JUDGE Peter Bowers believes burglars have a “huge amount of courage” to break into people’s houses (Echo, Sept 6).

I read his comments with something akin to despair but, sadly, not surprise.

Allowing a drug addicted thief who had burgled three homes in five days his freedom at Teesside Crown Court, he described the offender as “courageous”.

The position of judge brings with it a great deal of responsibility.

Those privileged to fill the role need to demonstrate a high degree of fairness, dignity and impartiality when passing sentence.

They should take into account the offence, the offender and, most importantly, the impact of the crime on the victim.

It is quite clear that Judge Bowers is completely lacking in these qualities and has treated the victim of this serious crime with disdain.

I am surely not the only person who believes that the sooner this judge hangs up his robes of office the better.

John Crick, Bishop Auckland .

A JUDGE at Teesside Crown Court saying that to commit burglary requires courage has sparked an explosion of outrage and kneejerk reactions by critics.

The serious issue is in the context of what Judge Bowers was saying about the effectiveness of prison if we want to reduce crime.

Deterrence can only work if the offender believes that he will be caught.

Putting someone in prison is nothing more than providing temporary respite to a community.

The evidence, when we consider rates of re-offending, is that to rely on prison only leads to calls for more prisons and prison places which, once they are filled, could lead to even more being demanded.

A judge is at the cutting edge of this dilemma and it does not surprise me that they look to non-custodial sentences as an alternative.

The question is what works best rather than what is likely to attract general approval The value of the judicial system is that judges do not have to court popularity. Their work is far more serious

G Bulmer, Billingham .