LETTER: The judges were right
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.THE judges' opposition to Michael Howard's proposals on sentencing ("The long arm of the law", 5 November) differs from earlier criticisms of government policies: their comments have not been solely directed to their own constitutional position, but have addressed the potential impact of the measures on crime.
The Lord Chief Justice has emphasised the limitations of severe sentencing as a deterrent to crime, while judges have argued that some aspects of the Home Secretary's proposals could increase offending. They are right. Mandatory prison sentences would prevent a judge from sentencing a burglar with a drug habit to a probation order combined with drug rehabilitation; yet this sentence is more likely to prevent re-offending than imprisonment is.
Paul Cavadino
Chair, Penal Affairs Consortium, London SW9
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments