STATUS AND SENTENCING

Equality before the law, scales of justice, justice for all and other similar phrases are supposed to consolidate the idea that nobody is above the law; the current investigations into Mandleson and the second son of our late queen appearing to justify that belief.   However as I discovered on becoming a magistrate that concept is daily tested to its limits.

Last week it was published that a specialist cancer doctor, now a convicted sex offender at Chester Magistrates Court, had been given a suspended prison sentence for his offending which later resulted in his being prevented from working for six months.  The underlying question is whether officially or unofficially offenders in magistrates courts whose benefits to society are well above the norm should have their status reflected in reduced sentencing outcomes.

The arguments in favour of such an approach are not inconsiderable the obvious being:-

1. That society suffers from their incapacity or prevention from doing their work.  There can be an assumption, rightly or wrongly, that exceptional professional offenders have more stable lifestyles than many others and are more likely to be deterred in future from a repeat of their offending. To some degree that line of thinking can be explored by careful questioning by the court.  Driving bans are truly an exceptional example where there exists formal application to argue by way of exceptional hardship to avoid such an outcome. 

2. Most highly trained and/or talented offenders have benefitted from massive amounts of public (tax payers) money to have been educated to reach their current position. 

3.  A long unsullied professional history should be a safeguard against repeat offending. 

4. The personal shame of being found guilty for many offenders is punishment in itself and magnified for highly qualified and valued personnel. 

5. Every case is different which allows guidelines to be considered as a guide and not as a strict set of outcomes. 

The arguments against such an approach to personal mitigation are as follows:-

1. Justice is not about giving consideration to the labour market; it is about just outcomes both for the offender and society.  If elite offenders are seen to benefit from their status faith in the precept in the opening words of this post could be eroded. 

2. Public financial investment in an offender should offer no part in sentencing outcomes. 

3. Many ordinary citizens facing sentence have also their personal or religious consciences which could act as a deterrent against repeat offending. 

4.  A century or more ago shame in itself might have been an accurate description of the results of offending within what was a close knit society and where large families might have spread the information leading to ostracism for the offender in his/her every day contacts.  Such circumstances are alien to today`s "screen" socialising. 

5. The law guarantees equality of treatment not equality of lifestyle impact. If impact governs then punishment becomes a function of wealth and status not culpability.

Readers might favour other points of either view. For over 20 years Sentencing Guidelines have become incorporated in ever increasing detail in magistrates and crown courts.  The system of Guidelines in my humble opinion is but a prelude to fully automated AI sentencing where human input will come at the conclusion of the process and not the beginning. How our society deals with that will be a major sign of how this country will be governed until the 22nd century dawns.