"What is the tough sentence?" you may ask. Chopping off shoplifters' hands or rapists' goolies? In a local newspaper (the Greenock Telegraph, since you ask) from about 100 years ago, I once read a story about a couple of young boys who were flogged for stealing a pocket watch. That was a tough sentence.
Nowadays, a tough sentence is this - two measly years detention for the vermin who killed an old man by throwing stones at him. When they are released in no time at all, they will come out of their detention centre as tougher, meaner criminals who know that in Britain of 2007 people like them really can get away with murder (OK, I know it was technically 'manslaughter'; but I do not have a brilliant legal mind like yours: I am just the sort of punter who pays your wages.)
Of course, the little darlings are protected by anonymity - their names cannot be revealed because of their 'rights'. Now let's think this through. When the scum are released, the youngest will still only be 14. That means at least two more years of compulsory education; two years in which other children will have to be educated alongside a killer; two years in which those children will not have the right to know they have a killer in their midst; two years in which teachers will not have the right to know that the truculent child in front of them is not just making idle threats: they have a track record in killing an adult who got in their way. What about their rights? They don't have any, do they? Silly question.
It doesn't always involve killers, but the above scenario happens at schools up and down the country. Sex offenders and other criminals are mollycoddled and innocent children and their teachers are put in danger because the law and the pinko liberals do not recognise that some children are just evil and that the rest of us need to be protected from them.