Sean Jones KCAdded to that is a tendency to simplism when it comes to aims. This is particularly true where deterrence is concerned. It is widely believed that if sentences can just become draconian enough, there will be a tipping point and crime will evaporate /4
Simplism fed by politicians eager for votes and newspapers eager to outrage, operating in a context where few hear about actual sentencing practice, creates a ratchet: sentences are always insufficient in the public mind; they must always go up /5
What profit is there for a politician in ever suggesting that a sentencing guideline is fair (let alone too harsh)? Who will ever voluntarily stand in the way of the ratchet? The unasked question is this: If sentences keep getting “tougher” indefinitely, where do we end up?
Gareth Potter@SeanJones America.