of the chaos. What is too long a sentence for these, and what perhaps more importantly is too short?
Yesterday the passing of four years for inciting disorder on Facebook that did not even happen seems to have been a huge catalyst for major discussion of the length of sentencing. Perhaps this is indeed too long, but only in relation to others that are being passed.
Last week on a radio discussion show, a serving officer expressed his huge disappointment over a sentence given and very rightly so. Having travelled to assist in policing the riots, he had been involved in the capture of a youth making off with items from a shop and having arrested him, they rightly believed that in the thick of the action and perpetrating a crime he would have a correct sentence passed upon him. In the event, the courts were doing extra hours and his case was heard very quickly. Next day in fact, and his sentence? One day, and as he had served it, he was released back into the community.
Then we hear of the case of Nicolas Robinson, charged with stealing water worth £3.50 from a Lidl. His sentence? Six months, with a minimum of three months in custody.
Total confusion is reigning across the sentencing of these offenders, simply because the judges pretty much don't know how to handle them. With nothing in the history books for such things, each individual judge is seemingly just making his opinion.
No one is thinking they should be let off lightly, in fact most want the book thrown at these worthless criminals. However that book needs to be reliable across the board and must not be altered to the whim of each judge.
It is true that the 1843 sentencing guidelines are not totally reliable with regard inciting disorder on Facebook, but a level playing field needs to be made so that those guilty get the correct sentence and not some knee jerk reaction sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment