So as far as I see it, and taking the reasonable yet wishful post of Purple earlier into account, the issue is this:
The DPP would rather aim for a 'quick win' of a lesser charge uncontested than pursue a more serious charge which the evidence points to. Judicial discretion further lowers the sentence because they pled guilty.
Why is this? Is it a matter that the criminal (and I don't mean suspect, I mean criminal. They are definitely guilty of doing something bad, and the rest is symantics) now has to be seen with pity rather than contempt ?
Human Rights lawyers have jumped the fence from arguing for correct treatment of prisoners, to asking for favourable sentences (because he's a nice lad, Judge, and shure he's awful sorry for what he done) for those guilty of the death/stabbing/shooting or rape of another person, and not by accident.
Also, I do believe that (to paraphrase Billy Connolly) young scumbags invariably grow up to be adult scumbags. Unfortunately, there is no fear of the Guards giving you a thump any more, as the cop would be suspended and the little scumbag could probably sue them too. I'm not advocating free rein but a little more clouts given to young scumbags might make them a little less likely to try it again in case they're caught. Related to this is the social issue of the family defending their child in the face of evidence. My parents would have shook the hand of a cop if he caught me doing something and gave me a thump. I certainly wouldn't be going to sue him. This is 20 years ago, not 50)
Concurrent sentencing by judges must also stop as it really is worth "getting hung for a sheep as a lamb" now.
As for the murders and rapes committed in prison ? Well, if you're in a block with murderers and rapists, then you take your chances with your peers. Obviously, I don't include non-cons in this.
The DPP would rather aim for a 'quick win' of a lesser charge uncontested than pursue a more serious charge which the evidence points to. Judicial discretion further lowers the sentence because they pled guilty.
Why is this? Is it a matter that the criminal (and I don't mean suspect, I mean criminal. They are definitely guilty of doing something bad, and the rest is symantics) now has to be seen with pity rather than contempt ?
Human Rights lawyers have jumped the fence from arguing for correct treatment of prisoners, to asking for favourable sentences (because he's a nice lad, Judge, and shure he's awful sorry for what he done) for those guilty of the death/stabbing/shooting or rape of another person, and not by accident.
Also, I do believe that (to paraphrase Billy Connolly) young scumbags invariably grow up to be adult scumbags. Unfortunately, there is no fear of the Guards giving you a thump any more, as the cop would be suspended and the little scumbag could probably sue them too. I'm not advocating free rein but a little more clouts given to young scumbags might make them a little less likely to try it again in case they're caught. Related to this is the social issue of the family defending their child in the face of evidence. My parents would have shook the hand of a cop if he caught me doing something and gave me a thump. I certainly wouldn't be going to sue him. This is 20 years ago, not 50)
Concurrent sentencing by judges must also stop as it really is worth "getting hung for a sheep as a lamb" now.
As for the murders and rapes committed in prison ? Well, if you're in a block with murderers and rapists, then you take your chances with your peers. Obviously, I don't include non-cons in this.