We can all rest soundly in our beds, Baroness Scotland has spoken:

The Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, was urged to refer the sentences to the Court of Appeal.

But in a statement she said: ”The judge was clearly correct to impose indeterminate sentences of detention and I agree with his analysis and with the minimum terms he set.”

There was public outcry over the sentences, with commentators and children’s charities suggesting it was wrong that the boys could be released before their 16th birthdays.

Lady Scotland called in the case papers, but today rejected the suggestion that the jail terms were unduly lenient.

In a statement she accepted the case was “truly shocking”, but she said five years was the “very least” the boys would serve.

They will only be released when the risk they pose to the public is seen as “acceptable”, she said.

Ah yes, Baroness Scotland, she of the famously impeccable grasp of legal intricacies. I can’t tell you how reassured I am to hear that someone who didn’t even comply with (or seem to understand!) a law she introduced, is firmly on top of the issue of these two sociopaths, who will only be released when the risk they pose to the public is acceptable. I wonder who will consider the risk of living next to either of a pair of remorseless, violent, perverted maniacs “acceptable”? I know I wouldn’t.

I suspect her real risk assessment will be along the lines of: “Are these two lunatics likely to harm Baroness Scotland?” And since we all know the odds of that are small to vanishing, I am fairly certain that these two little rodents will be free to inflict more harm on society before they are even adults.

Baroness Scotland will be faded from the public eye and the consequences of her decision long before any harm comes of it, she will almost certainly be forgotten. The judge will say “I was only following sentencing guidelines.” And once again, a society hungry for justice will feel that it is down to “decent, hardworking criminals” to inflict rough justice in the prisons, for the truly exceptional criminal to suffer anything like genuine retribution.

Much has been written in the “liberal” media about the rough justice administered to Baby P’s killer, with condemnation of the actions of those extracting said “justice”. But it’s hard to accept that anything other than life with no chance of parole is a proportionate sentence for such heinous crimes. And even if we accept that the “Edlington Two” are not responsible for their actions, does the state not have an absolute responsibility to protect us indefinitely from the consequences of those actions?

1
JuliaM February 16, 2010 at 16:54

“I wonder who will consider the risk of living next to either of a pair of remorseless, violent, perverted maniacs “acceptable”?”

It isn’t going to be the likes of the top cops, politicians and judiciary, is it? It never is.

Perhaps if they bore more of the risk, we might be more willing to accept their judgement.

And then, there’s this…

There’s something irretrievably broken about the great British justice system.

2
Blink February 16, 2010 at 18:51

Julia

wholeheartedly agree

a so called democracy with two levels of justice – one for the elites and another for the rest – I’d call this fascism myself, indeed I do call it fascism!

3
John Leon February 16, 2010 at 20:29

The British Legal system has always been two tiered, especially since early Victorian times, any one who thinks ‘ justice must be seen to be done ‘ is anything more than a whitewash lives in a world of deluded fantasy. It comes down to these old parameters, it ain’t what you know, it’s who you know, old boy network/Masons etc and how much cash you have to splash, there are exceptions of course, but they only go to prove the ( bent ) rule.

4
PT February 17, 2010 at 09:16

British Law serves four functions.
1) To protect privilege.
2) To provide a fat living for its practitioners.
3) To protect the exchequer from the expense involved in punishing criminals.
4) To protect criminals from the natural consequences of their own actions, thus ensuring continued employment for the legal profession.
No “in-depth” analysis of sentencing is required – it is quite obvious that protection of the peasantry is very low indeed in sentencing priorities.