It's not like in Judge John Deed

Iain Mcwhirter in The Herald takes an impeccably liberal view of Ministerial and media meddling in judicial sentencing (here):

"Now, I don't have a lot of time for judges myself – they are often out of touch, conservative and insufferably pompous. But, speaking personally, I'm not sure that I am better equipped than they are to decide on important matters of law which could affect the lives, not just of the people involved in any particular case, but the people affected by the consequences of any rush to
judgment. Like any other father, I become slightly irrational whenever paedophiles rape children and tend to think that hanging's too good for them. However, the law is the law. If politicians and journalists make it up as they go along, then we go to hell in the proverbial handcart."

Well, yes but no but maybe. I have nothing but contempt for Dr Reid's attempt to jump on a sentencing bandwagon by criticising a judicial decision when, as a senior politician, he must have been aware of the legal consequences of so doing. Such intervention is particularly reprehensible when the judge concerned was only following (as - arguably - he was required to do) guidelines fully endorsed by the Home Office. And pandering to the tabloid press in one of its periodic pits of moral hysterics is seldom a sound basis for political judgement.

But. Can we be satisfied with a system that apparently allows an offender who has committed a horrendous sexual crime to be considered for parole (or release under licence) after less than six years? There is at least a case to be made for a review of the sentencing guidelines - which would be a matter for decision primarily by politicians rather than judges.