Warning: This post was published more than 11 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 11 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
When I saw the headline of this article in today’s Times, I thought that the government had finally come to its senses and was considering abolishing mandatory minimums, which take the judgement part out of judging, and pass judicial powers to politicians instead of judges. But, alas, no. Instead of abolishing them, they’re making more of them, presumably because they play well to middle England, who want all murderers locked up for life. And yet, when some old granny is locked up for life for helping her dying husband along, they’ll all be protesting. Madness.