REGARDING the letter by Neil Yates (Letters, November 23), I feel bound to respond to the suggestions he makes.
He referred to the sentence passed by magistrates on a defendant who had broken into a school building and was apprehended by two 'hardly threatening' female school cleaners.
He thought it beyond a joke handing down a community rehabilitation order for 12 months. I respectfully remind Mr Yates that this is a community-based sentence which is one step down from custody.
Can I also remind Mr Yates that magistrates cannot dish out just any sentence they desire. They are governed by guidelines, as are judges.
Mr Yates would have preferred a two year custodial sentence at Strangeways. Was he in court at the time the sentence was being passed? Is he aware of any previous convictions by this particular defendant?
There are many factors which govern what sentence is passed on defendants and, can I assure Mr Yates that magistrates carry out their duties completely voluntarily and to the best of their ability.
Finally, what makes Mr Yates think that his home, along with his friends and neighbours' homes and local businesses, would be safer had this defendant been given a custodial sentence?
If he has the answer, why doesn't he come along to one of the court's open days and share his secret with the sentencers.
NEVILLE CORDINGLEY, Ranken Drive, Hoddlesden.
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 The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.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