Page 1 of Shameful sentencing by our courts again ?

I`m sorry, but I just finished reading in the Times of a policeman who was sentenced to 3 months in prison for getting someone (to whom he owed a favour) off a parking ticket.

How ridiculous is that ?!?! Am I the only one that thinks that sentencing in this country is now a complete joke ? So many thugs, jerks and criminals get short or suspended sentences for truly anti-social behaviour.

While I obviously (as a lawyer) appreciate that this is a breach of trust, and an abuse of position, and it was a perversion of the course of justice, the sentence just does not fit the crime. Would YOU want to be a copper in jail for any crime ?! The court should definitely take into account the treatment he`d receive inside.

I`d take my own personal experience as an example - I was involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. She had no real defence apart from "I thought the car was insured by my husband" and yet she got an unconditional discharge. Uninsured drivers are breaking several laws, causing misery to those whose lives they effect, and driving up insurance costs - does she deserve to get off while the copper does time ??!?!?!?!?

This item was edited on Wednesday, 11th December 2002, 12:46

How very.. very... very... wrong you are...

We have to put our implicit trust in the Police Force , High Court Judges etc... and they HAVE a unique position and responsiblity.... and if you allow ONE single person to abuse this trust... then it all breaks down..

The Police force have a bad enough name without being caught up in bung society.....

so yes.. he deserved it...

Haggis is so right, what disturbs me is you think it`s wrong.

Actually I`m with Dan on this one, our prisons are full so why waste space filling them even more with something as non-violent as this? Especially when parents who admitted to abusing their children aren`t.

Yes this officer did something stupid and damages the trust of the public in the police force, BUT he should have got community service for this offence. At least that way he could help repair the damage of that trust by giving something back to society. Now he will just go to prison and cost us X thousands of pounds.

I think all non-violent crime (for first time offenders) should result in community service. We all value our free time, so I think having it taken away from us is a valid punishment, and it also gives back to the community which helps to balance out what has been taken from it.

So the likes of Robert Maxwell (were he still alive!) and Jeffrey Archer would never have gone to prison?
I can see Dans point but perverting the course of justice undermines criminal justice in general so on balance I think he should have gone to prison.

it does seem a harsh sentence,when you consider persistent crimanals
for charges such as burglary, violence,and other anti-social behaviour get nothing more than a slap on the wrist,the trouble is that this government
and other do-gooders have given more rights to the crimanals than to the
victims.the law and sentencing have been turned upside down.
it makes a joke of the saying that"crime doesn`t pay"

I think you`re getting me wrong - I`m not saying he was right, and I`m not saying he shouldn`t be punished. However, I am firmly of the position that a custodial sentence is thoroughly nonsensical in this case.

Don`t forget also that we as taxpayers will also get to stump up however many hundreds of pounds a week it will cost to keep him in there too.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 11th December 2002, 15:40

So it comes down to money again.. christ the 00s are getting as bad as the 80s for the MEMEMEMEMEME attitude

Why should community service be seen as a slap on the wrist? Jeffrey Archer having to do 100 hours of street cleaning (or similar) is a good punishment I`d say.

Why is it the governments fault that the courts dish out these sentences? We are one of the few countries which has successfully seperated the judicial process from politics. Its out of touch judges who are the problem imho.

I think the point Dan is making here is that we have serious overcrowding in prisons, so why do judges decide that a policeman who got a mate off a ticket takes up a cell for three months when a violent criminal gets off on probation.

Pretty sure nobody in this thread disagrees that this crime isn`t serious and shouldn`t be punished. ;)

Both sides of this debate have valid points but the overriding factor is that because a policeman broke the law he swore to uphold, his sentence must be sufficiently punitive to prevent others doing the same thing.

In the greater scheme of things his offence is relatively minor but a non custodial sentence would encourage others to believe the punishment made the profit worth the risk.

And so society spirals downwards.