Road rules2 mins ago
Do You Agree
that the Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce story has become idiotic ? Prison after their lives are already ruined. For such a minor offence.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As has been said, the offence is not trivial. It carries a maximum of life imprisonment and even seemingly less serious examples such as this one usually attract custodial sentences. The reason this is so is that for the justice system to retain any credibility it has to insist that people do not mislead the courts or attempt to interfere with justice in any way. The original offence (“swapping” the penalty points) was a clear and deliberate act contrived to ensure that Mr Huhne did not receive the due penalty that was due to him.
However, look at it this way. Often on AB we hear (particularly of politicians or “the rich”) that there is one law for “them” and one for “us”. The sentencing guidelines (which the judge is bound to follow unless there are compelling reasons for him not to do so) suggest that custody is appropriate in this instance. How will you feel if “they” get away without custody whilst “we” might not be treated so leniently?
The only potential pitfall I see is that recently the maximum term of imprisonment that could be suspended was twelve months. This has recently been increased to twenty-four months. I believe the sentencing guidelines for the offence suggest around 15 months. This previously could not be suspended but now it can. I just wonder if the judge might be “minded” to suspend the sentence in this particular case.
However, look at it this way. Often on AB we hear (particularly of politicians or “the rich”) that there is one law for “them” and one for “us”. The sentencing guidelines (which the judge is bound to follow unless there are compelling reasons for him not to do so) suggest that custody is appropriate in this instance. How will you feel if “they” get away without custody whilst “we” might not be treated so leniently?
The only potential pitfall I see is that recently the maximum term of imprisonment that could be suspended was twelve months. This has recently been increased to twenty-four months. I believe the sentencing guidelines for the offence suggest around 15 months. This previously could not be suspended but now it can. I just wonder if the judge might be “minded” to suspend the sentence in this particular case.
// As has been said, the offence is not trivial //
Clearly not. It's not as is she lied to cover up a murder he'd committed though. A long sentence for that would obviously be correct. For what they did I'm not so sure.
// How will you feel if “they” get away without custody whilst “we” might not be treated so leniently? //
Obviously outraged, but my surprise at the sentence isn't anything to do with who they are. I'd be saying I thought it was harsh whoever it was.
Clearly not. It's not as is she lied to cover up a murder he'd committed though. A long sentence for that would obviously be correct. For what they did I'm not so sure.
// How will you feel if “they” get away without custody whilst “we” might not be treated so leniently? //
Obviously outraged, but my surprise at the sentence isn't anything to do with who they are. I'd be saying I thought it was harsh whoever it was.
-- answer removed --
As we always say the punishment should fit the crime and the crime here was perverting the course of justice. As for bunging them in jail I don't know, but there is no doubt they are going to be used as a high profile example. One things for sure come this evening shes going to find a whole new meaning to the word "bitch".
