The public are more positive about how the riots were handled in hindsight, but a quarter of Britons still feel rioters’ sentences haven’t been harsh enough
The British public were not convinced the riots were being handled well when YouGov asked at the height of the unrest on 5-6 August, with only three in ten Britons (31%) feeling Keir Starmer was doing a good job, against half (49%) who felt he was handling them badly. There was also scepticism that the courts would mete out justice, with just a third of the public (34%) feeling the courts would sentence the rioters effectively.
Two weeks on, now the riots appear to have come to an end and more than a hundred have already been sentenced, have Britons’ perspectives changed on how the riots were handled?
How do the public feel politicians and the justice system dealt with the riots?
Across the board, the British public are more positive about how the riots were handled now than they were at the time. Compared to a fortnight ago, the proportion of Britons feeling the police handled them well has increased from 52% to 63%, while the number believing the legal system has done a good job dealing with the situation has shot up from just a quarter of Britons (27%) to a clear majority of 57%.
Keir Starmer has also seen something of a turnaround. Now, the public are roughly evenly split on how the prime minister handled the riots, with 43% thinking he handled them well and 40% viewing his response as poor. At the time of the riots, the public had taken a significantly more negative view, with only 31% saying Starmer was reacting well compared to 49% who thought he was doing a bad job.
This improved view of the prime minister’s handling is apparent among all groups, but has been most notable among Conservatives, a third of whom (35%) now feel he did a good job, up from one in six (16%) a fortnight ago.
Do Britons feel the sentences for rioters have been tough enough?
During the riots, Britons were sceptical that the courts would appropriately sentence the rioters when they were caught, with 56% of the public saying they didn’t trust them to sentence correctly. But now, with hundreds of rioters charged and many convicted, Britons are a bit more positive about how the courts have responded.
In terms of whether the courts are getting it right, nearly half of Britons (45%) believe that the sentences that rioters have received are about right, but a quarter of the public (27%) feel the sentences aren’t harsh enough, while another one in six (16%) think they are too harsh.
As with the responses to the riots at the time, there is a clear partisan divide in how people feel about the appropriateness of the sentences. The most common response among Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem voters is that the sentences are about right, a view held by half of Conservatives (48%) and approaching six in ten Labour and Lib Dem voters (57-58%).
Reform UK voters, however, are most likely to feel that the courts have been too harsh, half (51%) saying so, while only three in ten (29%) feel that they have received appropriate sentences.
When looking at a selection of specific sentences, the picture changes. While few continue to feel that the sentences handed down have been too harsh, the public become significantly more likely to think those involved are getting off lightly.
In the case of one individual who received a one year sentence for charging at a police officer, six in ten Britons (60%) feel this was too light a punishment and warranted a longer sentence, while only 5% of the public feel the courts were too harsh. Likewise, few (6%) believe that the legal system went too far with the four years and eight months for a selection of crimes like those committed in this case - for criminal damage, burglary and violent disorder, including throwing missiles at police - though the public are more evenly split between the 44% of Britons who feel this was a fair sentence and the 44% who believe it didn’t go far enough.
There’s similarly little support among the British public (8-9%) for the idea that a a six-year sentence and another of more than three years, for a cluster of violent disorder offences are disproportionate. Nearly half of Britons (47-48%) feel both sentences were appropriate, with 37% feeling both should have been harsher.
Of the sentences polled, the one Britons were most likely to think was too harsh was a fifteen month sentence for a Facebook post hoping that a mosque would be blown up with people inside. Nevertheless, this still only amounted to one in six Britons (18%) feeling this judgement went too far, although 36% still think it was about right and nearly four in ten (38%) believe it wasn’t harsh enough.
There was a similar response to a one year and eight month sentence for racist social media posts that included calling for a hotel to be set on fire. One in eight (12%) feel this was too harsh, against 44% who felt a longer stint in prison would be justified.
Again, partisan divides on the fairness of these specific sentences are apparent. Reform UK voters are consistently the most likely to feel sentences were too harsh and the least likely to say the courts aren’t being harsh enough. They were most critical of the sentences for the social media post incidents, with 39% and 53% of Reform voters feeling their respective penalties went too far. In both cases, no more than one in six (18%) of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem voters said the sentences were too harsh.
How do you feel the riots were handled, whether the sentences were too harsh, and everything else? Have your say, join the YouGov panel, and get paid to share your thoughts. Sign up here.
Photo: Getty
