IF I had a pound for every time I saw newspaper headline screaming Outrage at Lenient Sentence I would be a rich man.

Anyone with even a passing experience of British newspapers could fill in the story beneath the headlines themselves, filling in whatever name or offence suits their whim.

It is one of most common examples of lazy and unimaginative journalism.

As soon as a judge has pronounced sentence on the culprit responsible for someone else's death, a journalist pokes his or her notebook in front of the nearest victim's relative and asks: "Do you think the sentence is too lenient?"

As if the grieving mother of a five-year-old pedestrian killed by a speeding drunk is going to say anything other than 'of course it's too lenient, he should have been hung drawn and quartered' - even if the driver is sent down for half a generation by the court.

It goes without saying that with some of the absurd sentences handed out by gaga magistrates and judges, the whole of society should be outraged not just the victim's close relatives, but often this is not the case.

It is simply the type of journalism which seeks to exploit people at a vulnerable time to create an ostensibly shocking story.

Take the case of careless driving. If a motorist accidentally pulls out in front of another car and there is a minor bump causing damage but no injury, he or she is guilty of careless driving and when convicted will be fined around £100 or so.

If the same motorist makes the same mistake but this time the cars collide and one bursts into flames, killing a mother and two toddlers, the motorist causing the accident will still be fined £100 for careless driving, despite the horrific outcome of the crash.

The law seeks to punish the degree of carelessness without regard to the result.

For a more serious penalty, the prosecution would have to prove dangerous or reckless driving, which is not easy.

Unless the guilty driver admits driving recklessly or dangerously the whole case becomes a lottery with the main prosecution witnesses dead and other witnesses whose testimony can be ripped apart by a clever lawyer.

It's often much easier for the prosecution to accept conviction on a less serious offence than to risk complete acquittal.

A fine of £100 does not seem much for the taking of lives but as a society we seem to readily accept regular carnage on our roads as an act of God rather than something we can prevent.

Other sentences involving loss of life are subject as much to the whim of society and political pressure.

It is now quite acceptable to feminists that women can kill men with impunity.

All they have to do is claim either physical or mental abuse on behalf of the victim and the feminist lobby will be clamouring for immediate release and the granting of a generous pension.

The fact that such abuse cannot be proven because the alleged abuser is now dead does not bother those with an axe to grind.

The fact that an accusation of abuse has been made is proof enough for them.

A recent case in the United States highlighted that fact that emotional abuse has now become an acceptable defence against a charge of murder or manslaughter as long as the crime is committed by a woman against a man.

The ruling promotes the idea that a even a man who is not violent but emotionally cruel deserves to be done away with.

To suggest that such attitudes are not particularly justified puts one at the risk of being accused of condoning violence against women so people, for fear of censure, stay silent.

The radical feminist lobby take the attitude that women can never be anything but victims and men can never be anything but guilty - which is asinine dogma.

When the courts start to take the same attitude on board we have the potential for unjust sentences being handed down and the multiplication of sentence outrage fodder for journalists who should find something better to write about.

l The views in this column are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the newspaper.

Send your letters on this, or any subject, to Wharfedale Newspapers, 9 Orchard Gate, Otley, LS21 3NX or to 8 Wells Road, Ilkley, LS29 9JD.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.