The second sentence pertains to the idea of retrospectively applying criminal sanctions that were not in place at the time.
So the courts weren't being 'more lenient' with Harris - they were dealing with him in the due way that the law applied at the time (though I may have read that sentencing guidelines don't quite follow that now - stand to be very corrected, please).
If you, useless, commit a crime now, in 2014, when the maximum sentence is 2 years and you don't go to court until 2044 (when the sentence for the same crime is death), would you think that it's fair? I know you've said that you think the reverse would be but I don't believe you've thought that or the implications of the whole of your suggestion through.
Sorry, mate. It's beyond crazy.
I guess this is a crude example but if the punishment for murder in the 1950's was to hang someone but they are not caught until 2014 should we hang them now 'applying the relevant sanctions of the day against the guilty actions'? If I myself were to commit a crime now but not be charged with it for another thirty years I may think that sentencing of the time is unfair but not because the crime was committed along time ago.
You say what I'm saying is beyond crazy and knowing me it probably is as I really don't know what I'm talking about but to be honest nothing you have written really points to the reason why it's crazy but I'm happy to learn.
Good point. No you couldn't be hung now for crimes commited before 1962/63 when the death penalty was abolished