davieG Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 I'm rather surprised that the 'Canoe couple' got 6.5 years each, ok they did swindle an insurance company out of £250K, but that sort of crime is happening every day with little or no punishment and they did swindle a pension company again big business seems to be doing that on a regular basis, And badly treating your family is not a crime. Fundamentally they've got a 6.5 year sentence for a money based crime and I can't help thinking that it is at that level due to it being an 'unusual' and high profile case attracting a massive media interest. My recollection is that many violent crimes against individuals attract smaller sentences, does anyone feel like this
Bellend Sebastian Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 £250,000 is a serious amount of money to get away with, and that may have had something to do with the sentencing. It's pretty hard to commit insurance fraud on that scale and get away with it, so I think this is actually a pretty exceptional case. Judges don't pluck the length of sentence out of the air, as there are maximum tariffs and sentencing guidelines for convictions on each charge. The elaborate and particularly cynical nature of the deception on this occasion (not to mention the effect on their sons) has presumably been taken into account. The sentence probably does look harsh when compared to some dished out for violent offences, but I think this is more because those are often perceived as being on the light side
davieG Posted 24 July 2008 Author Posted 24 July 2008 £250,000 is a serious amount of money to get away with, and that may have had something to do with the sentencing. It's pretty hard to commit insurance fraud on that scale and get away with it, so I think this is actually a pretty exceptional case.Judges don't pluck the length of sentence out of the air, as there are maximum tariffs and sentencing guidelines for convictions on each charge. The elaborate and particularly cynical nature of the deception on this occasion (not to mention the effect on their sons) has presumably been taken into account. The sentence probably does look harsh when compared to some dished out for violent offences, but I think this is more because those are often perceived as being on the light side It is a largish sum but Pension funds have been raided under dubious legitimate cover for many a year and for sums that make £250k piddling. As far as I know it's not a crime to treat your family in a cynical manner so that shouldn't have had any impact on the case. This is just another example for me of crimes against businesses & property carrying sentences that are excessive when compared to crimes of violence against individuals. e.g He gets 18 months and she gets a suspended sentence A "heartless" accountant who helped his wife smuggle a 14-year-old girl into Britain and subjected her to years of slavery, was jailed for 18 months yesterday. Samuel Quainoo and his wife Ernestina, a teacher, who was given a suspended sentence, denied the girl schooling and did not allow her to make friends. They forced her to wear hand-me-downs, apart from once buying her T-shirts with "my other name is bitch" printed on them. The couple pretended the girl was their own child, but forced her to cook, clean and do the washing for their real child while they were at work, London's Isleworth Crown Court was told. She was never paid and later told police and social workers she was so desperate that she had thought about committing suicide. It was "clear that girl's entry was carefully planned" with false birth and baptism certificates being used to persuade British high commission officials in Ghana to grant her a visa, he said. "You were both a teacher and a graduate and of a different socio-economic plateau," he told the couple during sentencing. "Your exploitation of her was heartless and sustained."
Zingari Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 sentencing for crime does seem to be a little wayward sometimes donno if it's anything to do with media frenzy though
Babylon Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 High profile case so they set an example of them. Shame they don't do it with many celebs.
Zingari Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 i often wonder what the great train robbers sentence would be if they committed the crime now
davieG Posted 24 July 2008 Author Posted 24 July 2008 sentencing for crime does seem to be a little wayward sometimes donno if it's anything to do with media frenzy though I've just tried to search for recent court cases and punishments in the big newspapers and virtually everyone has multiple reports on every aspect of this case, you'd have thought this was the only crime going through the courts at the present time. That's not to say the judge was influenced in this case but it seems obvious to me that the establishment, lawmakers and the judicial system in general takes a dimmer view of financial and property crimes than they do physical/violent personal crimes.
davieG Posted 24 July 2008 Author Posted 24 July 2008 High profile case so they set an example of them. Shame they don't do it with many celebs. But if there are guidelines and limits how do they set an example? The limits must be out of proportion to the type of crime if that's the case.
Tommy G Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 I personally agree with Mr Cameron's view that we should chuck people in prison if they carry a knife. A no tolerance policy would hopefully sort the issue out. As for this case it's down to it being a high profile case. Judge probably felt under pressure to give a large sentence as the case was in the public eye.
Alexikokopops Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 I personally agree with Mr Cameron's view that we should chuck people in prison if they carry a knife. A no tolerance policy would hopefully sort the issue out. I see one big flaw in that...
Tommy G Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 I see one big flaw in that... Yeh prisons are overcrowded. But why should it be a pleasure being in prison. people are in there for a damn good reason so if they suffer then so be it!
Katy Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 I think I agree with you DG. When this guy turned up everyone thought it was an amusing and light hearted story but it went deeper than that when it was discovered his missus was in it up to her neck as well. The law is an ass, you can get a couple of years max for mowing someone down and killing them in a car but swindle some dosh out of faceless company and you get 6 odd years I am not condoning their actions by any means but sentencing does seem a little odd in this country. Bet they wish they'd gone bankrupt now
purpleronnie Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 Anything to do with money always seems to get big punishments its always been that way. I knew someone when I was back in the UK that passed a forged cheque for less than £250 and was told by his lawer he had a 50/50 chance to got to prison. He eventually got 250 hours community service and a £1000 fine. But you can smash someone in the face on a friday night and not even go to court.
Daggers Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 I want to know what happened to those bastard birds with avian flu?
lookwhaticando Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 i often wonder what the great train robbers sentence would be if they committed the crime now They're celebrities now, so they'd get a few hours of community service... they'd spent a night in a proper cell, only to fake some kind of trauma in a sad attempt to be let out early - wishing to complete the rest of their sentence in the comfort of their multi-million dollar Hollywood mansion. Sorta like Paris Hilton, but much more pleasing to the eye.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 I want to know what happened to those bastard birds with avian flu? They were gonna be sent down by the beak, but they sang. Another feather in the cap of British justice!
davieG Posted 24 July 2008 Author Posted 24 July 2008 They were gonna be sent down by the beak, but they sang. Another feather in the cap of British justice! For that you should be severely plucked!
Daggers Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 They were gonna be sent down by the beak, but they sang. Another feather in the cap of British justice! Yet another flight of fancy from a big birdbrain!
l444ry Posted 24 July 2008 Posted 24 July 2008 HOME OFFICE HAILS SHARP DROP IN SPOON CRIME Home Secretary Jacqui Smith last night insisted the government was making Britain a safer place after another big fall in spoon-related crime. Smith hailed a crackdown on Chinese spoon gangs. The number of spoon incidents was down 9% to around 217,000, with detection rates up by 4%. Teaspoon crime remained the biggest single source of spoon problems after the ban on ladles. Smith said: “Attacks by carnivorous plants are at an historic low, cheese fraud is now virtually unknown, and sheep gangs have been brought under control. “There are still a number of intelligent sea creatures who are stealing dogs from beaches but we are hoping to see the effects of an amnesty later this year.” Smith added: “We also have a village of alien children with spooky eyes who are enslaving people with their brainwaves, but they're all well below the age of criminal responsibility.” Wayne Hayes, a Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinator from Devon, said: “Some local youths threw plastic spoons at my wife, but when I called to report it, all the police wanted to know was whether she had been to Pakistan in the last 12 months. “During the call I happened to mention that my electrician was an olive-skinned Brazilian and within minutes I had four guys kneeling on my chest and a gun up my nose.” The only bleak spot in the crime figures was a near doubling in sadistic torture and random stabbings, a trebling in gun murders by children and a 400% increase in the number of people being shot in the face by the police.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.