Another point in the programme is that prison has no deterrent effect, even if one is intended. The number of people in prison shows that it is not a deterrent. Rehabilitation is not really the courts' concern, whether it should be or not, but there is (or was) a sign in many prisons saying that people are sent there as punishment, not for punishment. In England & Wales, the government keeps making noises about the ineffectiveness of short sentences, but no actual presumption against short sentences. Some courts just suspend the short prison term, which has exactly the same rehabilitation period anyway, and prevents filtering. There is the thing about post-licence supervision, but that could be just as easily achieved by a community order, as there is no post-licence supervision for suspended sentences.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

It depends on what the objective of sentencing is. Are you sentencing to punish, to deter or to rehabilitate? Do you believe that sentence length should depend on the amount of harm caused to the victim? Should some offenders be punished more severely because the public views them as more 'dangerous' than other offenders?

Last year the govt said that short sentences (under 12 months) were not working, because they were just long enough to disrupt someone's life, but not long enough to allow the authorities to rehabilitate that person. In Scotland, I believe the justice system has a presumption against short sentences, but in England they are still very common.

I don't know if any of you heard the Radio 4 programme on Wednesday evening about prison and rehabilitation. The barrister presenting the programme said that sentencing is too harsh, but the sentencing guidelines set minimum sentences regardless of the circumstances. Magistrates, and especially judges, are also acutely aware of the prosecution's right to appeal and the public's right to complain, so they are incentivised to "go large", as it were. There is also the tabloid approach that, to quote Monty Python, "the full penalty of the law can scarcely atone for their ghastly crimes".

To summarise, then, many sentences are too harsh, and there is very little discretion for sentencing to be lenient.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

The short answer for me is "it depends". Some cases I can see being too short/lenient and others way too harsh. But then you have to weigh it against each other, is the harsh one too harsh and the lenient one fair, or is the lenient one too soft and the harsh one just right? Maybe both are wrong and it should be somewhere in the middle?

General research concludes that the aftermath of sentencing is oftentimes much harsher and long lasting than the sentence itself.

I'm still very much in favour of a clean slate approach. Once your sentence/order is done then that's it. Done. It doesn't show on any disclosure or anything. The only people privy to your criminal history is the police. Struggling to find a job due to something you did 20 years ago is a very real issue facing thousands of ex-offenders who just want to get back into a normal life, or what could be construed as one.

How do you feel about sentencing as a whole (not just custodial sentences)?. Are they always fair and just? Every case is judged on its own individual merits but can sentences at times be unduly lenient or way too harsh, and what impact does a sentence have on a persons drive to rehabilitate? Share your own experiences.