Sir, No one could fail to be moved by the heartbreaking statement made in court on behalf of Adele Eastman (report, Nov 29). However, I question the purpose of an impact statement being considered before sentencing. Is the life of someone who is loved and adored by his family and friends more valuable than the life of someone who dies alone with no one to speak of how loved they were and how much they will be missed?

The loss of any life is a tragedy. Sentencing should not be influenced by emotion.

DAVID WILSON
Thetford, Norfolk

Sir, The Law Commission proposals for reforming our homicide laws appear soon after the high-profile case of Tom ap Rhys Pryce. I spent much of my professional life defending people accused of crimes, including many homicides, and so welcome the proposals which would introduce flexibility into sentencing.

But, while I believe there are far too many offenders in our prisons who should be elsewhere, receiving treatment for drug addiction and mental problems or serving the community, and that our prisons should be reserved only for those offenders who are a danger to society or deserve condign punishment, I think there is a limited class of what the Law Commission classifies as first-degree murderers for whom the mandatory life sentence should mean natural life.

Although the humanity of John ap Rhys Pryce in drawing compassionate social conclusions from his son’s killers deserves the utmost respect, it seems to me that the abhorrent circumstances of the murder and the total absence of remorse shown by the two men would justify their inclusion in such a class.

BENEDICT BIRNBERG
London SE3

Explore Letters

• Feedback