By Tess Bartlett - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

organisation, was interested in bureaucratic efficiency. The broad discretion beingexercised meant significant inconsistencies had been found between judges as wellas between courts, with disparities exposed particularly with regard to lower leveloffences (Law Commission, 2006a). A study conducted on behalf of the LawCommission, for instance, revealed that some courts were ‘systematically moresevere than others’ particularly in relation to the number of convictions resulting inimprisonment (see the Appendix of ‘Sentencing Guidelines and Parole Reform’ forfurther information). In the past, it argued, this inconsistency led to a lack of publicconfidence in the judiciary, and in turn, calls for harsher sentencing.The Law Commission (2006b) also noted that, along with inconsistency, there was apublic perception of judicial leniency. Part of this perceived leniency was due to thefact that, on average, offenders were serving about 62 percent of their sentences inprison (Law Commission, 2006b), a product of the 2002 parole legislation. This, theLaw Commission (2006b: 47) acknowledged, ‘did little to mitigate the anger andfrustration of victims and others who believe that court­imposed sentences do notmean what they say’. As a result, the Law Commission recommended that forshort­term sentences of twelve months or less, sentences should be served in full(where previously offenders were released after serving half their sentence). Forlong­term sentences, (those over twelve months) the prisoner would become eligiblefor parole at two­thirds of their sentence or at twelve months, whichever was longer(Law Commission, 2006b). In addition, judges would be required to articulateexactly how the sentence would be carried out (for example, if an offender wassentenced to six years the judge was required to stipulate that at least four of thosewere to be in custody, and further, that the remainder of the sentence would have theoffender in or out of custody depending on a Parole Board’s assessment). Under theSentencing Act 2002, judges were only required to state the nominal sentence ‘whichdoes nothing to inform the victim, the offender, and the general public about whatthe sentence means in practice’ (Law Commission, 2006b: 57). It was intended thatthis emphasis on ‘built in sentencing’ would restore public credibility to thesentencing process. It would also give legitimacy to the reduced penalties that wereto be introduced as a substitute for the restriction on parole.87