It's not good to be back

Just back from a brilliant holiday, no internet or telly (through choice, not because I was on holiday in Cornwall or anything), or other such distractions. One of the first stories I read when I got back was this horrifying case with an absolutely staggering 'sentence'.

So much for an eye for an eye, with our judges living in some bizarre different world, we now have community service for an eye.

I really don't know what more to say, I would not wish this kind of thing on anyone; so I will not go as far as to say that I hope the attacker who walked free from the court does the same to the judge.

Prison doesn't work?

There's a few things that don't quite make sense about this story, especially to a mere pleb like me. Maybe my gracious betters in the judiciary could explain it...

Craig Chilman, one of Peterborough's most prolific house burglars has been allowed to walk free from court after a judge decided prison was doing little to prevent his offending.

Now I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that when he was in prison he was not burgling houses. However the judge said:

"He has a substantial record as a domestic burglar, and he shows every indication of continuing in that way (if he is sent straight to prison). The only legitimate alternative is a suspended sentence."

WTF? The judge feels that the guy is extremely likely to break in to more people's houses and yet he thinks it the best thing to do is let him walk straight out of his court, back on to the streets, and possibly in to your home?

Then of course we have the special world of Home Office maths;

In 2002 he was jailed for three years, he was given a four-year prison sentence in 2004 and then he was again locked up for three years in 2007.

Erm, hmmm, erm, hang on...

Individually, 2002 + 3 = 2005, 2004 + 4 = 2008, 2007 + 3 = 2010!.

Or even better 3 + 4 + 3 = 10, starting in 2002, yet it's only 2009 by my calendar.

Gotta love automatic early release!

Now m'learned friends will immediately jump up and down screaming "oh the guidelines, we're bound by the guidelines!" as to why they continually let this type of scum continue their careers, but as stated in this story, under the guidelines anyone convicted of three house burglaries should get no less than three years inside. So it seems that judges only follow guidelines if it means they can send nasty, recidivist, prolific criminals back out to make our lives a misery.

When this man reoffends, will the judge be held to account for the fact that his actions directly led to an innocent person's house being burgled? Nope!

I'm going to repeat this quote again, because it is so breathtakingly unbelievable, and perfectly illustrates how the judiciary fail to grasp that the entire premise of the CJS is to protect innocent members of the public from criminals.

a judge decided prison was doing little to prevent his offending.

If my house is ever burgled by a man (or woman) who is in prison, I will give them my car as well.

You can almost understand why the police don't bother any more...