Geoff's most recent blog post concerned the release into the community of mentally ill offenders who go on to offend again, referring specifically to John Worboys and Theodore Johnson. I intend to revisit the Worboys case in the light of recent developments.My starting point is: why do we impose judicial sentences on people found guilty of crimes? There are four possible reasons:
- Protection of society.
- Deterrence.
- Rehabilitation.
- Retribution.
These are not isolated reasons and they should ideally interact with each other. For example, protecting society can be achieved by locking up criminals and taking them out of circulation. Successful rehabilitation protects society by making released prisoners not want to re-offend. Retribution should protect society by deterring, not only potential offenders from committing crimes, but also actual offenders from repeating their crimes. In the eyes of many people, retribution is a sufficient reason in itself - you should pay for your crime - without reference to the other 3 reasons.
More than 100 women came forward with reports of rape and sexual assault by Worboys, although only a small number of charges were used by the CPS, who state that a case can be lost if it becomes overloaded. Many of the women whose complaints were not taken forward were reassured that there was enough to lock Worboys away for a very long time. I don't blame them for being shocked that he has been granted release after a mere eight years.
The facts are: Worboys consistently protested his innocence and had appeals lodged against his conviction throughout most of his prison sentence. About 18 months before the date when the parole board could consider his case, he changed tack and withdrew his protestations of innocence and his appeals. In other words, he went from defiantly proclaiming his innocence to humble, repentant offender almost overnight.
I doubt I am alone in believing that a serial offender whose assaults on women go back decades to the days when he was a male stripper has been rehabilitated in 18 months. The fact that he has formed a close relationship in prison with Levi Bellfield, the murderer of Milly Dowler, should in itself set the alarm bells ringing. Like Worboy's victims, I am convinced his transformation from ruthless abuser of hundreds of women into a harmless, responsible and remorseful member of society is utterly implausible.
Ultimately, I must return to retribution. Even if the requirements of protection of society, deterrence and rehabilitation had been met, people expect an element of punishment: you've done something horrible, so something horrible must happen to you.
I don't believe that those three factors have been satisfied in the slightest in the Worboys case, but even if they were, eight years for his horrendous crimes inflicted upon hundreds of women are not enough. It works out at less than 30 days for each reported rape and sexual assault.
Worboys is 60 now, still able to have something of a life if he were released. In law, the maximum sentence for rape is life imprisonment. The minimum sentence for rape is not defined, although some custodial sentence will apply. The sheer numbers of victims in this case must surely count as an aggravating factor that justifies a life sentence.*
I wish the victims who have been granted the right to challenge the parole board's decision - a legal first - every success.
* More on rape sentencing here.
Worboys is 60 now, still able to have something of a life if he were released. In law, the maximum sentence for rape is life imprisonment. The minimum sentence for rape is not defined, although some custodial sentence will apply. The sheer numbers of victims in this case must surely count as an aggravating factor that justifies a life sentence.*
I wish the victims who have been granted the right to challenge the parole board's decision - a legal first - every success.
* More on rape sentencing here.
