Sentences Will Just Not Do.

A gang of nine men who groomed white girls as young as 13 with drink and drugs were driven by "lust and greed", a judge said on Wednesday as the group's sentences were delivered.

The men heard their sentencing at Liverpool Crown Court after being convicted yesterday of conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children under the age of 16 and other offences.

The group of nine received 118 years worth of sentencing in total, however some of the sentences will be run concurrently. (Huffington Post.)
Again we have to compare the sentences doled out to these men with the five years imposed on Sheffield United footballer Ched Evans.
If his sleazy stupidity is our benchmark with the kind of rape which must rank as a two or, at a stretch, three out of ten on the scale of seriousness - these men must be at eight out of ten. I really do not see how these sentences can possibly reflect the public's horror.
'Concurrent' sentences simply mean that the guilty only pay for a portion of their evil doing and in such cases should not be imposed.
When in court as a magistrate, we under-sentenced countless offenders when we were forced to use the principle of 'totality' - which effectively meant that you could only sentence for 'the substantive' offence in a batch.
Consequently, for example in a motoring court, an offender might be sentenced for having no vehicle insurance. The next offender has the same offence BUT a string of others. Both would receive pretty much the same disposal.
I do not know what that is but it certainly ain't justice!
I also object bitterly to the new media tactic of adding all the sentences together to make an impressive headline.
Take out the 'concurrents' and the inevitable early releases, the sentence actually served will probably be an average of six years!