Own goal?

Incandescent fury in the media at the sentence handed out to a paedophile who abducted and abused a three-year-old girl. Even the Home Secretary has weighed in to criticise it. Much is made of the fact that the man concerned could be released in just under six years. Of course, the important word here, which has mainly been ignored, is "could". This is simply the earliest point at which he could be considered for parole - there is absolutely no guarantee that he would get it. But let's look further into this. The judge's basic sentence was "life", but the judge is then bound to set a tariff - essentially the maximum the prisoner will serve - this he set at 18 years. You may argue whether or not that is long enough, but it's certainly a long time. However, the judge is then bound to give a discount for the fact that the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest possible moment. This is one-third, reducing the term to twelve years. He then has to reflect the fact that, subject to good behaviour, all prisoners (other than true "lifers") are considered for parole after serving 50% of their sentence - hence the six years which has caused the outrage. But as you will see, the judge was simply following the rules. And who makes the rules? A body called the Sentencing Guidelines Council. And who appoints the members to that council? The Lord Chancellor, and (you've guessed it) the Home Secretary!!