Was unaware that punishment had been removed as a factor from official sentencing guidelines as provided for in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Label it as pandering to basic human instinct but nevertheless people will be peopl after all. So just as 'punishment' is not the sole consideration in sentencing, neither is aiming for non-custodial sentencing in the name of 'rehabilitation'. Both are merely two of a range of factors to be considered. It is also incongruous to draw an arbitrary line as to what should incur custodial terms, particularly when applying an extreme personal prejudice and bias as referenced above. When one considers the context, scale and lasting societal impact of the riots, punishment is as valid a consideration as rehabilitation from a neutral viewpoint. Consider further for the vast majority of offenders, it is impossible for them to recompense their victims of possessions looted, and businesses and homes burned down. So how do victims get their 'justice'? It is a balancing act but it is peculiar some previous opinions appear to have excluded the innocent victims from their deliberations. If that is incorrect, then the silence was unfortunate. If that inference is accurate, then it is a timely reminder judges are under a duty to consider the needs of victims and - by extension - society, as a whole also.