Letter: Length of sentences for sex offenders
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Recent controversies over the probation orders received by two men convicted of sexual abuse of children have led to calls for judges to be given increased powers to deal with sex offenders.
However, as Heather Mills's report ('Sentence on sex offender must stand', 3 August) suggests, there was little to prevent the judge in either case from imposing a lengthy custodial sentence on the offenders concerned. The 1991 Criminal Justice Act explicitly empowers judges to pass more severe sentences on sexual offenders. Although it is too early to be sure of the effect of the Act on sentencing patterns, it is clear that, contrary to popular belief, sentencing of sex offenders has become increasingly punitive over the past 10 years.
There is no doubt that the suffering of victims of sexual crime has been grossly undervalued by the courts. However, the assumption that automatic custodial sentences for sex offenders are the most helpful response to sexual crime must be questioned. It is noticeable that groups such as Women Against Rape have been careful not to ally themselves to calls for tougher sentencing.
It is difficult to believe that the sentence of four months' imprisonment passed on one offender by the Court of Appeal last week will be more effective in protecting society and addressing the reasons for his offending than the probation order that was originally imposed by the judge.
Despite improvements in prison-based treatments for sex offenders, treatment in prison is only available to prisoners serving lengthy sentences. For less serious offenders, the choice is between treatment in the community or no treatment at all.
The recent hysteria about crime has disguised the fact that there is little evidence of any increase in the real rate of sexual offending. That does not mean that we should be complacent about the threat posed to society by many sexual offenders. But we have a responsibility to ensure that the sentences handed out by the courts do not place society's desire for punishment above the need to minimise the risk of further offending.
Yours faithfully,
ADAM SAMPSON
Deputy Director
Prison Reform Trust
London, N1
3 August
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments