[BBKing]

the softly softly approach.

Which, for the nth time, is a complete myth. Perhaps you can enlighten me where you get it from.

Let's see who gets the kneejerk no research award in this thread:

Salu kicks us off with "whereas we give them 5 years in a jail", which is untrue.
unlimited ducks out of it with "Here we give them holidays and perks and a slapped wrist if there really bad", which is untrue.

And now the smart guy awards for being switched on:
Xaccers, with "Notice how Labour (who introduced the guidlines) are trying to blame the judges!", which is perfectly true.
carlingman is spot on too, good work fella.
luvclub makes some good points, but although you correctly quote Article 2 of the ECHR, we've also signed up to Protocol 13 which abolishes the death penalty in all cases. It's worth noting that Sweeney wouldn't have been hanged for his offences since at least 1861, when the capital crimes were reduced to four (chocolate biscuit to anyone who knows them without cheating).

Special award of a nice lie down and a cup of Horlicks for budwieser who thinks that "all the judges who should be incarcerated". Why will this help, exactly? See Xaccers' point above.

Right. Fact time. The changes introduced by Labour since 2003 were a kneejerk response to the last 'lenient-judges-put-perverts-on-our-streets' campaign by the News of the World in 2001. Prior to this, judges in the Court of Appeal set the sentencing guidelines and judges had a bit more discretion. However, prior to this the Tories had knocked a big whole in the concept of 'life' sentences by introducing two-strikes-and-you-must-get-life for things like GBH, for which a shortish sentence (5-10 years perhaps) is adequate and judges should be allowed discretion. So the problem stems back to Michael Howard and, yes, another tabloid campaign. Spot the trend?

As a result of Howard's idiocy judges now had to give life for offence that patently didn't warrant it, and set out what they actually wanted in the tariff. This results in 'lifers' getting parole at the point they probably would have done anyway, or possibly slightly later. This has come home to roost in the '53 lifers out since 2000' non-story. I think it's too late for 'life' sentences, which are now so muddled that you've got to rename them, which is the suggestion of the highly impressive Lib Dem Home geezer Nick Clegg, who's impressed me recently.

Back to sentencing guidelines. Having been scared into action by the tabloids, the ghastly garden gnome Blunkett (who's a friend of the Sun's editor) sought some better headlines with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which took over the sentencing guidelines from judges and put them in the hands of a quango of academics, ex-judges, policemen, prosecutors and various others (check them out on their website) *directly appointed* by Cabinet ministers (mostly the Lord Chancellor, but five are directly appointed by the Home Secretary, which he probably doesn't want anyone to notice, particulary since they include victims' groups already*). These people then issued the guidance for the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, which is what was used in the Sweeney case. Judges have been effectively cut out of the sentencing loop already *because* of a tabloid campaign, so the Sun blaming them now is nonsensical and highly irresponsible, as well as being an outright lie - the current system was partly brought about by their pressure.

Other facts - average sentence served by a lifer is 14 years, more than it was ten years ago, which presumably includes the aforementioned lifers who should be given normal custodial sentences, so criminals who deserve life are definitely serving a lot longer. The softer bits of the CJA 2003 have been postponed indefinitely (custodyplus) while the hard bits are already implemented. Really, anyone who still believes we're in any way soft on serious criminals is living in a pink fluffy cloud on Venus.

It seems to me that there's only one conclusion: however draconian and non-discretionary sentencing policy is made, the tabloids still won't be appeased, therefore we have to quietly tell them to go f*ck themselves and sort things out sensibly and professionally. This means getting politicians out of the loop and letting judges judge again. If the tabloids start it up again, we need brave men and women to point out their stupidity, ignorance and lies. This is unlikely at present owing to the absurd and undemocratic hold Murdoch has over the Blair government, which he can effectively bring down when he wants by swinging the Sun behind Cameron (he's already hinting at this), plus the evident incompetence and power-craze of the Home Office, which needs reform and preferably splitting into more manageable chunks with Cabinet level ministers in charge of justice (that's the Tories' idea, and one which Blunkett vetoed back in 2001 in favour of running the lot himself, which he proceeded to do very badly).

Overcrowding? It's getting worse and worse, mainly because of people being jailed for petty offences who previously wouldn't have been and probably shouldn't be there. There's always enough room for lifers, who are a relatively small part of the population.

* "Teresa Reynolds is Head of Policy at Victim Support where she has worked since 1990. In her role, she is responsible for developing policy and promoting the interests of victims and witnesses of crime in criminal justice and social policy. Teresa is the co-author of The Rights of Victims of Crime and has since worked successfully to see it adopted by the Government through the Victimââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s Charter and subsequent developments." - SGC website.