AS the States police point out, extreme violence is mercifully rare in Jersey. However, when two vicious assaults come to the public’s attention on two consecutive days the problem of this category of crime is highlighted and questions are inevitably asked about how it is being tackled.

In an attack reported on Friday, a 22-year-old man and two teenage girls staged a merciless onslaught in which a stiletto heel was used as a weapon. As a result, the 19-year-old victim lost an eye.

The second attack, reported a day later, involved what was described as a ‘frenzied, savage and relentless’ beating which continued even after the 34-year-old victim was lying unconscious on the ground. The 24-year-old perpetrator was perhaps fortunate not to have faced a murder charge.

Unfortunately, these separate outrages are linked by a common factor – many Islanders will conclude that the sentences handed down to the guilty parties did not fit the crimes committed. In the stiletto assault the prison terms ranged from three to 4½ years, whereas the court felt that a three-year term was sufficient in the second case.

By comparison, a drug smuggler whose case also came to court last week was sentenced to six years for the importation of cocaine and an ecstasy substitute. It is, of course, entirely appropriate that our courts favour harsh deterrent penalties for serious drug crime, but many would say that the same must apply even more emphatically to serious crimes of violence.

In practice, here in Jersey a person sentenced to three years in prison is likely to serve only two years – provided that they behave themselves while behind bars. This does not seem to be commensurate with the nature of the viciousness described last week in open court.

Perhaps more importantly, the deterrent effect of as little as two years in prison for crimes of extreme violence must be questioned.

The police have said that they intend to do everything within their power to combat violence on our streets, in places of entertainment and, indeed, in the home. It goes without saying that this is a commendable objective, but it would be preferable if offences are simply not committed because potential offenders realise that loss of self-control is likely to lead to a very long period of reflection and repentance at Her Majesty’s pleasure.