Si Hunt Barks - "What's Wrong With Justice?"

[Antony Cox]

Where did that come from, Si? Apparently his crash had nothing to do with the fatality as such...

[Si Hunt]

That was on BBC News.

Si.

[Antony Cox]

Oh.

Well that's what the BBC reported when he was original convicted - that his crash wasn't the one that killed the other driver.

[Perry Vale]

IIRC, the court was satisfied that his texting had nothing to do with the crash, and the crash wasn't the peer's fault.

[Si Hunt]

Crap reporting by the Beeb then! Why didn't they say that?

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

Whether he was responsible for the fatality or not does not alter the fact that he was doing something dangerous and illegal by texting while driving (especially on a motorway for heaven's sake!), and that he has only served just over 25% of the time he was sentenced to. It seems that unless you commit the most awful atrocities these days you never have to serve a full term in jail, whatever your sentence.

[Si Hunt]

I agree. Two things particuarly trouble me about our legal system:

(i) the concept of being sentenced to one period of punishment, then being let off with half of it because you were "good" while serving it. I know, I know, if there was no incentive for early release prisoners would have no reason to be good while doing time, but that's not really the point is it? Either the punishment is deserving, or it isn't, and if it IS, you shouldn't serve less time.

(ii) the concept that you can do two identical reckless things, but get punished more if there happened by chance to be more serious consequences. It just seems wrong to me. If you drink ten pints then drive, you shouldn't be punished less because you didn't happen to mow someone down. You RISKED the loss of life, knowingly, the minute you got in the car, so you should be punished for that as much as if you hit someone. Otherwise it sends out the clear message "we'll punish you once you've killed someone by doing it". And it should never get that far.

Si.

[Matthew T]

But the sentence that gets handed down in court is NEVER the amount of time they spend in prison. The sentence comprises time spent in prison, and time spent on license being monitered whilst you are re-integrated into the community.

There's always outrage when someone involved in a high profile case is released at the halfway point, as if this is somehow unusual, when in fact it's exactly how it works for EVERYONE and how it has worked for everyone for many years!

[Jason Thompson]

The outrage comes from the fact that it is not unusual. Whether this is a fault in the media reporting or in the judicial system itself is another question, but the fact remains that a sentence of twenty years' imprisonment doesn't ever mean twenty years. Just as life doesn't mean life. Why describe it in such imprecise terms? This is what causes the confusion and outrage.

When we hear that a murderer has been sentenced to be locked away for twenty years, we don't expect him to be back on our streets in less than ten.

[idlebagger]

Richest peoples should serve more time than poor people, cos they is cleverest than us.

You have to break a badgers back with a spade first, otherwise it could easily kill your dogs. Anything else is unfair.

[Matthew T]

Someone sentenced to 20 years for murder will serve 20 years.

Murder has a mandatory life sentence, the 20 years (or whatever) is the tariff which the murderer must serve before being considered for release.

In all other sentences of up to 4 years, the criminal will be released from prison at the halfway point providing they have behaved in prison.

For sentences over 4 years, the release from prison is at the 2/3 point.

Once again, the sentence handed down by the court is not just a prison sentence. The period of custody forms just part of the sentence, with the rest being rehabilitation in the community.

When someone is released at the half way point, they aren't being released early, they are being released at the point they were always going to be released at.

[Jason Thompson]

Fine, if that's how the system works. My point is that most people don't hear that. The sentence is described as five years in prison when in reality, according to what you just said, the sentence is actually up to five years in prison. The finer points of that sentencing, the 'up to' bit, are usually left out.

So what we hear, and what causes the outrage, is that someone has been sentenced to five years but has served three before being released. To someone without the knowledge of how the penal system works, which realistically any journalist should assume his readership contains, it sounds like they've been let off two years of punishment for no apparent reason. Whatever the system actually is, it is made to sound like they are being released early.

It's a problem that isn't confined to prison sentencing either. Too many things are described one way but in actuality do not fit the description. I got a £500 bonus last year at work. Did I actually get £500? Hell no. By the time the taxman shaved off his share it was closer to £300. So why tell me I've got £500 when I don't actually ever get that? Why tell me I've got 25 days holiday entitlement when in actuality I am expected to use 3 of those over the Christmas period, when the company is closed anyway so I couldn't work then even if I wanted to? Why tell me the man who ran over my relative is going to jail for five years only to release him in less than three?

[Jeff]

The thing that gets me about the punishment system, is that often people convicted of manslaughter, as least in the US, serve less time than people convicted of financial crimes... It really gives you the feeling that money is more important than people lives.

[Si Hunt]

To return to the MP story, I've read again in the media that he was texting for fifteen minutes on the motorway, and consequently crashed into a parked car. I haven't read anything yet to say they wern't directly connected.

Si.

[Jon Masters]

I'm going from memory here, but my recollection of the story was

• there was an accident on the outside lane of the motorway, resulting in a fatality and one car being left in the outside lane
• the peer subsequently hit the car in the outside lane in a second accident
• when the peer's mobile phone records were checked (presumably this is now something the police do as standard after an RTA ?) it was shown that he was not using his mobile at the time of the accident, but had been receiving texts and sending them some time before, while he was driving.

So he was caught breaking the law as a consequence of the investigation into the accident, rather than because the texting had caused the accident or anyone had seen him texting and reported him.

He's still guitly though and stuff prison, he (like everyone else doing something stupid whilst driving) should be banned for say 5 years, then forced to retake his test.

[Si Hunt]

A disqualified driver who killed two women in Ipswich by driving into them while he was drunk and on drugs has been jailed for eight years.

Scott Nicholls, 20, from Cawston, Norfolk, was twice the legal alcohol limit and had traces of drugs in his system at the time of the crash.

Ipswich Crown Court heard Emma Harold, 26, and Kate Wasyluk, 25, were killed instantly when Nicholls' car hit them.

Ms Harold's sister Rebecca, was left with "life-changing" injuries.

Four years per life, then. Aside from the girl who's been hideously injured.

What a great country we live in.

Si.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Four years per life, then. Aside from the girl who's been hideously injured.

Odd that - cos a woman who got a year for ploughing down a cyclist while texting got a year, but some people here seemed to think that was harsh.

[Si Hunt]

Why has Pete Docherty escaped jail for drug possession AGAIN? He was found with it INSIDE COURT when he was up on another offence!! Taking the piss or what?

He claims it was left inside his coat from ages ago and he has "hundreds of coats", which neatly explains why his £750 fine is meaningless.

If it was me, I'd have been banged up for sure.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

I saw that this morning too, Si, and was duly infuriated. Possession carries a penalty of up to 7 years in jail or an unlimited fine or both, according to the Home Office website. Why does a man with more money than I've made in my entire life get a piddling little fine that is basically pocket change to him?

[SiHart]

It's bloody outrageous. They should lock him up, if only to save us from another one of his wretched albums.

Si xx

[WhiteCrowNZ]

It's bloody outrageous. They should lock him up, if only to save us from another one of his wretched albums.

Si xx

Although most artists do their best work in prison ...

[Larry]

Why has Pete Docherty escaped jail for drug possession AGAIN? He was found with it INSIDE COURT when he was up on another offence!! Taking the piss or what?



Si.

FFS - if that isn't contempt of court then I don't know what is or is being in contempt of court no longer a punishable offence.

[MinaHarker]

FFS - if that isn't contempt of court then I don't know what is or is being in contempt of court no longer a punishable offence.

I agree. He must be laughing his head off. He really took the piss

[Jon Masters]

It's bloody outrageous. They should lock him up, if only to save us from another one of his wretched albums.

Si xx

To be fair, the other people he'd be locked up with might have only committed minor offences. Surely their loss of liberty should be punishment enough without having to suffer a twonk like him in their midst.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Read this article in the NZ Herald, which seems to be making a quite frightening accusation against him

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainm...ectid=10623368