The Old Bailey, London
It was inevitable: now there’s a backlash against harsh sentencing for the rioters who caused a wave of violence across England last week. The Coalition government is splitting, with Liberal Democrats accusing their Conservative partners of actively seeking longer sentences and politically influencing judges – and even of “cheering” when harsh sentences are handed out. The row intensified when Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan were sent to prison for four years each for using the social networking site Facebook to incite riots – that never happened. (Sutcliffe-Keenan urged his friends to riot in The Toby Carvery, a peaceful pub in Warrington). This is in contrast to a 17 year old in Bury St Edmunds, who incited his friends to riot on Facebook but was spared jail, instead given a rehabilitation order. More than 2,770 people have been arrested because of the riots, and 1,297 have appeared in court. Civil liberties groups have warned that there will be a “log-jam” of appeals.
David Cameron has defended the sentences, but lawyers warned that the tough sentences would look like judges were doing as politicians bid them. Lord Macdonald, who led the prosecution service for five years, warned that the courts were being swept up in a “loss of proportion.” The Ministry of Justice, however, has stated that magistrates and judges are independent: “Their sentencing decisions are based on the individual circumstances of each case and offender. That is why different offenders may be given different sentences for what might appear to be similar crimes.”
“What happened on our streets was absolutely appalling behaviour and to send a very clear message that it’s wrong and won’t be tolerated is what the criminal justice system should be doing. They decided in that court to send a tough sentence, send a tough message and I think it’s very good that courts are able to do that.” David Cameron, Prime Minister.
- National emergency. Don’t be silly, said Janet Daley in The Daily Telegraph. These were grown men, in their right minds, who wrote repugnant things. People are claiming that in the charge for deterrent sentences, due process will be forgotten. This is “utterly wrong.” Under “exceptional circumstances”, the justice system has “risen to the occasion.” This was a “civil crisis”, which was in itself out of proprotion. It is absolutely necessary for “deterrence” to be the “highest possible priority”. These riots can’t happen again. Fairness must be forgotten in this time of national emergency. “It would be irresponsible to treat it as anything less.”
“The people who have criminal offences can expect no mercy,” he said. “But I hope the courts will look more sympathetically on a youngster who has never had a criminal offence and may have been swept up into the system,” said Simon Hughes, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.
- Six months or less. Billy Kenber, and Joanna Geary analysed the sentences in The Times: the most common charges are “burglary, violent disorder, theft and handling stolen goods.” Most sentenced in the magistrates’ courts have received “no more than six months,” with only three getting 12 months (students who looted £4,500 worth of goods). Because of the limited sentencing options available to magistrates, most cases are being passed on to crown courts. Here the longest sentence has been given to the inciters, Sutcliffe-Keenan and Blackshaw, whilst a man who robbed a volunteer police officer in North London was banged up for two years.
- Construction needed. The riots were terrifying, said an editorial in The Washington Post. The rioters must be punished, the police must learn better riot control, and the government must do what it can to stop more. “We are more confident about the first two happening than the third.” Cameron blames moral decline, bad parents and the subcultures of inner cities. But can he find a similar blame for the phone hacking scandals or the parliament expenses scandal? The government should not “engage in simplistic and divisive moralizing that fails to distinguish between criminals, victims and helpless relatives and bystanders.” Cameron should know better than to cheer on the tough sentences being handed out. Britain’s poor need “constructive attention” from the government, “not just punishment.” The austerity politics are “wrongheaded” – what Britain needs is “short-term stimulus”. But Cameron hasn’t “figured that out.”
- What price deterrence? Alan Travis in The Guardian discussed deterrence itself. Judge Elgan Edwards, who sentenced the two Facebook inciters, justified the long sentences because the two had engendered “a very real panic” in their towns. But are these “exemplary” sentences even really deterrents? Some people don’t even realise that incitement is a crime. If they’d actually taken part in a riot, they’d be charged with “violent disorder”, which would get them 18 months. For a four-year sentence, you’d have to kidnap, kill someone while drink driving, or commit a sexual assault. Criminologists say that deterrence works – people don’t commit crimes, because they know they’ll get caught. But they also concluded that “passing ever harsher sentences” made no difference to deterrence. It’s the “likelihood” of being caught that has the most impact on crime, as well as strong social ties. But there’s real doubt “whether many potential criminals actually know the ‘going rate’ for any particular crime – let alone whether they are deterred by it.”
