Interesting range of replies, which I sort of expected
My view, as touched on in my opening post, is that some sentences definitely do not fit the crime. I'm aware a legal expert would be able to tell me why such sentences are passed (legislative sentencing limits, mitigating circumstances, encouraging rehabilitation etc.) However like I said, whilst I don't subscribe to locking everyone up for decades or that prisons should be places where you break rocks 23 hours a day, I firmly believe many sentences
should be longer and that some people should be locked up for the rest of their natural life with no chance of parole. Instead they're often out within 15 years give or take.
I'm again going to refer to the recent case of the 39 migrants. For those convicted, why should any of them have the opportunity to come out of prison in 20, 25, 30 years to live the remainder of their life? Regardless of your view as to the people in the back of that lorry and the nature of their entry into our country, to me those involved in causing their death should never see the proverbial light of day again. I'll await the sentencing with interest.
And we also need to seriously look at those still roaming free with multiple previous convictions e.g. for so called lower level crime such as breaking and entering. To me, the one place you should feel safe is your home. If someone elects to break in to that personal space (especially when people are in) it should be treated as a serious crime with
much harsher sentences passed. You read of some people wearing their previous convictions like a badge of honour '
yeah I've got 18 previous convictions for a, b, c, d ...'
I'm not saying we don't have a great legal system compared to many countries, however parts of it are surely broken?