In my home state in Australia, we've just elected a conservative on a 'law and order' ticket (it's not why he won, the other main party was old, tired, and overconfident). Anyway, he's doing a number of questionable head-in-the-cloud things, and looks favourably on the unforgiving US style of justice. One of the things he's talking about is making sentences longer 'because that's what the community wants, harsher sentences'. Yes, when people read a one-liner in a paper, they cry for blood.
The thing is, the Law Institute of Victoria did a study with the general public, and found that when give the details of the case in question, they suggested shorter sentences than the courts were actually assigning. Therein lies the problem with listening to the tabloids - there's no detail.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that politicians never listen to the public when it comes to something as simple as their own payrises, so why should you consider the general public to be the final authority on something as complex and nuanced as law and order?
The thing is, the Law Institute of Victoria did a study with the general public, and found that when give the details of the case in question, they suggested shorter sentences than the courts were actually assigning. Therein lies the problem with listening to the tabloids - there's no detail.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that politicians never listen to the public when it comes to something as simple as their own payrises, so why should you consider the general public to be the final authority on something as complex and nuanced as law and order?