It is disappointing, kev, to read that, despite your extensive research into miscarriages of justice, you consider that the law is �run by retards�.
When passing sentences, judges and magistrates have, by law, to be mindful of the tariffs which are laid down by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. If they wish to depart from these tariffs they must explain themselves in open court. Argument over the justification for departure from the published tariffs is one of the main reasons for appeals against sentence.
It is unreasonable to expect that all offences should attract the maximum tariff available. Who, for example, would be happy to see a fine of �1,000 (or �2,500 if on a motorway) imposed for every speeding offence? Hence the need for tariffs which can take account of some of the variations in the seriousness of individual offences.
The issue of �Life� sentences is another matter. When the Death Penalty was abolished it was said that it was to be replaced by a sentence of Life imprisonment and that this was to mean Life. History has told the electorate (as if they needed telling) not to believe all they hear from Parliament.
Offences which can attract a Life sentence also have a tariff which the judge has to use when announcing his recommended minimum period. I personally think that in cases where �Life� does not mean life the term should not be used and a fixed term imposed instead.
This is just a brief explanation of my understanding of the many complex issues which surround sentencing practice. There may be problems and anomalies. However, most people involved in the administration of justice are intelligent, qualified and experienced and are doing their job in accordance with their instructions. Labelling them as �retards� just will not do.