There is two big debates going on at the moment...Votes for Prisoners, and the Sex Offenders Register.
Both of these are pretty emotive subjects. Most members of the public will say that prisoners should not get the right to vote, and that sex offenders should 'sign the register' for life. However, the law is at odds with that.
The ECtHR case that told us that prisoners should have the right to vote. (In addition to the judgment, this case tells us something interesting about access to justice...any moron can take the UK to court :-D)
The Sex Offenders case (can't currently find the law report!) tells us that sex offenders have the right to have their inclusion on the register reviewed. If the review shows they are no longer a danger to the public they will be removed from the register.
From a legal point of view, in my opinion these decisions are both correct.
The question this raises is about public perception of the law...how can the public have confidence in the legal system if the decisions made are at odds with their beliefs? Does it matter that there is a difference? IS there even a difference? What more could be done?
I tend to think that the judiciary represent us very well, and we don't even know it.