Billy is assistant government chief whip, and in that capacity, he wrote to the president of the High Court last week, demanding that the beak gets his act together.

Billy wants to know why judges were imposing the socalled Mandatory Minimum Sentences (MMS) for drugs offences in only 20% of relevant cases that come before the courts. Legislation dating from 1999 obliges judges to impose a MMS of 10 years' imprisonment on offenders found guilty of possessing drugs worth more than 12,800, unless defined exceptional circumstances apply. Judges, it would seem, are making the exception the rule, imposing less than 10 years in around 80% of cases. Billy is mad as hell at this, and he ain't gonna take it no more.

It's not clear whether Billy ever heard of separation of powers, but such a high-falutin' concept is irrelevant compared to the grubby business of chasing down votes. Naturally, the newspapers got wind of Bill's angry letter, because there's no point in throwing tough-guy shapes if you don't let the electorate know about it.

On Monday, he told Matt Cooper on The Last Word that a message must be sent out to criminals, and it was incumbent on judges to apply the spirit of the law enacted by the legislature. The only message that Kelleher is interested in transmitting is for voters.

'Look at me. I am tough on crime. Vote for me. Love me.'

When all the buffoonery is stripped away, mandatory minimum sentences are exposed as a fairly useless blunt instrument in fighting crime. As designed in this jurisdiction, they're not even mandatory, a concept which, according to a High Court ruling on Thursday, is unconstitutional. But calling them 'recommended' wouldn't sound tough enough.

All research shows that fear of detection is the greatest impediment to prospective criminals. Fear of a lengthy sentence does not feature. The message that Billy wants to transmit goes unheeded.

MMS were introduced in the US in the 1980s as an experiment. By 2003, four years after their introduction here, at least half of US states were rolling back or repealing laws. The policy was costing a fortune with little or no reduction in crime levels. Most of those being jailed for the mandatory sentences were minor criminals, not the serious thugs who prosper and thrive on violence.

What was the point in handing down lengthy sentences to pathetic addicts who were filling up the jails and easily replaced in the drug business?

How does that stupidity protect the citizen, or give value for money to the taxpayer?

Except, of course, it sounds tough.

Politicians know all this but wantonly ignore it . . . the short-term benefit lies in appearing tough, whatever the cost to society, or to any concept of natural justice. MMS are a handy political tool.

Divert the focus of anger over crime to the judiciary, sit back and enjoy the view.

While Kelleher was acting the clown, as politicians tend to do in these matters, the DPP James Hamilton offered a valuable contribution last week. He wants judges to be more consistent in sentencing. Victims are often appalled and confused when sentences appear to differ greatly from a perceived norm.

One way to move towards consistency would be to compile a database of sentences, which would be accessible on the bench to all judges. In two seconds, he or she can see the range, and act accordingly. If a judge feels deviating from the norm is justified, then reasons should be given. None of that would impinge on independence, and victims might be more reassured.

It would also curb the excesses of the odd headbanger judge, particularly in the District Court, where 94% of all cases are heard. One or two of these hand down crazy sentences to keep the ego ticking over. Usually, the circuit court grants appeals, but the offender . . . often for minor offences . . . is put through another case and expense for no good reason.

A database would also be a start in encouraging researchbased policy, rather than the tough-guy posturing that serves nobody but politicians in the messy business of tackling crime.