The John Spender hypothesis predicates that the public has complete faith in the integrity and objective of the judges and the legal profession. Unfortunately this is not the case!

Rhys: I reckon they might change their tune though if it were one of their own family members given a massive mandatory sentence that did not reflect the severity of the crime committed.

Sorry Rhys but it wouldn't change my mind.

What do you call a non-severe crime. Being a known criminal & caught carrying a concealed firearm hanging around a Service Station? Holding up a liquor Store & threatening the attendant? Slapping someone around because they haven't paid their Drug Bill? Punching someone because you didn't like the way they looked?

I take it by your Standard these things would only require a "Please don't do it again, see you next time ;-)" by the Judge.

' It is an art, not a science; judges are human beings, not Solomon. '

Yep Solomon had commonsense unlike many of our judges. I do wonder if John is also one of the idiotic no smack brigade that condone parents never giving their children any useful discipline. Mandatory sentencing is so popular because the judges are so out of touc

>>What do you call a non-severe crime.<<

Petty theft: I don't think stealing a pair of socks worth $2.50 is a severe crime. I think it is a crime but it is a fairly minor crime: not a crime that warrants a sentence of 25 years to life - the sort of sentence we give to murderers. Read this article and tell me if you still think mandatory sentencing is a good idea:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-20130327

I think you'll probably be in a minority if you do. The public want punishments that fit the crime: that means sentences that aren't too lenient but it also means sentences that aren't too harsh and out of proportion to the severity of the offence. Lengthy incarceration for minor offences is just as ridiculous as slaps on the wrist for violent offences and a lot more expensive to the taxpayer.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis: Petty theft: I don't think stealing a pair of socks worth $2.50 is a severe crime. I think it is a crime but it is a fairly minor crime.

The Idea of the 3 Strikes is one of deterrent. Preventing crime, no matter how small is better than dealing with a crime. These people always pick on the most minor as an example. Maybe there could be a time limit like there is with Driver points. Maybe a points system would be a good Idea. 1 point, stealing to the value of $10. 2 for a slab/ bottle of Spirits/ Goonie, or $50. 3 for anything of the first two threatening violence, 4 anything of the first 2 with actual violence, 5 with a threatening with a weapon. 6 firing the weapon. 10 wounding. 20 for killing. Don't get me started on Corporate Crime.

Probation & severe fine for first offence up to 3 points. 12 months Jail & a more severe fine for the 2nd offence up to 5 points. 5 years & large fine for the 3rd offence up to 9 points. 10 years & huge fine for an accumulation of over 10 points. Life for an accumulation of 20 points & over. All points accumulate from the first offence. No probation.

I can only agree with Hasbeen in his admiration of Singaporean Law, but would suggest there are better examples of REAL mandatory sentencing from there.

The one that appeals is : "If you are found in Singapore with more than 15 grams of heroin in your possession, you will hang".

That is a real suspended sentence!