Last updated: December 6th, 2012
The Sentencing Council is a useless, expensive quango. We don't need it: sentencing should be left to judges
"Today it is reported that the Sentencing Council is to reconsider the lengths of sentences given to sex offenders to make sure they are commensurate with the seriousness of particular offences. As we used to say, the punishment should fit the crime. But how are they to judge the seriousness? The Council says, “The perspective of victims is central to our considerations. We want to ensure sentences reflect everything the victim has been through.”
The Council is also determined to pay heed to “The potentially catastrophic long term effect on the victim.” Singled out for particular attention are those crimes in which the attack was filmed by the attacker or his associates."
"So there seems to be a new practice of discussing crime almost exclusively as if it concerned only the perpetrator [hardly] and the victim. The other day there was the case of a burglar let off lightly by the judge. The objections to this let-off were expressed – even by the Lord Chief Justice himself – in terms of the offensiveness of the act of burglary to the feelings of all who have been burgled. This is wrongheaded, touchy-feely. Jurisprudence should deal with consequences in law, not [alleged] psychological effects."