The Rise of Soft Sentencing: Justice or a Legal Loophole?
By Benedict Tarot Freeman,
Introduction: A Justice System at Breaking Point
The British justice system is built upon the principle of proportional sentencing—punishments that fit the crime, balancing deterrence with rehabilitation. Yet, in recent years, a growing perception has taken hold: that sentencing is becoming increasingly lenient, with serious offenders escaping with what many perceive as a slap on the wrist.
This is not just a public grievance—it is a tangible shift, reflected in judicial statistics and a mounting sense of frustration among victims, police officers, and even legal professionals.
This shift towards "soft sentencing" has been driven by multiple factors: overcrowded prisons, a stretched judicial system, and the increasing weight given to mitigation such as mental health, social background, and human rights considerations. But is this an evolution towards a more humane, rehabilitative justice system, or is it a legal loophole that allows dangerous criminals to avoid the full consequences of their actions?
At the same time, the UK's prison crisis is compounded by another issue: foreign national offenders who cannot be deported, thanks to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was incorporated into UK law through the 1998 Human Rights Act.
The result? Over 10,000 foreign criminals remain in British prisons, blocking spaces that could be used to house British offenders who might otherwise receive harsher custodial sentences.
With the justice system under immense strain, Sir Brian Leveson is now leading a Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings, aimed at streamlining the courts and addressing the backlog of cases. But will this review tackle the root causes of soft sentencing, or is Britain heading further down the road of judicial leniency in the name of practicality?
The Rise of Soft Sentencing: The Facts and the Figures
Judicial leniency is no longer just a matter of perception; the statistics support it.
In 2010, 41% of convicted criminals in Crown Court received immediate custodial sentences. By 2023, that number had fallen to 34%, despite rising levels of serious crime.
Sentences for violent crime, sexual offences, and drug-related offences have been steadily decreasing, with a marked rise in suspended sentences and community orders.
Repeat offenders are receiving more lenient punishments than they would have a decade ago, even when committing the same offences.
The reasons for this shift are complex, but prison overcrowding is a major factor. The UK’s prison estate is stretched beyond its limits, with over 87,000 inmates housed in a system designed for just over 80,000. The Ministry of Justice has been under quiet but increasing pressure to reduce the number of people being sent to prison, resulting in judges being encouraged—though never explicitly instructed—to consider alternatives to custodial sentences wherever possible.
This has led to an explosion in suspended sentences, community orders, and rehabilitation-focused alternatives—many of which are demonstrably failing to prevent reoffending. The recidivism rate for those given community orders is nearly 50% within one year. In other words, half of those spared prison are back before a judge within twelve months.
The Human Rights Blockade: The Foreign Criminals We Cannot Deport
The issue of sentencing leniency becomes even more pressing when one considers the 10,000 foreign criminals currently occupying British prison cells—individuals who, in many cases, should have been deported but are instead granted the right to remain due to ECHR protections and the Human Rights Act of 1998.
Britain remains legally bound by the ECHR, and since this is enshrined into domestic law through the Human Rights Act, it has become near-impossible to remove prisoners who claim their deportation would violate their human rights.
Some violent offenders have argued that deportation would breach their “right to family life” under Article 8 of the ECHR.
Others have successfully prevented deportation by claiming they would face “inhuman or degrading treatment” in their home countries under Article 3.
In extreme cases, even convicted terrorists have used human rights laws to block removal, forcing the UK to retain them in the prison system at the taxpayer’s expense.
Meanwhile, the courts continue to hand out reduced sentences due to “prison capacity concerns,” while thousands of criminals who should have been removed remain locked in a system already at breaking point.
The government has repeatedly vowed to fix this problem, but without a decisive break from the ECHR’s jurisdiction, Britain remains shackled to a human rights framework that actively prevents the removal of dangerous individuals.
If the goal of the justice system is to prioritise the safety of law-abiding citizens, then surely the first logical step is to remove foreign criminals who should not be here in the first place. Yet, instead of addressing this glaring issue, the government and judiciary continue to favour non-custodial sentences for British offenders, compounding the cycle of crime.
The Leveson Review: Fixing the System or Fueling the Problem?
With the justice system under immense strain, Sir Brian Leveson has been tasked with reviewing the efficiency of criminal proceedings. This review aims to address the huge backlog of cases—a problem that has left victims waiting years for justice, defendants stuck in limbo, and the courts overwhelmed.
While streamlining the process is a necessary and welcome move, there are concerns that it could inadvertently lead to further sentencing leniency. If one of the main objectives is to clear the backlog, will this mean:
More out-of-court disposals, where serious cases are resolved without trial?
Increased use of early guilty pleas in exchange for reduced sentences?
More offenders being diverted away from custodial sentences simply to ease the burden on the system?
Efficiency should never come at the expense of justice. The public will not tolerate a system where convenience dictates punishment, where victims of violent crime see their attackers walk free due to “capacity issues,” or where criminals become emboldened by the knowledge that sentencing is growing ever weaker.
Leveson’s review must tackle the heart of the problem, not just the symptoms. That means confronting the government over prison overcrowding, demanding action on foreign national offenders, and ensuring that judicial efficiency does not translate into judicial leniency.
Conclusion: A Justice System at a Crossroads
The justice system is supposed to be blind, fair, and impartial. Yet today, it finds itself under immense pressure—not just from external forces such as the ECHR and human rights laws, but from its own growing inability to balance justice with practicality.
Sentencing is becoming softer, not necessarily because the judiciary wants it that way, but because the system can no longer cope.
The backlog of cases is unmanageable. The prisons are full. The government refuses to act decisively on foreign criminals who should have been deported years ago. And so, the courts are left with only one option: lower sentences, fewer custodial terms, and a growing reliance on alternatives that demonstrably do not work.
The British public, however, will not accept a justice system that prioritises convenience over deterrence. If the system continues down this path, it risks undermining public confidence in the rule of law itself.
For the government, for the judiciary, and for Sir Brian Leveson—the time for half-measures is over. Either we fix this system now, or we accept that soft sentencing is not a temporary trend, but the new normal. And if that happens, then the true victims will not be those in the dock, but the law-abiding citizens of Britain who expect—and deserve—far better.
Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.
Benedict Tarot Freeman
Editor-at-Large
Video Production News
Comments