I would hesitationally suggest that for most people when asked about their contact or interest in the justice system their response(s) would be based on their experience(s) or knowledge of having had fines imposed for a motoring offence or other low level summary matter. Further questioning on sentencing levels for "real" crime particularly crimes of violence would be answered by many [most?] as being too lenient especially in the current climate where early release owing to prison overcrowding is becoming an epidemic of frightening proportions. The Tory`s underfunded justice system`s chickens are certainly coming home to roost in Downing Street and Petty France. But notwithstanding all that, sentences for violent crime have increased since the millenium. Murderers twenty years ago were released after serving about 14 years; today that period inside has become about 19 whilst the actual minimum sentence has increased from 14 years to 21 years in custody. There is a public perception gap between sentences pronounced in court and the reality. Release under license halfway through a sentence is the mantra for courts including the magistrates courts. It is a given. Generally there is little incentive for a prisoner to behave within prison rules. Perhaps Sentencing Guidelines and remarks would be better served and better appreciated if that facade were faded out. An analysis of the prison population between 1993 and 2020 is available here. Justice in Numbers - Summary Tables: 14 November 2024 is available here. This is the current pocketbook version.
The reality of sentencing killers was recently well outlined in the Court of Appeal decision on double murderer Marcus Osborne. Before 1965 undoubtedly he would have been hanged.
Long before an alleged offender appears in a courtroom it is the police officer in uniform on the street where the law steps in to make an appearance. Recent accusations of there being two tier policing in England have been given credence in the matters of severe sentencing resulting from the Southport riots and other disturbances related and in the blatant antisemitism and hate mongering of supposed Palestinian sympathisers being accepted as within the law. An offender within the former category has appealed his custodial sentence for kicking a police officer. Social media within the last few weeks have had widely viewed videos of police retreating in the face of hostile crowds, often consisting of young men of south Asian descent, in contrast to police in USA, Germany and France inter alia who appear to take a much harder line to enforce the law on their streets. The government and chief constables, especially the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, appear to hold dissimilar opinions on when and to what level police should be controlling our streets. Perhaps the more pertinent question is whether or not the police are capable of enforcing the law on our streets.
From an opposing point of view Palestine activists appear to think they have an exemption to destabilise our society by acts of criminal damage, obstruction or other "non violent" means as being on a par with eg the suffragettes of the early 20th century. They are in reality on a par with the colloquially named eco terrorists who have plagued us in the last few years in their "cause" of saving the planet even if it entails imposing their ideas and methods on the majority population. In simple terms they are embryonic fascists brooking no opposition from authority in pursuit of their objectives.
Meantime at Northampton Magistrates Court it was heartening to read of criminals exploiting the homelessness of many people by being fined sums of money which will make them suffer where it hurts most; in their pockets. During my career the maximum single fine my bench imposed was around £40,000 on a fly tipper with a property developer runner up at £22,000. Those despicable men making fortunes from others` misery have been told to fork out over £400,000 in fines and costs etc. What we do not know is the payment system agreed and whether it will be enforced; a subject about which I have posted recently.
And finally in today`s assortment of legal goings on all too often we read of the comments of a retired very senior judge of the High Court, Appeal Court or Supreme Court. Sometimes I wonder why such eminent jurors kept silent prior to their receiving the first payment of their civil service pension. The ethics of their contributions are discussed in an interesting article by Joshua Rosenberg.
The warning of the canary in the coalmine has been adapted to many situations. It has been observed in the justice cage still alive but breathing heavily. It can still be saved if there is a will to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment