SIR – In 2001 I was a police officer.

At that time, criminals sentenced for four years or more already enjoyed an automatic halving of their sentences (the second half spent free, but on licence), and those given sentences of up to four years enjoyed a cut in the actual time they served of a third.

These cuts were unaffected by whether or not the criminal had entered an early guilty plea, or how he chose to behave whilst incarcerated, which means that their reduced tariffs had nothing to do with justice.

When it was recognised that it was healthier and a good deal more environmentally friendly if motorists left their cars at home and walked, rode, or used public transport to get to where they were going, there was no ‘encouragement’ for them to make the change, other than appealing to their sense of responsibility.

Indeed, while the cost of motoring has continued to spiral, so has the cost of public transport.

Why then does Ken Clarke appear to feel that offering criminals even more treats if they stop playing these courtroom games, no doubt encouraged by the lawyers who earn large fees out of the process, is the right approach? Why always the softer line with criminals?

Why does he not propose that where criminals maintain their not guilty pleas until it becomes clear that all the pieces are in place for trial (the game so common amongst the guilty and their lawyers), they will incur the full tariff passed down to them, and the lawyers representing them will incur a cut in their fees?

We have seen the extent to which sentences have been cut, so that we are no longer surprised when yet another burglar walks away from court with nothing more than a community punishment.

Quite simply, if the Government is not seen to take criminality seriously, then how can we expect the criminal to?

WILL RICHARDS
Malvern