The new Three Strikes law may lead to shorter sentences

Heather DPA writes:

This morning I was listening to the radio, and I was quite shocked when I heard Labour’s Justice Spokesperson, Duncan Webb, talking about the Three Strikes Law.  

He said judges and lawyers hate it so much, they will find ways around it so they don’t have to implement it.  

He said because the law will now only apply to crimes with sentences over two years – 24 months, “we will see a lot of sentences at 23 months because judges and lawyers… hate this.” 

Now… that’s a shocker.  

Because what that tells you is that it’s just accepted that if judges and lawyers don’t like a law, they’ll find a way around it. 

It’s so widely known that Duncan just says it on the radio and nobody blinds an eyelid. 

It’s the reason, apparently, that when we had Three Strikes last time, no one ever made it to their third strike fully. 

Duncan Webb and Heather are correct. The old Three Strikes law was effective but Judges used manifestly unjust clause to stop almost every third strike penalty,. But at least second and third strikers did serve more time behind bars.

This new law could well see violent and sexual offenders get even shorter sentences than they normally would. If a judge has a potential say 30 month sentence they’ll definitely find some factors top reduce it to 23 months so they avoid having to do a strike which takes away some of their discretion.

The new Three Strikes law must remove the two year threshold for sentences for first and second strikes. It will not only gut the law, but it could well lead to revisit criminals getting even higher sentences than without the law.