I THANK Neville Cordingley for his response to my recent letter and in doing so defer to his evidently superior knowledge of our courts and sentencing protocol. I further assure him that nowhere in this letter will he see references to "woolly liberals."
Surely, however, the contents of his letter only serve to underline the basic premise of my original arguments. He asks why I consider my house would be safer if burglars were given custodial sentences. Without wishing to state the blindingly obvious -- he who finds himself at Her Majesty's pleasure may not find himself in a position to simultaneously avail himself of my possessions.
To be serious, I fully accept the complexity of sentencing and the fact that individual cases merit individual consideration.
However, my contention is that the number of cautions and community-based sentences handed out are proving no deterrent to would-be thieves. Quite simply, if they were, burglaries would cease.
If, however, a first offence could result in a custodial sentence, even the most pea-brained of criminals might give it a second thought.
Mr Cordingley may feel I have slighted the magistrates involved. I suspect, however, that my views are more in touch with the fears of a growing number of victims.
With a society that feels increasingly vulnerable and not protected by those who draft law, those who enforce it and, yes, those who often appear to fail to uphold it.
NEIL YATES, Wharf Street, Rishton.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article