to think that there needs to be a national overhaul of sentencing guidelines?

[tittytittyhanghang]

And that those dishing them out need to adhere closely to them? How can this man or this woman get roughly the same sentence as this pair?

It feels like everyday I read the papers and criminals are not getting sentences fitting of their crimes. Surely there is no one who agrees that the coal bunker pair only deserved two years. And god knows how long they will actually serve. Half probably if they are lucky? Don't even get me started on this shocking sentence.

Am I the only one that feels this way? Lets plough some money into building more jails which will create more jobs and more prison spaces, because Im pretty sure prison overcrowding has a lot to answer for with some of these sentences!

The first two were involved in drug dealing and the third child neglect. Not sure who you think should have had the greater sentence, all three are pretty appauling.

The fourth, depends on what people consider the purpose of sentencing is. Is it to rehabilate or to punish. If it's to rehabilitate, then it's probably right, if it's to punish then it's wrong.

With you all the way on this subject.

Have you read the full sentencing guidelines that are on the internet? They detail the mitigating and aggravating factors for each offense, and usually once you have read them and read about the case it makes sense. Also, don't forget you weren't in court and are relying what other people say about the case - the judge and jury were there and had all the facts.

Offences against vulnerable people, children and adults should recieve much higher sentences than they do.

Most people are shocked to learn that sexual offences against children do not always carry a prison sentence, or even a charge.

In the UK, property and business is valued more than human life.

I also like the Chinese system of sentencing according to the crime, rather than a fixed amount, so often 300 years for child rape, with probation considered after 100.

If those present at the death of a child remain silent, i believe that they should be presumed to be the killer and sentenced as such, tbh.

At the very least concurrent sentences shouldn't happen as often as they do.

"Have you read the full sentencing guidelines that are on the internet"

There are often out crys by professionals at the low sentences given out without explanation by Judges, yet nothing changes.

Sentences are higher for damage to things/property/money than people!

Well sending them to prison isnae rehabilitating them - I know this isn't that up to date but I bet the figures haven't changed significantly so maybe the thought of a long stretch might act as a deterrent, and when handed out, keep a proportion of reoffenders off the street for a wee while longer. Some of the sentences I have read lately don't feel like justice is being carried out.

I dont think the jury get a say in sentencing, isn't that down to the judge only, and I do think that there are a few judges who are out of touch with reality!

Sentences are higher for damage to things/property/money than people!

In the UK, property and business is valued more than human life.

So true and so bloody wrong. This is probably a lot of what I disagree with.

I agree that property should not be valued more highly than people. Certainly crimes of sexual assault and so on are sometimes a joke when it comes to sentencing. However, I have worked with ex-offenders and don't believe that longer sentences work in the way people think. A year in prison is a very long time. Prison is horrible and dehumanising (and please don't tell me about TVs and such, it is nonsense). They are often violent places. Now, you may believe that people who commit violent crimes deserve violence done to them. I believe that if we put offenders into a violent place, they will continue to believe that violence is normal. If they are raped in prison, rape is normal and so on.

Let's focus on rehabilitation and crime reduction rather than revenge and retribution.

I dont know about rehabilitation, how many chances should a person get/how long should society be put at risk? I kinda like the general three strikes and your out American style. Unless its a cold blooded planned out murder type/ sexual offence (especially towards children) because i just dont believe these people can be rehabilitated - A good long sentence for them imo.

It is not about chances, it is about actual rehabilitation. In fact, in some cases it can mean a longer sentence (to complete school or counselling). I would favour proper counselling being done on addictions, mental health issues and so on. A terrifying proportion of people in prison are addicted, mentally ill, personality disordered or traumatised.

If someone is in an addictions and they commit three shoplifting offences, do you really want them in prison for the rest of their lives? Or, decent rehab services which could make them a contributor for the rest of their life?

Actually, murder has an extremely low recidivism rate. Sexual offences very, very high and there is an argument to be made that longer sentences are the only way we can really protect people from sex offenders.

I agree that what happens inside of prison is important, in terms of rehabilatation.

However the repeat offending of child/sexual crimes shows that short sentences are doing very little. Target intervention could be much better, but that doesn't mean that the sentence should not be a long one.

I am disgusted by the fact that JO, in the Baby P case is out of prison, already and tbh, i don't believe for one minute that he is rehabilitated.

Different classification of crimes, needs different handling, personally i don't believe in most custodial sentences for fraud etc.

I agree with the reforms which would mean better education etc for prisoners.

Long stretches have been shown not to act as a deterrent. Same with the death sentence.
Generally speaking, Norway seems to have the right idea:

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/18/halden-most-humane-prison-in-world

If someone is in an addictions and they commit three shoplifting offences, do you really want them in prison for the rest of their lives?

Maybe not for the rest of their lives, but how about 10/15 years in a prison offering rehab services. They can kick their habit if they so desire in prison, and the rest of us law abiding citiziens don't have to suffer them at the same time.

You have to recognise the lack of life opportunities on certain groups of people, that lead them to criminality, i agree on that.

But there are to many cases that would dumbfound most people, even those working with the perpetrator, when the sentence is given.

Raoul Moat's release springs to mind. His was very public , but there have been lots that have been similar, they just didn't attack the police on realise. Had Moat stuck to the attackon his ex and her new partner, i doubt that we would have heard about it.

I strongly believe that people who represent a serious danger to the pubic - mainly thinking murderers and sex offenders - should not be released until such time as the authorities are totally certain they will not reoffend.

If that means never for some people then so be it.

I think they should clear the addicts out of prison in favour of treatment and keep the spaces for others.

I don't mind if a heroin addict is prescribed heroin if it stops them mugging / stealing / burgling to fund their habit.

I do mind people who have committed multiple violent crimes because that's what they like to do, being released after a fixed time if they have not been 100% rehabilitated in that time.

Sardine i would mostly agree with that except that aside from the mugging/stealing/burgling its the leaving bloody needles about, in parks, gardens, down drains/gas & electric points in the pavements etc. How about keeping them in a secure and isolated rehabilitation centre until they are well and truely cured and not letting them out till they have been clean for at least six months?

Its not even violent crimes, we had a local case in the paper where someone had just under 200 convictions under their belt, all smallish crimes like possession, stealing, breaking and entering etc nothin violent i dont think, and they were given a suspended sentence for the latest crime. Surely after the 10th time up at court they should have been handed a severe sentence.

And dont even get me started on the sentences automatically halved, that is a bloody joke!

They did it somewhere - I forget where - started giving heroin on prescription - and the crime rate went through the floor overnight.

I kinda agree with drugs on prescription, if only to make it legal and take power/control away from the dealers/pushers. Surely noone is stupid enough to think that making it legal makes taking drugs more safer/morally acceptable? Especially the likes of heroin/crack cocaine/meth etc

It's a pragmatic view I think, but politically very hard to do.

In conjunction with treatment which I guess happens when the person is ready, not suggesting addicts should be given the means to their destruction and left to get on with it.

Heroin on prescription was Switzerland. Worked beautifully and very cheap. Halving sentences is actually a great thing. It means that offenders are released on licence which means that they are still under conditions. When I worked with offenders we hated people who came out having served all their time. It meant two things. They had misbehaved inside and we didn't have recourse if they messed around with us.

This is the problem with the UK press. Everyone gets riled up but don't know what the reasons are for things.