As so often happens the 38 year minimum sentence handed down to Stuart Hazell has been greeted with cries that it was not long enough, and even that he ought to serve the time, and then be hung. Bereaved relatives of the victim may be excused such thoughts,and the reaction in the Mail's comments varies predictably between gloating and indignation that the sentence was so short.
Richard Littlejohn, the Mail's resident why-oh-why specialist has a go with his customary vigour about 'honesty in sentencing' highlighting the release of Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce who have been released exactly as per the standard procedure but whom the less scrupulous parts of the press are insinuating to have had special treatment.
To be fair, Littlejohn has a point; the way in which sentences are now presented does not increase public confidence in the justice system. My maximum sentence for a single offence is six months, but for a guilty plea it is effectively more like six weeks, albeit a quarter might be spent on a tag.
I fear that sorting this out has gone into the too-difficult box along with umpteen other issues.
The Times leader this morning (sorry can't put up link due to paywall) also makes reference for the need for greater clarity in sentencing. If readers can lay their hands on a copy then this makes interesting reading.
ReplyDeleteWe've been here before. The problem is primarily a presentational one. A sentence is announced in court that is nothing like the actual sentence that will be served.
ReplyDeleteIf this system were turned on it's head, such that minimum sentences were given, assuming full discount for good behaviour, being released under licence etc, with the appropriate proviso that such a minimum term depended on the behaviour of the prisoner, then much of the ammunition would be removed from the DM, et al.
At the moment I don't think we can really blame the media for highlighting that actual sentences served are a small fraction of those given , they are simply reporting on what to many seems a fairly ludicrous state of affairs.
Judges in the Crown Court frequently do tell the defendant that they will serve half and many often state the actual time the defendant will spend in prison. This happens less often in mags courts where they are pressed for time.
DeleteBut, I agree it is a presentational problem that needs addressing.
It certainly needs addressing, and not just from the presentational point of view that the public assume that the judiciary are responsible for the short time served in custody, rather than the Home Office which gave prison governors authority to send people home so early in their sentences.
DeleteThe current system also calls into question why judges and magistrates should give so much care to getting the custodial element right (What is the appropriate term, how much should be deducted for plea, announce 50% served on licence), if the whole thing can then be subverted by a shortage of accommodation.
Perhaps the American system e.g. in the Huhne case the sentence would be announced as serving 2 to 8 months. 8 being the maximum one would serve and 2 the minimum.
ReplyDeleteThere is a definite problem with the way sentences are handed down at the moment. Whenever a court imposes a custodial sentence the defendant will serve half. So, while the maximum sentence Bystander can theoretically impose may be 6-months, the reality is that when he passes a 6-month sentence the defendant will only serve 3-months and in many cases will be released even earlier than that.
ReplyDeleteA client of mine was stabbed three-times last year. The man who stabbed him was sentenced in November 2012 and received just 18-months imprisonment. It is now May and has already been released from prison!
If a judge sentences somebody to 6-months then the person should serve 6-months, albeit with earned remission. But the current system of automatically releasing people at the half-way point is make a mockery of the CJS.
I always find violent crime sentences quite astonishing. The idea that someone who would take a knife and stab someone three times should be free to walk the streets 6 months later feels a bit bizarre.
ReplyDeleteI recognise the extent to which politicians set sentencing guidelines, but it feels like that kind of attack needs something stiffer. Apparently simple posession of a knife can carry up to 5 years (http://safe.met.police.uk/knife_crime_and_gun_crime/consequences_and_the_law.html) so it feels as if stabbing someone three times should be treated more seriously than this.
Not quite right. Politicians do not set sentencing guidelines. They enact statutes which provide for maximum sentences. Sentencing guidelines come from the judiciary - increasingly these days from the Sentencing Council.
DeleteThanks for the clarification!
DeleteCan anyone cast any light on why Huhne is facing twice the costs of Pryce (£100K vs less than £50K)? Huhne pleaded guilty, albeit late, whereas Pryce pleaded not guilty - twice.
ReplyDeleteHuhne spent more time doing a run around, raising false leads, and trying to exclude evidence from the trial. He only changed his plea after he failed to exclude some fairly damning evidence.
DeleteYes - Chris Huhne made by all accounts some 14 attempts to have the case thrown out of court. The prosecution had to pay to prepare for all those, and court time was used. Why should he not pay when he finally pleads guilty?
ReplyDeleteVicky Pryce followed the normal course of a not guilty trial. She therefore pays a good whack of those costs, dependent on her means.
Both have substantial defense costs as well.
I don't *know* but would guess that it relates to the actual time spent on the case. Huhne was claim he was not the driver, so presumably considerable time was spent finding evidence that he was.
ReplyDeleteI'm just a Little(john?) confused- what might be the logistics of "Serve a Whole Life sentence of imprisonment - and then be hanged"
ReplyDelete[Perhaps something like the 'Oliver Cromwell' solution?]
With this sentence the prisoner will not serve half of 38 years. He will serve more than that for definite.
ReplyDeleteIt is a life tariff, so he gets the "tariff" part which is 38 years, and then he has to convince the parole board he is safe for release. That is not the end of his sentence, he is then on "life licence" and subject to recall to prison at any time without trial, and then once in prison the parole board has to authorise his release.
The confusion I think comes from the difference between a life tariff and a life sentence. Life sentence means they will be under sentence for life, but does not mean it will all be served in prison. A life tariff means spending the rest of your life in prison.
In terms of length, he is currently 37. So by the end of his Tariff he will have spent more than half his life in prison (not including his other spells inside) and will be 75. Then he has to argue that it is safe for him to be released. If he lives that long, prison's are notoriously dangerous for child rapists and 38 years of attacks, bad food and poor living conditions is likely to leave him a wreck. Every good year remaining in his life is likely to be in prison.
Should he serve a whole life tariff? I don't know. Part of me says yes as he killed someone, but then I struggle to think of any punishment that is enough for that. So what is the point as we can't even get close to sufficient punishment? At the same time, if we set a whole life tariff we say that they are beyond redemption, and I struggle to accept that any man is totally beyond redemption.
I find it fascinating that he predicted in a letter to his father that he would be facing 15-18 years. What was the source of this figure? Presumably it can only be public misunderstanding of how long sentences are. Yet the idea is prevalent that the sentence should be worse than the actual one of over 38 years for deterrence. I don't really believe in deterrence, but if we're going to at least try it, there's a bit of a Dr Strangelovian paradox that it might help if people actual *knew* what to expect.
ReplyDelete