Letter: Sentencing and public sentiment
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: Philip Esler (Letters, 25 July) asserts, as if it were self-evidently axiomatic, that the 'rule of law' must deliver penalties 'without reference to the wavering, emotional and frequently prejudiced tide of public sentiment'.
Why does he believe this? The law is not some Platonic abstraction but the codification of a nation's morality and mores. In a democracy, laws are made by the government elected to make them. The law, therefore, ought to represent and reflect public opinion before all else: it is its frequent failure to do so that has brought it into its present disrepute.
I hold no brief for the present Home Secretary, but at least he apparently believes himself to be responding to public opinion - so he ought. I have, however, an alternative suggestion for wresting sentencing from judges: let the jury do it. Something like this happens in the magistrates' courts, where (given so many guilty pleas) there is in the Retiring Room far more time spent wrangling over penalties than verdicts, even with the aid of national guidelines.
In my proposal, the judge would, after a finding of guilt, direct the jury on the general principles of sentencing, and on the options available to them under the law. The jury would then retire first to debate and then to determine (either by consensus or by vote) on a sentence. In this way, the 'rule of law' would be more truly applied by those the law exists to serve - the public at large - with, and not in spite of, all its 'wavering and emotional prejudices'.
This might offend the philosophers of jurisprudence, but would it not foster a saner and more law-abiding society?
Yours faithfully,
ROGER LAKE
York
25 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments