The Court of Appeal's decision to reduce Dennis Robinson's prison sentence for murder from 15 to 12 years has major ramifications for the courts and Parliament.

On the face of it, the decision was the right one. Bermuda does not have sentencing terms for life sentences as it stands, although one thing is certain – life is not life as most people ordinarily understand it.

So when judges have given life sentences in murder cases, it has been with the full understanding that life, far from meaning "life", means eligible for parole in 15 years.

That's unfair to judges, who are unable to give longer or shorter sentences depending on the circumstances.

And it is unfair for Parliament whose ability to use sentences as a deterrent, is limited.

It has also been a deception for the many who opposed the death penalty but wanted to be sure that sentences in murder cases reflected a similar severity to a death sentence.

For that reason, Parliament needs to review both the terms of sentence that a judge can apply in a murder case, and give guidelines to judges to be used to apply those sentences.

Robinson's lawyer, John Perry QC effectively argued that only the courts should determine prison sentences.

As we reported yesterday, he said the 15-year tariff set by law was unconstitutional, because it was set by Parliament rather than the court. He added: "The deprivation of liberty by a body other than the court is instantly unconstitutional."

At first glance, that sounds wrong. Parliament can and does set mandatory minimum and maximum sentences for all crimes.

It is true that judges have the discretion to suspend sentences, and occasionally this causes some controversy. It is hard to imagine a judge suspending a prison sentence for someone convicted of murder, as opposed to say manslaughter.

But assigning all discretion in sentencing to the court assumes that judges are always unbiased and objective in sentencing and are able to assess each case perfectly on its merits. That of course is not the case. Sentencing practices can vary from judge to judge and from case to case. That is also why the Court of Appeal is there, but the reality is that Parliament must have the right to say that it views certain crimes more seriously than others.

Similarly, the Parole Board also has a role to play in this: Neither Parliament nor judges can be certain that a person sentenced to a lengthy prison term will be rehabilitated 15 or more years later when they come up for parole. Only a parole board, taking all factors into consideration, including evidence from the victim or his or her family, the inmate and experts, can make that determination.

So Attorney General Sen. Kim Wilson does need to review the Criminal Code, and needs to make sure that sentencing practices strike the right balance between deterrence and discretion.