Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado was in no doubt as to the purpose of punishment. 'My object all sublime,' he said, 'I shall achieve in time, to let the punishment fit the crime.' Sentencing, alas, is rarely quite so simple, and the punishment must also fit the criminal.
Judges and magistrates sometimes say that, in comparison with the sentencing of the offender, the trying of him is easy. In sentencing, judicial discretion is wide and various factors may pull in different directions. The courts are sometimes met with calls to impose severe penalties, and the whole process disturbs social harmony. Amina Mariam Bokhary, for example, was sentenced to probation for assaulting a police officer, and 300 people took to the streets to demand that she receive condign punishment.
Although the courts must not be stampeded by public outrage into imposing draconian sentences, they need to ensure that the penalty is not so lenient as to tempt the victim and his or her relatives to take the law into their own hands. While undue harshness in the sentencing of an offender may not advance the interests of justice, undue leniency can undermine respect for the legal system.
When sentencing an offender, the court must fully assess the offence and the circumstances of its commission. Regard must also be had to the situation of the offender, and to the reasons the crime was committed. The public good is also relevant, and England's former chief justice Lord Bingham has spoken of the need 'to prevent the offender from reoffending and to deter others from offending in the same way and a need to protect the public'.
The functions of sentencing include the punishment of the offender, his or her reform, the reduction of crime, the protection of the public and the making of reparation for loss. It is not easy for a court to achieve a sentence that can satisfy all these objectives. There will, in any event, always be a hard core of offenders who will never renounce a life of crime, although a high detection rate and a harsh sentencing policy may at least give them pause for thought.
The imprisonment of the offender is the obvious means by which the court can show its disapproval of serious crime, and hopefully deter potential criminals. While imprisoned, the offender is out of circulation, and society is protected.
In many situations, however, alternatives to imprisonment may also have the desired effect. In 2002, for example, after Canto-pop star Nicholas Tse Ting-fung was convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of public justice, some people wanted to see him locked up, but he received instead a community service order of 240 hours, requiring him to perform useful work for society in a non-custodial environment, and this proved to be salutary.