Better than they deserve
murder under UK legislation and receive the automatic life sentence. This comparison between repeated, cold-blooded killing and a husband killing his terminally ill wife at her request, as in the case of R v Cocker, 16 demonstrates the need for legal flexibility. A system that treats offenders ‘better than they deserve’ – one unbounded by the ‘just-deserts’ calculation – can grant the judiciary the necessary discretion to distinguish between such cases, considering the radically different levels of dangerousness and moral blameworthiness, leading to a more just and proportionate sentence that better serves the public. The third consideration, beyond the pragmatic calculus of crime reduction and flexibility, is the moral imperative to treat offenders better than they deserve to safeguard human dignity against the legal system’s own inherent fallibility. While a justice system aspires for infallibility and impartiality, its real- world application is often flawed, as evidenced by the grave miscarriages of justice in the Cardiff Three, Guildford Four, and Birmingham Six. In these cases, individuals were wrongfully imprisoned for over a decade, their exonerations exposing profound systemic failures like coerced confessions and fabricated evidence. 17 These years lost to a wrongful imprisonment represent a harsh injustice, inflicting profound psychological trauma and a condition known as ‘post-incarceration syndrome’, which includes institutionalized personality traits, social-sensory disability, and chronic anxiety from which a person may never truly recover. This was seen in the case of Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four, whose life outside, after fifteen years of wrongful imprisonment, was a constant struggle with the trauma he had endured, leading to alcoholism and a premature death. 18 However, beyond these social and psychological factors, the consequences of miscarriages of justice extend to society more broadly; namely, a wavering public trust in the justice system as it fails to achieve its promise of fairness. A strictly retributive justice system would severely exacerbate these consequences. By prioritizing punishment proportionate to perceived ‘desert’ above all else, a culture of finality is fostered, and a risk of eliminating crucial safeguards like robust appeal processes becomes less prevalent, making judicial errors irreversible. A system that instead embraces leniency and flexibility acts as a vital moral safeguard, acknowledging the limits of human certainty and reducing potentially irreversible tragedies. However, critics would argue that, while tragic, miscarriages of justice are undeniably statistical outliers; therefore, treating all offenders better than what their crimes deserve would create an issue of overcorrection. A system that builds in leniency risks undermining the seriousness of punishment and risks under-punishing the guilty majority to protect the innocent minority. This will erode public confidence, as the primary purpose of a justice system is to hold the guilty accountable, and this approach weakens this core function. Furthermore, leniency in sentencing is the wrong solution. The root causes of wrongful convictions are flawed investigations, coerced confessions, unreliable witness testimony, and inadequate legal defence. The proper solution is thus not to soften punishment at the end of the process, but to reform the investigative and trial stages to prevent errors from happening in the first place. This would involve better policing, stricter evidence rules, and well-funded public defenders. Focusing on sentencing leniency distracts from these more urgent and effective reforms.
16 R v Cocker [1989] Crim LR 740. 17 Nobles, R. and D. Schiff. (2000) Understanding Miscarriages of Justice . Oxford. 18 Conlon, G. (1991) Proved Innocent. Penguin
151
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting