The five principles of sentencing

are to (1) punish the offender, (2) reduce crime, (3) reform and rehabilitate the offender, (4) protect the public and (5) make reparations.
A judge needs to take all these things into account when handing down a sentence - and many other things as well.
Someone posted a query on social media about the sentence handed down to a university student in the UK for stabbing her boyfriend. It was suggested in more than one article that the sentence was too light and that she had "got away with it" because she was white, pretty, intelligent and rich - and that someone who was black, not good looking, of lower intelligence and poor would not have received the same consideration.
Now, up to a point that is true - but it is also false. On the surface it looks like a clear miscarriage of justice. The media made much of this saying the perpetrator should be behind bars and much more.
Look a little more closely though and a different and much more complex story emerges. Perhaps the person who should really be behind bars is a drug dealer - and, in all likelihood, he is still plying his filthy trade. 
 The other thing that has not been recognised by the media is that the person who committed this crime is going to pay for it for the rest of her life. She was a medical student but she will never be a doctor. Isn't that punishment in itself?
The consequences of being sent to prison can vary greatly between individuals. Punishing someone by sending them to prison isn't an end to the matter. For a person of low academic achievement and no job it could mean a real chance of rehabilitation if we would only put into place the sort of help they need. The problem is that we don't spend the enormous amount of time and money they often need. There are many good reasons why the "recidivists" are back in prison and they often relate to intelligence, literacy levels, employment, and support networks.
For a person of greater academic achievement who has had a job and made some poor - even downright stupid - choices the chances are that they have also lost their job and may have difficulty finding another. Or, as is the case with the girl who stabbed her boyfriend, they won't finish their training and will spend the rest of their life effectively being punished for that one act.
Now, don't misunderstand me please. She did the wrong thing. She needed to face up to the consequences of what she did and do something about it - which apparently she has. But, how much further do you want the courts to go? Do you want the courts to judge her more harshly and punish her even more severely simply because she  is  who she is? Or do you want to hope that she can turn her life around and, although she may never be a doctor, still do something useful with her life?
It's a fine balancing act. 
When judges are criticised for the sentences they hand down it is often the case that the media - and thus the public - don't know the full story. They won't be in full possession of the facts or understand the things the judge must take into account.
And, in this case, it is also possible that an important sentencing precedent has been set. That could do much to help many young people.