Craig Sweeney
So the minimum possible time inside is five years. Given that he's a repeat offender anyway, one might reasonable imagine that whoever is in charge of determining whether he poses a "significant risk" will take a rather skeptical view. The judge seems to be of similar view. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy with the view that five years is kind of short for kidnap and rape, even in the face of positively angelic behaviour for the duration. So how was that number reached?
The arithmetic seems a bit off there. However assuming that the reporting is basically right, and the journalist involved merely too innumerate to notice the discrepancy, isn't the government ultimately attacking its own sentencing policy here?
no subject
This doesn't mean I want more people to be in prison for life, just that I want people to say what they mean.
no subject
The problem, then, of course, is the battle between allowing judges the facility to adjust their sentencing to the specific situation (the historical approach) and the desire to see that the punishment of comparable crimes is fair between instances (the modern, prescriptive, approach).