I'm getting increasingly fed up with people criticising the criminal justice system (CJS) who quite clearly no idea how it works. I'm not suggesting that the current system is perfect, and that there doesn't need to be any improvement, but some of the criticisms levelled at the CJS are at best mistaken, and at worst downright ridiculous.
The most common complaint is sentencing; I've read on various forums many criticisms. Yet none of the articles referred to by the authors of reason, as they like to think of themselves, contain any of the full details. There's usually no mention of pleas in mitigation, and if there is any reference to it, it's normally just a snippet, and not the full picture. Similarly, the article doesn't give all of the details of the crime itself, just the juicy parts that make for interesting reading. I've observed hearings from the public gallery, and the newspaper report on any case will skirt over the issues, not go into any detail.
Whilst criticising the length of a sentence, the reader is not usually made aware that the defendant in that case pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, Even where this has been alluded to, or in the rare case it is explicitly mentioned, the reader is not informed that the defendant may be entitled to up to a third off the total sentence. Many friends of mine aren't aware that this is the case, so I assume that the reporter believes that it's common knowledge. Er, wrong. If the general public were so au fait with the law, there would be no need for lawyers.
Earlier this year, one local man was jailed for robbery after taking a traffic warden's camera. His family, outraged at the two year sentence, launched a campaign to have his sentence cut. There's no mention that he was given the maximum credit for his guilty plea; the judge was looking at a three year sentence. But as robbery carries a maximum life sentence, three years needs to be considered with some perspective. The Sentencing Guidelines for Robbery suggest a maximum of five years for street robbery, the nearest pigeon hole for this particular incident. The Guidlelines go on to say:
The Court said that, irrespective of the offender’s age and previous record, a custodial sentence would be the court’s only option for this type of offence unless there were exceptional circumstances, and further:
· the sentencing bracket was 18 months to 5 years, but the upper limit of 5 years might not be appropriate ‘if the offences are committed by an offender who has a number of previous convictions and if there is a substantial degree of violence, or if there is a particularly large number of offences committed
· subject to the same qualifications, the upper limit would normally be three years in cases where no weapon was used
· an offence would be more serious if the victim was vulnerable because of age (whether elderly or young), or if it had been carried out by a group of offenders
· the fact that offences of this nature were prevalent was also to be treated as an aggravating feature.
Although the Court stated that there could be ‘exceptional circumstances’ in which the perpetrator of a street robbery might receive a non-custodial sentence, no appellate decisions have come to light in which a non-custodial sentence for street robbery has been upheld. However, statistics show that for offences of robbery sentenced in 2002, non-custodial sentences were imposed on 8% of adult offenders.
So, in effect, a minority of people do not go to jail if they plead or are found guilty of robbery. Having listened to the evidence, the Judge found that this offence warranted the top end sentence for the offence. I must admit that I was surprised the guy wasn't charged with criminal damage, but he admitted the more serious offence. If he did that without taking any legal advice, then I have no sympathy for him. However, I would suspect that he did have advice, in which case he must surely have been told what the consequences of his actions could be. It then also begs the question, what wasn't reported in the newspaper or in the campaign? After all, it does seem harsh at first glance.
The appeal was turned down, but it was interesting to see that the judge made reference to his previous offences. Hmmm.... It was also interesting to see that the Judge referred to this as a planned robbery, not a spontaneous act as previously suggested. So what exactly did happen on that day? There's certainly more to this than meets the eye, hence my reservations towards criticising the judiciary for sentencing.
What makes this even more ironic is that many of the people I know who criticised the judges who dealt with this matter, also have been critical when judges are seen to be too lenient. It seems that they can't win. Show a bit of compassion, give an offender the benefit of the doubt, and it's wrong; come down hard on offenders, and that is also wrong.
It may be argued that it's the consistency that is the problem. Each case is decided on its own facts, and each offender is sentenced on his or her own circumstances. It's rare to see a Crown Court sentencing where there isn't some form of pre-sentence report recommending an appropriate sentence. These decisions aren't made lightly. But for me, whilst judges are human and are liable to make mistakes, they can only sentence based on the guidelines given to them, and it's the Government who decide what these should be. So instead of criticising judges when you don't agree with a sentence handed out, first of all see if they've acted within the limits given to them by the people you've elected into power.
For anyone who wants to see what goes on, any member of the public (over the age of 14yrs, of course) is allowed to sit in the public gallery and watch proceedings. It's a real eye opener, and you'll see that sentencing is not as simple as it looks. I recently visited Loughborough Magistrates' Court, and the Bench I observed outlined all of the aggravating and mitigating factors that lead them to the decisions that they had made. If you really want to do something about it, become a Magistrate, a lawyer, or even a Judge!!
No comments:
Post a Comment