Chris Huhne... going soon?
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There is no wrong or right answer, just differences of opinion.I ask again, what evidence do you want to see? What "impact" do you expect? You can't really measure the negative impact of punishing the innocent whilst allowing the guilty to go unpunished. The impact is the failure of justice to be served - how would you measure that?
In my view, PoCJ is a serious offence because it is related to a serious matter - at worst, loss of liberty at the state's behest. In goes far beyond "lying about speeding" in that it is an offence used to prosecute those who, for example, lie about being raped and sometimes put a totally innocent person behind bars or, on occassion, drives them to suicide.
The very essence of a criminal justice system is that the innocent are not punished but the guilty are. It is essential to seek to ensure that this is maintained as far as possible, otherwise it's a pointless system to have in place at all.
Disincentivising offenders from seeking to avoid the proper judicial consequences of their actions is an important element of this. It reduces the burden on the state if the truth is quickly admitted; it reduces the burden on victims too. Hence why credit is given for an early guilty plea and hence why there is a seperate offence to penalise those taking deliberate and calculated steps to avoid the punishment they deserve. Without these elements each and every case would require significant resources because who will freely admit something if there's not penalty to not doing so?
The prosecution of the guilty and the avoidance of penalising the innocent is, in itself, intrinsically important and serious - it is the very heart of "justice". Therefore the offence of perverting this very basis principle should be treated as equally serious in my view.
Your view appears to be that if the PoCJ relates to a minor offence then it should be treated as equally minor. I don't agree. The sentencing guidelines allow for this, which is fine, but the seriousness of the underlying offence doesn't necessarily intrinsically make the PoCJ itself any better or worse if you take the view that the failure of justice in any form due to the deliberate and calculated actions of the perpetrator is a serious matter (which I personally do). It's right that PoCJ which might have led to a murderer going free is more serious; it's doesn't necessarily tally that lying about speeding is so "minor" that a slap on the wrists is sufficient.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No. No no no.I don't understand why you can't get this concept that there are two offences. Completely separate ones.
1. The speeding. Not that serious.
2. PTCoJ. a deliberate and calcuated attempt to prevent the operation of the Legal System. Serious. Should be prison.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don't think that you're ever going to be provided with an argument which will change your view.If you believe that justice (i.e. the innocent not being punished, but the guilty receiving the correct penalty) is important then you'll see the seriousness.
If you cannot seperate in your mind the offence of the perversion from the offence of speeding then you'll never agree that prison is suitable in these cases.
I recall a discussion on here at the time of the London riots where there was outrage that someone was sentenced to 6 months inside for stealing some water. In fact the sentence reflected the fact that the theft was part of a riot, and therefore much more serious than the underlying offence would suggest. I see a parallel here.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You are aware that Huhne was interviewed multiple times by the Police, one presumes under caution? It would appear that he lied repeatedly to them. Are you seriously suggesting he or anyone else ought to get nothing more than a slap on the wrist when such lies are either admitted or proved?
It's not rocket science to work out the consequences should such behaviour be ignored.
RSoovy4 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No. No no no.I don't understand why you can't get this concept that there are two offences. Completely separate ones.
1. The speeding. Not that serious.
2. PTCoJ. a deliberate and calcuated attempt to prevent the operation of the Legal System. Serious. Should be prison.
As for why someone doesn't get the concept, there are a number of possibilities which, frankly, I just CBA to discuss as it will only divert the thread.
The bloke lied. He was in a position of trust. There in lies the lesson, great big fib in my book to look after his position of trust. What else would he lie about?
If he had fessed up that would get more kudos. "Hands up, guilty, I sped and got caught." rather than dodge the crime in this way.
If he had fessed up that would get more kudos. "Hands up, guilty, I sped and got caught." rather than dodge the crime in this way.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Talking of circular arguments, the same question again arises - how would you measure the "impact" of punishing innocent people whilst not punishing the guilty ones?Change the question (which has already been answered) from "What is the impact on society from lying about speeding that's so onerous?" to "What is the impact on society from justice failing that so onerous?" (which is the same question, albeit seperated from the underlying offence) and you get the same answer already given - the "larger picture" is the failure of justice. You are welcome to the view that that doesn't have an impact on society but I don't agree. Just because it cannot be measured doesn't mean it isn't very important and serious.
I, and the sentencing guidlines, can distinguish between varying offences of PoCJ. It's just that even at the lowest level of the offence, calculating to deliberately seek the failure of justice is still serious in my view.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What is a pity is that you cannot comprehend that the "impact" you so want to be proven cannot be measured, but that doesn't mean it does not exist.If you do not accept that punishing the innocent but not the guilty is not serious then there is nothing that will persuade you otherwise.
And as I have now said repeatedly, the "impact" of justice being properly delivered cannot be measured in a way that will satisfy you. You either agree that the failure of justice is intrinsically important in a civilised society and therefore serious, or you don't.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Is that easier?"With respect", the point is that either justice being properly delivered is important and serious (because of the implications for the individual, and society, which have already been explained to you), or it is not.
The actual offence is penalised on a sliding scale. But fundamentally attempting to cause justice to fail is serious for reasons already given.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Change the question (which has already been answered) from "What is the impact on society from lying about speeding that's so onerous?" to "What is the impact on society from justice failing that so onerous?" (which is the same question, albeit seperated from the underlying offence) and you get the same answer already given - the "larger picture" is the failure of justice.
Great. The failure of justice. In general with wider implications and consequences? If so what implications and consequences?Isn't that impact in itself significant enough for you?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The obvious consequence of a "no penalty so only tell the truth under questioning if I believe the law matters society" is that the justice system that you and I pay for gets more and more expensive and less and less effective.Exactly how much more tax are you happy for the Government to extract from you?
cmoose, with all due respect, you are conflating the original offence and the subsequent actions of the offender.
That the possible penalties for the subsequent actions are greater than for the original offence is entirely proper.
Huhne had every opportunity to tell the truth on the documents and at least at his first interview. That he didn't, opened a world of hurt for him, and so it should have. You try to game the system, do so at your own risk.
The penalties for such actions should be draconian to deter such behaviour. Without such a deterent, investigation and prosecution of all offences become harder.
That the possible penalties for the subsequent actions are greater than for the original offence is entirely proper.
Huhne had every opportunity to tell the truth on the documents and at least at his first interview. That he didn't, opened a world of hurt for him, and so it should have. You try to game the system, do so at your own risk.
The penalties for such actions should be draconian to deter such behaviour. Without such a deterent, investigation and prosecution of all offences become harder.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Your lack of comprehension is depressing. You give no justification in the middle paragraph. You wibble on about our arguments being tautologous or circular, but you just don't understand the point, even though it has been explained patiently and clearly by several people.anonymous said:
[redacted]
As you say, there is a sliding scale for PCoJ, which is as it should be. However the potential penalty ought to be draconian in relation to the original offence, which is also as it should be. Obviously there will be a convergence of such a relationship once you get to original offences that carry heavier tariffs especially life ones.
But that doesn't negate the need for the possible penalty to be great enough to force offenders to think twice about PCoJ for minor offences.
Do you want a system where it is expected that the offender will take the piss depending on how serious they believe their offence is? Or do you want a system where everybody knows where they stand as soon as they come under investigation?
It's easy to look at speeding at one end of the scale and murder at the other. But what about the crimes that fall in between? Where do you draw the line? Where should the deterent against PCoJ become custodial? For all we know, Huhne might have avoided a custodial if he had admitted guilt at the first interview.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No improvement in comprehension there. You are trying by making an unjustified assertion (that you know to be absurd, but are using for purposes of hyperbole) to say those of us on the other side of the argument (if it can be described as such) have not justified our position, when clearly we have and several times.anonymous said:
[redacted]
I have already a number of times.To avoid any doubt, the impact of people lying about speeding is that the innocent are punished and the guilty are not. That is contrary to the most basic princple of justice. If such an impact is not serious in your opinion, fine. In my opinion miscarriages of justice are serious (albeit some more than others).
It is you who is going round and round in circles because you are either unwilling or unable to seek to comprehend a position contrary to your own. I have repeated myself enough in answering your questions.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff