Because ‘two-tier policing’ wasn’t unjust enough.

L ast year, intense protests and riots against immigration erupted throughout England after 17-year-old Axel Muganwa Rudakubana stabbed and killed young girls at a dance class. Law enforcement’s harsh response to the protesters (as well as speech online) motivated claims about “two-tier policing,” the idea that the police in the United Kingdom treat right-wingers more harshly than other groups. Naturally, the media dismissed two-tier policing as a “far-right conspiracy theory” and a “laughable” claim. But now, the government is entertaining regulations that would formally establish two-tier sentencing.

Guidelines set forth by the Sentencing Council, set to go into effect on April 1, state that a pre-sentence report “will normally be considered necessary” if the offender meets certain criteria, such as being “female,” having disclosed status as “transgender,” or belonging to “an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community.” A pre-sentence report is an assessment written by a probation officer and submitted to the court that effectively recommends an appropriate sentence; according to the Sentencing Council, a pre-sentence report may be “pivotal” in swaying the judge to “impose a custodial or community order and, where relevant, what particular requirements or combination of requirements are most suitable for an individual offender on either a community order or a suspended custodial sentence.” In other words, a pre-sentence report has the potential to mitigate a sentence — and the guidelines seem to require such a report for only some demographics.

It is difficult to see the Sentencing Council’s guidelines as anything other than a justification to be more harsh when dealing with offenders who are white males or Christians, and so the phrase “two-tier sentencing” has been gaining traction. Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, responded to the outrage by stating that the “updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government,” further adding that “there will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch.” Weirdly, she also asserted that “the Sentencing Council is entirely independent.” It isn’t obvious how an independent body will act under her watch. Regardless of whether Mahmood can and will direct amendments to the Sentencing Council’s guide, the public pushback might be sufficient for the pre-sentencing report criteria to change before April.

Even if the Sentencing Council’s guidelines are revised so that there is no formal requirement that encourages “two-tier sentencing,” the United Kingdom has clearly adopted different policing and judicial standards when faced with perpetrators who belong to a minority class. We know that England neglects the pursuit of justice when prosecuting the offenders threatens the optics of multiculturalism. One clear example is the epidemic of “grooming gangs,” which are better described as “child-prostitution rings.” The English authorities largely ignored the pimps who exploit young girls, in part because identifying the trend of largely white victims and largely Pakistani perpetrators would prompt accusations of racism and “Islamophobia.” And, in the cases where the pimps are sent to prison, the sentences seem suspiciously low — especially when compared with the harsh punishments handed out for “hate speech.” As I previously reported, a man was condemned to spend more time behind bars for shouting “You are protecting people who are killing our kids and raping them” at police than a man named Abdul Rauf actually served for repeatedly trafficking a teenage girl.

So, with or without the Sentencing Council’s guidelines, England has a two-tier system.