With the first offenders involved in the recent riots across England being sentenced to immediate custodial sentences, courts have now begun to develop the sentencing response to the disturbances. Sentences of up to three years’ imprisonment have already been imposed and we would expect many more similarly substantial custodial sentences as those involved come before the courts in the coming days and weeks.
Punishment deters when it is perceived to be swift, certain, and severe. Celerity, Certainty and Severity. Of these three dimensions, the most important is certainty, followed by celerity. The severity of sentence is less important than how quickly it is imposed. Knowing they will be rapidly sent to prison for an offence will deter many potential offenders. Whether the likely sentence is one month or six months in prison will be less important. The lesson is clear. What is needed is a rapid (and robust) police response accompanied by efficient prosecutorial decision making, and an early court appearance for offenders. To date, the criminal justice system appears to be following this evidence-based response to the current riots.
One additional lesson about deterrence concerns the media. News outlets are often criticised for covering only newsworthy sentencing decisions. This usually means one of three things: sentences for grave offences; sentences which seem unduly lenient; and sentences which are unduly harsh. Where sentences appear overly lenient or punitive, the reasons are not always supplied by the news story. With respect to sentencing the rioters, the news media have an important opportunity – indeed duty – to publicise the criminal justice responses to the rioters, and the reasons given by sentencers. Potential offenders contemplating signing on to the next ‘protest’ may think twice if they are aware of the fate of offenders already convicted. Only accurate mass media coverage of the police and judicial responses can ensure the necessary level of awareness.
Yet courts should not lose sight of the importance of individualised punishment. All participants in the social disorders of recent days share a common motivation: to provoke alarm through the use of illegal force. This reality should not obscure important differences between defendants in terms of their individual culpability. Courts should sentence according to the seriousness of the specific offence of conviction, imposing punishments which respect the principle of proportionality. This fundamental sentencing principle states that more serious crimes should be punished more harshly and less serious crimes more leniently. Some of the rioters have clearly committed very serious offences. Others will have played a much more peripheral and minor role. Courts will need to distinguish between the more and less serious acts committed during a riot.
A final consideration concerns the profile of offenders appearing for sentence. Many appear to be young adults. For all forms of offending the courts have recognised that defendants in this age group lack the full maturity associated with adulthood. Young adults are also at life stage when imprisonment can have exceptionally deleterious effects on their educational or professional development. In recognition of this, courts should exercise greater restraint in the use of immediate imprisonment for this profile of offender. Courts have a wide range of potentially severe alternative sanctions available to them. For example, a court may impose a suspended prison sentence with a series of punitive requirements. Or a community order, again with tough requirements including unpaid work for the community these offenders have wronged. Whether a suspended sentence or a community order, the offender can be sent to prison for failing to comply with the court-imposed requirements. For many less serious offences, the most effective – and cost effective – sentence may be a sanction other than immediate imprisonment.
