It is not for us, at this point, to proceed on any other premise than that Police Superintendent Harry ‘Bungles’ Daley is guilty of corruption, pending an overturn of his conviction by the local appellate, or other court.

Consequently, until such time, we consider it within our prerogative to comment on the latest development in the case which, according to yesterday’s edition, climaxed with the 18-month sentence he received from Senior Resident Magistrate Judith Pusey.

We know it’s not our place to question her discretion, which is about to be challenged in the local appellate court by Mr Daley’s lawyer, Ms Valerie Neita-Robertson, on the basis that, according to her, it is manifestly excessive.

However, we definitely see the need to ask about the rationale behind the sentence.

For if it is to send a message to punish and deter would-be extortionists in the force, we don’t think 18 months — which in reality will translate to less actual time served if Mr Daley plays his cards right — is enough.

For we happen to know that policemen who would betray their duty to extort money from those whom they are paid to protect and serve, don’t have too much pride. So the publicity doesn’t really hurt them. In fact, if the sentence is short enough, they come out to enjoy the fruits of their corruption, none the sadder, in most cases.

Surely the real deterrent for such policemen, in the absence of a sentence long enough to put a serious dent in their criminal lifestyle, would be to go after the benefits of their corruption.

Maybe the Proceeds of Crime Act could be employed here.

If the rationale of the sentence is rehabilitative, again we don’t think a less-than-18-month sentence is enough, barring divine intervention, for a hardened criminal to unlearn his wicked ways.

If the rationale is to protect the public by shutting such offenders away, then again, with every due respect, we don’t think a less-than-18-month sentence offers much by way of solace.

Still, we’re confident that RM Pusey had credible reasons for ruling as she did.

After all, we’re sure that she must be even more cognisant than most of the urgency of the need to protect the country’s private sector from extortionists and other criminals.

For the simple fact is that the private sector’s contribution to the society is indispensable.

Without the private sector’s help, this country would be in an even sorrier state than it is right now.

And if business operators — especially the small ones — decide that the terrain is too corrupt for them to survive, that they are better off putting their money down somewhere where they can earn interest instead, then the suffering, the joblessness, the hopelessness will increase.

So will the crime, which the justice system is designed to keep in check.

That is why we are curious to see what the outcome of this case will be.

Hopefully, by that time, we will better understand the sentencing and other processes of the justice system.