Tougher sentences may not work in Britain

Dear Sir, I am surprised at Ray Fleming supporting David Blunkett in his attempt to remove sentencing decisions from judges (MDB May 8).
It is well known that the severity of the sentence is not a deterrent to crimes such as murder which are mostly committed within the family.
The death penalty is considered the ultimate deterrent yet America proves that this does not work.
On the contrary, a person committing a crime that merits the death sentence will know that he has nothing to lose and may well kill witnesses, eg other members of the family. Also, prisoners who have no incentive to behave or reform in the hope of gaining remission would be extremely dangerous to other prisoners and prison staff. Jurors are also influenced by pre–determined sentences. A weak prosecution case may cause jurors to return a not guilty verdict if they know a guilty verdict will automatically mean a life sentence. Without a pre–determined sentence jurors could return a guilty verdict assured by the fact that the judge can consider any mitigating factors in the case against the accused and sentence accordingly. What about wrongful arrests? We have seen many of these recently. People could be in prison for 30 or 40 years before being released.
No, Mr Fleming, prisons must remain reformatories. Life sentences and death sentences are only acts of revenge, surely in 2003 we are beyond that.
George Tomlinson
Puerto Pollensa
Short, sharp
Dear Sir, At last Clare Short has decided to do the honourable thing and resign. She should have gone weeks ago like she had threatened before the Iraq crisis started. Any credibility which she may have had disappeared when she didn't resign two months ago. A question of better late than never.
Ian Wilks
England