Following on from yesterday’s rubbish (see thread), the Mail continues its dishonest trashing of the justice system with more cod statistics about criminal sentencing. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6…
620,000 criminals with at least 10 previous convictions were given non-custodial sentences. That’s the headline. Here’s what the Mail doesn’t tell you:
Firstly, this number is over a 5-year period. That little nugget is buried away from the headline. 
Secondly, the Mail’s definition of “non-custodial sentence” is simply false. A suspended sentence *is* a custodial sentence. It is not an *immediate* custodial sentence, but it often does result in prison when offenders breach the conditions of their suspended sentence.
The article makes no mention of this, and provides no details of how many of those given suspended sentences ended up serving them.
The Mail also fails to mention the crucial point that many of these defendants will have spent time in custody on remand. This time counts towards any custodial sentence, so sometimes a community order will be imposed to reflect that D has already served several months in prison.
Also worth noting the Mail’s definition of “hardened crim”. 11 convictions or more. Which sounds a lot, but no context is given. Eg: D drink drives in a careless manner while disqualified from driving, crashes into a fence and drives off. Right there are 6 different offences.
If D then repeats this, he has 12 convictions under the Mail’s definition. D is an idiot and deserving of punishment, for sure. But is he really a “hardened criminal”?
While much ire is (again) directed at judges “allowing serious offenders to walk free”, there is (again) no mention of the Sentencing Guidelines which judges are required by law to follow.
But here’s the kicker: little detail is given about the offences that comprise that figure of 600,000. Many will be incredibly minor offences not deserving of a prison sentence (such as possession of a small bag of cannabis).
All we are told is that of the 627,502 cases concerned, 19,634 involved offences of violence. THREE PER CENT. Of which, many will be unpleasant but minor offences of common assault, such as pushing, spitting or just getting in someone’s face.
A minor point, but worth making: some of those sentences for sexual/violent offences will have been unduly lenient. I’m not saying judges are perfect. They make mistakes. But some of those will have been increased upon appeal by the Attorney General.
But most stupid of all, of those 600,000 offences, some will be NON-IMPRISONABLE. That’s right. The Mail is complaining that judges are not sending people to prison for offences not carrying a prison sentence, such as minor public order offences or being drunk and disorderly.
This really gives you the measure of this “research”. Utter junk. Average sentences have increased year-on-year. We have the highest prison population in the EU. Prisons are dangerously overcrowded. But this is not enough for the Mail.
Final observation: it is disappointing (although predictable) that the MoJ doesn’t tackle the myth that “more prison” is a solution to rising crime (as opposed to, say, resourcing the police, CPS and courts). Instead it boasts about longer sentences.
The most distressing thing, and the reason I am so enraged, is that this distracts from the many genuine problems with criminal justice. As some loudmouth blogger said in some book or other, #TheLawIsBroken. But “soft sentences” is not one of them, or at least not in the Top 100.
Have just spotted this gem. Judges do not have the power to caution offenders. That is a police decision.
This stuff is basic.
This stuff is basic.
