Now. Let us think about sentencing for the child rapists found guilty in our courts. Let us consider the reality.
Let us say that proper sentencing - largely fuelled by public outrage of the countless atrocities committed - ends up deciding that a 30 year sentence is appropriate would have the public cooing with delight.
BUT. That will not be the reality:
1) A 'timely guilty plea' (largely for the convenience of the CPS) will see ONE WHOLE THIRD removed from the sentence. This almost always happens when a defendant has no prospect of gaining a not guilty verdict. Thirty years turns into twenty.
2) The judge will then chip heavily away at the remaining 20 years by seeking excuses to reduce the sentence even further. Typically, 'reasons' will be found and it is possible that a horde of especially lame claims - pressed by sickeningly unjust barristers - will be presented. Every chance that at least another five years will be trimmed off! Fifteen years remain.
3) In my time in the courts, it was usual that one third could be removed from a given spell in prison had the felon behaved well. (The definition of 'good behaviour' became gradually more lax as the years went by. Effectively, a third was deducted for almost all prisoners.)
4) So, THIRTY years has becomes ten. (HOW can this happen?) Let us not forget that Labour has been talking of taking actual sentences down by two thirds - using the excuse that prisons are brimful of miscreants. Room must be made for newcomers!
So, there we have it. In the blink of an eye and some pretty dodgy sleights of hand - a scumbag who should be looking at 30 years - may end up back on the streets in just 5.
This does not happen with every sentencing but it is terrifyingly common.
Blogger. JP, Chair of Magistrates, Qualified To Sit in Crown Court. (Retired.)
.jpeg)