Huhne and Pryce get 8 months

Really??

I have a lot of sympathy for Chris here. He has lost his career, reputation and respect for a silly lapse of judgement. Of course, he tried to cover it up but did plead guilty (although I don't think he had much choice)

But really. 8 months inside??? Is he that much of a danger to society? A man of previous good character who has never been in trouble before. What is jail going to teach him that he hasn't already learnt through his mistake. What punishment will this exact that he hasn't already suffered and what chance that he will reoffend?

Isn't this OTT?

As for Pryce, beware a woman scorned but she should have remembered that if you go looking for revenge, to dig 2 graves.

Wow that does seem relatively harsh.

It was certainly a bad thing he did. I do think we need to think twice before attacking him because most of us seem to regularly lie to get what we want or avoid trouble. It kinda amazes me the holier-than-thou attitude the majority seem to take with things like this. Though he did wrong, I don't think it was anything worse than people do all the time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Really??

I have a lot of sympathy for Chris here. He has lost his career, reputation and respect for a silly lapse of judgement. Of course, he tried to cover it up but did plead guilty (although I don't think he had much choice)

But really. 8 months inside??? Is he that much of a danger to society? A man of previous good character who has never been in trouble before. What is jail going to teach him that he hasn't already learnt through his mistake. What punishment will this exact that he hasn't already suffered and what chance that he will reoffend?

Isn't this OTT?

As for Pryce, beware a woman scorned but she should have remembered that if you go looking for revenge, to dig 2 graves.

---

Very sensible posts like this, Knock-on, genuinely make me feel bad about our disagreeing so vehemently on other matters.

I agree completely with you in all respects. The sentence is way out of proportion to the seriousness of the offence. Far worse, in my opinion, is the fact that he used a mobile phone while driving — for which he lost his driving licence subsequent to the speeding incident that led to all this trouble. Yes, it's deemed to have been a perversion of the course of justice, and ordinarily I'd view this offence most seriously, but when it's just over speeding points the description, to say nothing of the sentence, seems extraordinarily excessive.

The prison population is too large anyway, and imprisoning people doesn't do sufficient good as it is, let alone in circumstances like these. So, let's think about the circumstances in which we ought to use custodial sentences. Is Chris Huhne a danger to the public? Well, when driving while using a mobile he probably was, but this isn't what he's been put away for. Is he likely to reoffend? No, and prison sentences in the UK are already spectacularly ineffective at combating reoffending. Does it serve as a reminder to other people not to try and pass their speeding points on to someone else? Yes, but we shouldn't be using prison sentences for that purpose. I can see no argument for imprisoning Chris Huhne other than following precedent set in similar cases. This precedent I think is too stringent and needs reviewing, because a custodial sentence is surely inappropriate.

And the worst thing of all? The utter stupidity underlying the case — the fact of not wanting points on his licence because he thought losing it would be problematic in his efforts to gain selection to a Parliamentary seat; a licence he lost a few weeks later owing to another offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjbetty

I do think we need to think twice before attacking him because most of us seem to regularly lie to get what we want or avoid trouble. It kinda amazes me the holier-than-thou attitude the majority seem to take with things like this. Though he did wrong, I don't think it was anything worse than people do all the time...

---

Some politicians and some media outlets go on about the 'law-abiding majority' of citizens. This, as you say, is nonsensical.

One is tempted to say that the police, so keen today to stress the seriousness of Huhne and Pryce's offence, often get away with far worse themselves.

Imagine the 1 month prison that three employees of the communal waste collection company in Vienna have got for allegedly picking up waste that was not paid for to be removed. The prejudice was estimated to having been approximately 1750 Euros!
Justice is blind, I tell ya.

The only good point is that they have both been given the same sentence for an offence they are both equally guilty of.

The sentence does seem harsh particularly considering how lightly other MPs were punished for their sometimes blatantly fraudulent expense claims.

"I lied and lied and lied and lied".

That could be the Lib Dems election slogan....

Compare this to the head of the Spanish Automobile Federation for example, who doesn't even see why some would call for his resignation after having his license taken for speeding on one occasion, or drink-driving on another :crazy:

Spain is different.
They should elect a Spanish pope... at least they'd know he'd NEVER resign. :dozey:

When you consider you can steel a car, drive the police on a 10 mile chase and get a 12 month suspended sentence, it really does show how out of proportion judgements like this are. The judge obviously used this guys public status to make an example, but in other cases they are afraid to hand out stiffer sentences for worse crimes when dealing with the average Joe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

When you consider you can steel a car, drive the police on a 10 mile chase and get a 12 month suspended sentence, it really does show how out of proportion judgements like this are. The judge obviously used this guys public status to make an example, but in other cases they are afraid to hand out stiffer sentences for worse crimes when dealing with the average Joe.

---

Indeed - half of the oiks that steal cars are disqualified anyway or have lost their licence - so what sentence do they get - disqualification again.

Doh! Like that's gonna deter 'em, init?

it's innit with double-n, you oik !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

it's innit with double-n, you oik !

---

Says who?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

When you consider you can steel a car, drive the police on a 10 mile chase and get a 12 month suspended sentence, it really does show how out of proportion judgements like this are. The judge obviously used this guys public status to make an example, but in other cases they are afraid to hand out stiffer sentences for worse crimes when dealing with the average Joe.

---

I don't think that's true, actually — none of the stories I've read have suggested that these sentences were disproportionate to others meted out for the same crime. What's at fault is the definition of this specific crime as perversion of the cause of justice, which means it carries a much harsher sentence than it ought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Says who?

---

says the "Oxford" Urban dictionary :p
Urban Dictionary: innit

although init is also listed, innit ? :)
Urban Dictionary: init

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

says the "Oxford" Urban dictionary :p
Urban Dictionary: innit

although both are listed init :)
Urban Dictionary: init

---

Sucks teeth in annoyance...... don't diss me spelling! ;)

I'd always go for 'innit'.

Innit Doh :up:

[with apologies for the smilies :) ]

dunno innit > duno init :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

When you consider you can steel a car, drive the police on a 10 mile chase and get a 12 month suspended sentence, it really does show how out of proportion judgements like this are. The judge obviously used this guys public status to make an example, but in other cases they are afraid to hand out stiffer sentences for worse crimes when dealing with the average Joe.

---

I absolutely agree with this. I was watching Road Wars just the other night and am amazed at stuff like 2 15 year old girls with no insurance or anything getting away with driving a car dangerously, scot free.

In Dec 2007, I got done for IN10 - driving without Insurance. A real shame as that's a total one off and I'll never do it again. There was no excuse, but one night I was really stressed at 2am and just really needed to get out of the house as I couldn't sleep, so I drove to the shops in the night, though I hadn't been able to drive as there was some technical issue delaying the insurance being sorted. It was really dumb, but if I may say so, my actual driving was very safe and good that night, but on the way back a police car turned up behind me and the game was up. I was fined £210 and 6pts. It was totally a one-off, just not like me at all and will never happen again. Also, being younger, I didn't realise quite how important it was to have insurance, for anyone you might crash into...

The points only just came off in Jan and I have to say they've been extremely costly. They've stopped me getting work and cause an ahem (knock-on) effect still making things difficult for me now. I had to pay court costs, had to pay to get to court and back, taxi back on the night, had to pay for the impounded car, extra delays etc. With loss of earnings, the true cost was easily into 5 figures...

At least I must surely by now have definitely paid my debt to society, for an (inexcusable) slip. It really has cost me. But other people drive dangerously and get a caution. :confused:

The insurance did finally get sorted literally the morning after I got stopped, having been delayed for weeks...