"MB" wrote

The attacker was charged with a long list of offences, found guilt of them
all and given long sentences for each one to be served consecutively.

The local reporter was unsure of the total sentence so rang the judge who
was also unsure and had to get out a piece of paper to total them all up!
I think it was about 70+ years so the offender would be about 100 before
he would be able to ask for release.

When I read this I wondered about what would happen in the UK. There
would be one charge and quite possibly not the most serious one. He might
get "life" but there seemed a good chance he would be out in 10 to 15
years.

What is the point of long prison sentences? Right, there is a small number
of criminals who are so dangerous that they have to be locked up for many
years, perhaps life, for public protection. But for most, if the sentence
involved intensive education, training, and therapy to address criminal
behaviour, nothing more will be achieved after about three years, so it's a
waste of taxpayers' money to lock them up for longer. It's no use arguing
that long sentences are a deterrent - criminals aren't deterred by prison,
and the people who are deterred by prison wouldn't dream of committing
crimes anyway.

OTOH, what's the point of short prison sentences (under a year)? They cost a
lot of taxpayers' money, and don't achieve anything.

Peter