His comments follow controversy last month, when Home Secretary David Blunkett set out reforms of the legal system which would allow Parliament to set minimum terms for murder.

That included "life meaning life" for the most horrific murders and upping the minimum tariff in aggravated murders from 20 to 30 years.

Responding to Lord Woolf's criticisms, Mr Blunkett insisted he firmly believed in the independence of the judiciary but voters expected a "clear framework" of minimum sentences when it came to murder.

Do politics and justice mix? Should parliament decide on the law?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

The real problem is that judges (and many politicians) are lawyers. The legal profession is nothing but a self perpetuating class ridden anachronism that abuses the legal aid system, favours costly litigation over reasonable compromise, and promotes a false equality between the criminal and the victim. There is nothing wrong with our elected legislators, passing laws that the citizens want, making their wordings clear and unambiguous, and making it quite clear to judges how they should interpret these laws.
Vig, UK

Parliament, being the elected body, has the perfect right to instruct judges Fred, England

Lord Woolf, like most in the legal profession, lead a nice insulated life away from the run down, crime ridden areas the rest of us have to endure. The fact that they are so out of touch and arrogant is the reason why Parliament gets involved. As this is a democracy, parliament, being the elected body, has the perfect right to instruct judges; in fact judges are just public servants.
Fred, England

A judge should have no say in the length or severity of a sentence. His only function is as a figurehead who passes the sentence once a criminal is found guilty. These so called judicial experts should have had all power stripped from them when we entered the last century never mind now.
Keith, UK

British justice is a joke. Our judges do not live in the real world. The first step has been taken by the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor. The present judiciary system is not fit to represent the people of this country. Life should mean life and judges like Woolf should not dictate the law. We the people are the law. Not him.
Joe Harper, UK

Judges should be completely independent Vish, UK

Joe Harper: We the people are not the law. That is why we have a judiciary in the first place. We saw what happened when people became the law in Portsmouth. Jail is there to deter and to allow people to pay off their debt to society. Politicians should not be allowed to play political football with people. People are fear driven and revenge seeking. It is for these reasons that politicians should not be allowed near sentencing. Judges should be completely independent.
Vish, UK

What Mr Blunkett is starting to do is to put victims first Christine, UK

The current system is a joke. What Mr Blunkett is starting to do is to put victims first. We all have free will and we all know the consequences of breaking the law. It is up to parliament to pass laws and for judges like Lord Woolf to implement them.
Christine, UK

Parliament is the only body that makes laws. Laws aim to protect the integrity, the right, the peace and the livelihood of the nation and its citizens. Judges are here to make sure that the laws are properly and fairly interpreted and enforced. Changes are needed when deficiencies or failures appear in either or both arms of the system. Peter Chan.
Peter Chan, UK

I tire of empty cliches such as 'cracking down' and 'reform' Mike Taylor, England

Having worked as a Probation Officer during the reign of Michael Howard as Home Secretary I saw the blatant and cynical use of crime by a politician. The continuing use of crime by right wing politicians such as Straw and Blunkett only serve to remind me of the necessity of keeping the dispensing of justice separate from party politics. I tire of empty cliches such as 'cracking down' and 'reform'. It just serves to keep the public afraid.
Mike Taylor, England

Now that Lord Woolf has reached 70 hasn't he achieved the minimum tariff (ie mandatory retirement age for judges) and should therefore take up golf or something instead of trying to confound the will of parliament.
David, England

The figure of "justice" is depicted as blindfolded for a good reason. Thus judges set sentences according to each case using law and previous cases as a guide - not according to public whims of the moment or politicians looking for votes. The being demanded by some writers "reform" is really "rewriting the justice system to accommodate a public thirst for vengeance whipped up by a sensationalist Press".
Richard Gregory, UK

Whilst Politics and Justice have connections. I am always wary of too much interference. An example would be Zimbabwe and how judges were removed if they did not toe Mugabe's dictates. And those cronies left in charge of justice would ensure that opposition to the regime is wiped out. Let Justice be just that, equal and fair to everyone.
Dave, UK

I believe Mr Blunkett has gone rather too far into the judges' territory. His proposals are not limited to a 'framework' ,nor are they put into the context of an overarching criminal justice strategy. This is law-making on the hoof. Mr Blunkett needs first to develop a long-term strategy, and secondly to be clear about the separation of powers. Ironic that he is breaching the boundaries just as the Lord Chancellorship is being abolished in order to resolve the problem of his dual role.
Jacqueline Castles, England

Cases are different, even when there is a common thread running through them Matthew, USA

I would say that sentencing reform sounds like American sentencing guidelines. Proceed with caution because judicial discretion should be preserved so that legal reasoning would be the focal point rather than fitting cases to meet guidelines. Cases are different, even when there is a common thread running through them
Matthew, USA

Once upon a time kings made the law. The people of England fought a civil war to establish the sovereignty of parliament, which is elected by the people. The social contract between the people and a democratic parliament requires that parliament remains sovereign and enacts the law. No such contract exists with lawyers. The task of the police is to enforce the law, and the courts to carry it out. No other arrangement is possible within the "constitution"
Iskra, England

I think it's a healthy sign when they're sniping at each other Paul Bartlett, UK

This country's administration revolves around the judiciary, the executive and Parliament. I think it's a healthy sign when they're sniping at each other. What's less healthy is when the executive tries to impose its will upon the judiciary and to sideline Parliament.
Paul Bartlett, UK

Not before time - at least we would hope that politicians would in some way reflect the wishes of the people who elected them. The judiciary as it stands is as out of date as the wigs that is their badge of office, and I don't think any of them live in an average two up two down semi!
Kevin, UK

Justice must be kept separated from politics. Politicians are not judges, and they will misuse it.
M. A. Jabbar, Singapore

Our legal system cannot continue with its old, traditional ways Garry Dawson, UK

This is a wake up call to the judiciary. Public perception is that they are unrepresentative of the nation as a whole and unfit for the role society needs them to undertake. I'm confident that the country doesn't want or need a police state controlled by the government of the day but many of the sentences handed down by judges seem to be completely out of tune with the wishs of the general public. This move may not be the complete solution, but our legal system cannot continue with its old, traditional ways.
Garry Dawson, UK

Clearly there must be no political influence over sentencing in individual cases. However, it is clearly the role of parliament to decide the sentencing framework within which all judges must make their decisions. Presumably Lord Woolf feels the Home Secretary will impose an unduly restrictive framework?
E.Patterson, UK

Judges need to be aware of their social responsibility Mike Osborne, United Kingdom

With regard to murder, it should continue to carry a "mandatory sentence of life", with whole life tariff also available for other serious crimes. As to other crimes, sentencing should be "clear & concise" doing away with percentage remissions and other sentencing formulae. When sentencing, judges need to be aware of their social responsibility and of the effect crimes have on victims.
Mike Osborne, United Kingdom

What happened to three strikes and you are out? Never really got off the ground with our judges and yet in my experience of 30 years in the police, eight out of 10 burglars are repeat offenders. Same names same old mitigation out again within 18 months because the prisons are too full. Put the repeat offenders away by building twice the number of prisons but give them life and maybe they will come out in about seven years.

Most burglars laugh at the sentences they get and often expect longer terms. The Police have had numerous reviews and changes in work practices every other year. When are the Courts and Judges going to face some probing and accountability?
Pete, UK

Considering the fact that judges continually let everyone off and refuse to punish people for crimes they commit something has to be done Tom, England

What does Woolf know about justice anyway? You may as well let the politicians have a go at it. For that matter any clown could probably do a better job. I am presently living in Houston in Texas and some of the recent legal stories from the UK like that regarding Tony Martin are met with laughter and disbelief here. I'm not saying that I would like the UK to be run by lawyers like the US but there needs to be common sense in justice and defend the innocent and prosecute the guilty in clear cut cases like defending yourself, your family and your property.
David P, UK

Theoretically I would say that they should not mix and should be utterly separate, but considering the fact that judges continually let everyone off and refuse to punish people for crimes they commit (in fact they seem to reward them, like the thief who's now suing the man he robbed) something has to be done.
Tom, England

Since some judges seem to slap offenders gently on the wrist instead of chaining them in manacles, then reform is necessary Neil Small

David Blunkett may be veering toward the Michael Howard manner of home secretarianship, but in this instance he is right. And Lord Woolf is clearly wrong. It is silly to pretend that politics and justice are separate. Why else do we elect politicians to make laws? Law should be and is a product of history and the present, to argue that things should not change is like sticking your head in the sand.
Stephen, UK

The last thing I'd want to see is a politician telling a judge how to do his job. But, since some judges seem to slap offenders gently on the wrist instead of chaining them in manacles, then reform is necessary.
Neil Small, Scotland

Sentencing policy should be changed so that the public is no longer deliberately misled. Sentences handed out in court should be the minimum time that will definitely be served. It is almost criminal in itself that the sentences handed down are likely to be markedly different to the actual time spent in jail. We also need many more jails. Why are we so keen to limit prison capacity?
George Parkinson, Scotland

Justice is not vengeance and vengeance is not justice olin Duncan, Northern Ireland

The judiciary must remain independent in the fullest sense. Not only of politics but also of public opinion. Both politics and public opinion are volatile and subject to the vagaries of influence by vested interests. The media has far too much influence over politicians and they claim the moral high ground of public opinion based on nothing more tangible than the claim itself. The symbol of justice is a female figure holding a set of scales and a sword. Blunkett and the media seek a system of justice symbolized by a male warrior figure brandishing a sword in each hand. Justice is not vengeance and vengeance is not justice.
Colin Duncan, Northern Ireland

Life SHOULD mean life. What is the judge's problem? If he and others won't put dangerous criminals away for the safety of the public then someone has to. Also the new reforms which state that paedophiles caught downloading child porn will only be given a caution is disgusting and clearly shows us what the British Government think of human rights when it comes to children. By letting these perverts off, they're not only able to keep viewing child porn, but their own children are being left at risk, as are other children.
Heather, N Ireland

Politics and justice are very intimately connected. Without politics (in the sense of political approval and hence institutions) institutions like the judiciary would not exist. They are there to do the will (in a broad sense) of the people: the people who set them up. For a judge to call for separation of politics and the judiciary is quite incredible: it's like a Christian claiming independence from the God he believes created him. Everything the judges do is in the name of the people. Where do their jobs come from? Who pays their salaries? Who makes the laws they administer? They look a bit like latterday Pinocchios who wish they had no strings. But thank goodness, they do have strings. The legislature seems to need protection from the judiciary, rather than the other way round, methinks.
Alfred Dearnley, England