It is the art of the backroom deal. The prosecution wants to avoid trials that are expensive, traumatic for witnesses and risky while the defence tries for sweeteners in exchange for a guilty plea. If all indictable cases went to trial the court system would collapse overnight because more than three out of four cases are resolved with an admission of guilt (77%). This production line pressure at the expense of tailor made justice can involve diluted charges and subsequent sentences that defy common sense.

Proof that efficiencies can come at too great a cost is the case of Constable Ben Ashmole, shot in the head in 2015 by two career criminals in an act of absolute bastardry. The crooks, Sam Liszczak and Rod Phillips, had fire bombed several houses they hoped contained dead drug boss Carl Williams' father, George and ex-wife Roberta.

When followed by Ashmole in a marked police car they did a U-turn and fired a shotgun at the policeman from a distance of less than five metres. Police say if he had not seen the gun and ducked he probably would have been killed - indeed the headrest that took the brunt of the blast was obliterated. Instead he was hit by 14 pellets, 11 that remain imbedded in his skull.

Quite rightly the two crooks were charged with attempted murder with the alternative offences of intentionally causing serious injury and recklessly causing serious injury. The evidence was sufficient for a magistrate to commit them for trial.

Then the backroom boys stepped in and just before the trial the defence agreed to plead guilty to the even weaker charge of recklessly causing injury.

And so even though a Magistrate saw sufficient evidence for an attempted murder trial, (which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years), intentionally causing serious injury (20 years) recklessly causing serious injury (15 years) they coughed to recklessly causing injury (five years).

So being shot in the head is not serious? Having injuries that will be carried for life is not serious? Having to take six months off work to recover is not serious? Massive psychological trauma is not serious? Pointing a shotgun at someone and pulling the trigger is not intentional? Shooting someone in the head is not attempted murder?

Justice Michael Croucher could only sentence on the charges before him. He said, "The 'injury' caused to Constable Ashmole is about as grave as it gets without being classified as a 'serious injury'."

Faced with reduced charges and the required discount for the guilty plea Justice Croucher gave them four years for shooting the policeman - which is at the upper end of the scale. Throw in the remaining grab bag of arson, firearms and theft charges and they both ended up with a minimum of around six years.

If they were kids who panicked, if the gun was accidentally discharged or if they were mentally impaired then maybe there was room wriggle room but Phillips and Liszczak have had more chances than the Marsh brothers in the Australian Test side.

Liszczak went into state care at the age of eight and his criminal history started when he was 13. He'd only been released from his latest prison stint a few days when he started the attacks on the Williams family.

Since the age of 17 Phillips has spent only five months out of prison. He had previously been charged with attempted murder but - you guessed it - was able to do a deal to plead to lesser offences. Like his mate Liszczak he had only been out of prison a few days before the attacks.

In jail they were part of the notorious Prisoners of War gang run by Matthew Johnson who in 2010 murdered Carl Williams in Barwon Jail by bashing him with the stem of an exercise bike seat. Clearly the two freshly released inmates were assigned to continue the vendetta against the Williams family.

At Liszczak's house police found two posters. One was of Carl Williams that contained the words "Missing" and "Have you seen this dog?" Scrawled underneath was, "Last seen chewing on a bike seat"; and "Please contact owner at VicPol #000". The second poster was of Roberta, headed "Should be missing"; and "Last seen working for VicPol".

This proves two things: Sam is no master criminal and his future as a caption writer is extremely limited. At sentence Justice Crowther said, "Police have a hard enough job as it is. To be subjected to such frightening violence is totally unacceptable. The courts must protect police - and the wider community - from such harmful and dangerous behaviour by denouncing it in the strongest terms and passing sentences that punish the perpetrators justly and stand as a deterrent both to them and any others who might be minded to engage in such behaviour."

This is exactly what did not happen and could not happen once the charges were diluted. So why did the Crown accept such a lopsided deal?

Because the laws surrounding the use of firearms are pathetic and while politicians are queuing up to pass vacuous tough guy laws that only impress headline writers no one is addressing the real problem.

We smugly sneer at the US gun culture while failing to address our own issues. There are more guns in the underworld than ever before and our lack of action normalises the unacceptable.

While crooks once thought Hugo Boss cufflinks were a sign of success they now see a Glock semi-automatic as the gangster fashion statement of choice.

Consider this: You shoot someone in the guts and they die you are charged with murder but if you shoot them in the guts and they live you are unlikely to be convicted of attempted murder.

Why? Because in an attempted murder case you have to prove intent. Do me a favour - what do you think will happen if you shoot someone in the belly? Indigestion?

We are sending a terrible message to half-wits who carry guns. Every week someone fronts hospital with a gunshot wound and on many occasions the victim is uncooperative.

The reason? Most times it is a payback for not paying a drug debt with crooks believing a slug in the leg concentrates the mind more than a stern letter from a solicitor.

Police privately call the victims cockroaches because they are nearly impossible to kill. One such fellow turned up at hospital with a gunshot wound and when he saw there would be a delay in treatment popped off to a nearby pub to play the pokies. Clearly he thought he was lucky to be alive and decided to try to extend his winning streak.

In one case a victim was lured to a meeting with two crooks at an industrial estate in Campbellfield where he was ambushed and blasted with a sawn off, double-barrelled shotgun. The wounded man bolted for his car as the second offender ordered the gunman to "shoot him again."

The victim was hospitalised for three days with 22 pellets in his head, face, neck, body and arms. The two crooks were charged with attempted murder but allowed to plead to lesser charges with the gunman eventually sentenced to a non-parole period of three years and his partner to a minimum of 17 months.

In one aggravated burglary on a business the offender held a gun just above the right ear of his terrified victim who begged for his life then ducked his head forward as the gunman pulled the trigger. Which meant that instead of blowing his brains out the bullet grazed the back of his head.

The charges were whittled down and he was sentenced to a minimum of just under four years.

No one can possibly see these sentences as just and if we do not fix the holes in the law then crooks will continue to leave holes in their victims.

For a start we need to look at the criminal action, not the medical reaction. Shooting someone is likely to cause death or serious injury and the charges and sentences must reflect the blindingly obvious.

Police should only have to prove that offender A shot victim B. The seriousness of the injury can be taken into account at sentence.

These should be the rules. You carry a gun then there is a presumption you will use it. You fire a shot the presumption must be you intend to hit someone.

You shoot someone the presumption must be that you could have killed and therefore it is attempted murder.

If you are a criminal and you are caught carrying a gun you should go to jail for a minimum of four years. If you shoot someone you are a potential murderer and should be punished as such. If you fire a gun in the commission of a crime the shooting sentence should be additional and not served concurrently with the initial charge.

We need plea deals but sometimes we also need to refuse to blink. If the legal system bargains down charges when the victim is a constable like Ben Ashmole then what hope have the rest of us?