|
Post by swl on Jan 14, 2009 16:05:38 GMT
... or the criminal?
There has been a bit of talk lately about mandatory jail sentences, particularly for knife crime, removing Judge's discretion in sentencing. Is this a good idea?
On the one hand, mandatory sentences are a clear, unambiguous example of justice being seen to be done. As things stand, the public are not privy to the full details of the criminal's background and so varying sentences to similar crimes can seem a touch bizarre.
I'm open-minded on this one and can see pros and cons on both sides, so I'd be interested to hear the views of others.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 14, 2009 20:17:43 GMT
I am not very enamoured of mandatory sentences for the majority of crimes. Nor do I believe that punishing the crime and treating the criminal are necessarily opposed.
I do confess that for certain crimes it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that only some sort of mandatory sentence will do, but it could and should contain a sliding scale whereby a minimum and maximum tariff were served.
Clearly, it is also important to consider the circumstances of the crime and indeed even at times to ask ourselves whether or not a custodial sentence is remotely appropriate.
Equally, we must never allow ourselves to forget that the ultimate purpose of punishment is to protect society from the offender.
Particularly with crimes of violence and murder, it seems difficult to argue against the need for some type of custodial sentence. I am not inflexible about the amount of time that should be served nor even the greater or lesser severity of the conditions in individual cases.
However, I am firmly persuaded that a one-size fits all approach to justice is inefficient, unjust and ultimately counterproductive.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2009 19:31:29 GMT
anything other than mandatory sentences are, by definition, discriminatory. you can't be much more discriminating than giving one individual six months for the same crime as someone else gets five years. ANY difference whatsoever is clearly discrimination
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 15, 2009 20:22:46 GMT
anything other than mandatory sentences are, by definition, discriminatory. you can't be much more discriminating than giving one individual six months for the same crime as someone else gets five years. ANY difference whatsoever is clearly discrimination I agree with the principle there. (Although you don't need mandatory sentencing so long as you have consistent sentencing based only on the specifics of the crime.) Once you start to sentence on personalities rather than on behaviours . . .it's social work, not criminal justice. The EXCEPTION that we allow in our jurisdiction (and I think it's a fair one) to this general rule is that previous criminal records are taken into account, and will result in longer sentences, or a custodial rather than a community sentence for the same crime.
|
|