Crime and punishment
Discussion
Schmed said:
This PCoJ (or PtCoJ for Van Hosen) nonsense is out of control. It's minor speeding for Christ's sake. Outrageous!
She's not getting locked up for a minor speeding offence, she's getting locked up for trying to lie to the court. She would have known that they really don't like somebody trying to spoil their legal process, she's an idiot.Schmed said:
This PCoJ (or PtCoJ for Van Hosen) nonsense is out of control. It's minor speeding for Christ's sake. Outrageous!
Except it's not. It's far closer to someone perpetrating an elaborate fraud, all to cover up an initial relatively minor act, for example of careless property-damage, or concealment of unintentionally but invalidly benefitting from a financial or administrative error that sees them better-off to the tune of a couple of hundred £s, or any manner of other situations where the original crime or misdemeanour itself wasn't particularly egregious, but the lengths gone to by the person involved to cover it up demonstrated extreme dishonesty.Fact - fraudsters in all shapes and forms are now responsible for a huge percentage of total criminality in this country. It's absolutely right that the book be thrown at them, to at least try and discourage others.
The Surveyor said:
Schmed said:
This PCoJ (or PtCoJ for Van Hosen) nonsense is out of control. It's minor speeding for Christ's sake. Outrageous!
She's not getting locked up for a minor speeding offence, she's getting locked up for trying to lie to the court. She would have known that they really don't like somebody trying to spoil their legal process, she's an idiot.It's like this nonsense today, couldn't care less whether Jeremy Corbyn said "Stupid woman" under his breath or not. I do care if he is able to readily lie about it.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 19th December 17:46
Graveworm said:
The Surveyor said:
Schmed said:
This PCoJ (or PtCoJ for Van Hosen) nonsense is out of control. It's minor speeding for Christ's sake. Outrageous!
She's not getting locked up for a minor speeding offence, she's getting locked up for trying to lie to the court. She would have known that they really don't like somebody trying to spoil their legal process, she's an idiot.It's like this nonsense today, couldn't care less whether Jeremy Corbyn said "Stupid woman" under his breath or not. I do care if he is able to readily lie about it.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 19th December 17:46
Schmed said:
Should be linked to the initial offence. Having something so minor escalate into something custodial is worthy of a fascist dictatorship. Is totally and utterly excessive. But we all know why they do it, the whole NIP system rests on harassing people via s172 to self incriminate. Anyone who tries to think around it creatively will get shot at dawn. They should pull people over for speeding and ticket at the roadside none of this cowardly speedcam nasty NIP through the post, roads would actually be safer as more patrols out there so crimes other than ~6 mph over the limit would get picked up.
This is not "Thinking around it creatively" it's being dishonorable and dishonest, that should still be a bad thing and two wrongs never make a right. This is not about whether targeting speeders makes roads safer. The police officers who had to do all the work to bring this prosecution would no doubt otherwise have been out there making the place safer. Schmed said:
Should be linked to the initial offence. Having something so minor escalate into something custodial is worthy of a fascist dictatorship. Is totally and utterly excessive. But we all know why they do it, the whole NIP system rests on harassing people via s172 to self incriminate. Anyone who tries to think around it creatively will get shot at dawn. They should pull people over for speeding and ticket at the roadside none of this cowardly speedcam nasty NIP through the post, roads would actually be safer as more patrols out there so crimes other than ~6 mph over the limit would get picked up.
No it is actually a fundamental part of our legal system, (perverting the course of justice) if people can lie to a court without consequences, than we may as well not have a legal system. The initial crime is irrelevant. Schmed said:
Should be linked to the initial offence. Having something so minor escalate into something custodial is worthy of a fascist dictatorship. Is totally and utterly excessive. But we all know why they do it, the whole NIP system rests on harassing people via s172 to self incriminate. Anyone who tries to think around it creatively will get shot at dawn. They should pull people over for speeding and ticket at the roadside none of this cowardly speedcam nasty NIP through the post, roads would actually be safer as more patrols out there so crimes other than ~6 mph over the limit would get picked up.
Don't speed, or cough the job if caught, then it won't escalate. If you start making up stories where other people get the blame, are lies and said on oath then expect to get fecked. It's nothing to do with fascist dictatorships.
Schmed said:
Should be linked to the initial offence. Having something so minor escalate into something custodial is worthy of a fascist dictatorship. Is totally and utterly excessive. But we all know why they do it, the whole NIP system rests on harassing people via s172 to self incriminate. Anyone who tries to think around it creatively will get shot at dawn. They should pull people over for speeding and ticket at the roadside none of this cowardly speedcam nasty NIP through the post, roads would actually be safer as more patrols out there so crimes other than ~6 mph over the limit would get picked up.
The only person who escalated this was the woman herself. Had she admitted who was driving the matter would have been dealt with quite speedily and cheaply. I don't like the 'hit and run' style of policing, but the idea of flooding the roads with patrolling police officers is indeed a good idea, apart from ways to finance it. Nowadays I sympathise with those who get caught by a mobile police speed camera. My first thought it that they should be on patrol or in CID, taking the pressure off their colleagues, but no one asks me.People drive by licence. It is not a right to be on the road. If you don't like the idea of a 172 then don't enter into an agreement to drive on the road.
Some things you have to pay for.
Drumroll said:
No it is actually a fundamental part of our legal system, (perverting the course of justice) if people can lie to a court without consequences, than we may as well not have a legal system. The initial crime is irrelevant.
But people (in fact most criminals) lie to the court all the time. How many people plead not guilty and are then found guilty? OK they don't get a discounted sentence for pleading guilty in the first place, but they don't get 4-18 months added to their sentence because they lied and said 'It wasn't me gov, I was in the pub'.In a way I'm glad she's been found guilty and will have her (political) life ruined - but only because that's what would happen to me if I had the audacity to try to get off a speeding ticket like that. But the proportionality of crime vs punishment is completely wrong here - the crime is speeding, not 'lying to the court'.
MickC said:
... the crime is speeding, not 'lying to the court'.
Not so. The headline in the BBC article is pretty clear: BBC said:
An MP has been found guilty of perverting the course of justice by lying to police
PCoJ is and should be a significant crime. I share your happiness that she has been convicted and hope that she will be locked up for a long period. The arguments in the last few posts explain much better than I can WHY this is such a serious crime. MickC said:
But people (in fact most criminals) lie to the court all the time. How many people plead not guilty and are then found guilty? OK they don't get a discounted sentence for pleading guilty in the first place, but they don't get 4-18 months added to their sentence because they lied and said 'It wasn't me gov, I was in the pub'.
In a way I'm glad she's been found guilty and will have her (political) life ruined - but only because that's what would happen to me if I had the audacity to try to get off a speeding ticket like that. But the proportionality of crime vs punishment is completely wrong here - the crime is speeding, not 'lying to the court'.
Generalising, PCOJ requires some act(s) specifically designed to misdirect the justice process. This would typically be beyond lying in court about your guilt (a simple 'it wasn't me). Notwithstanding, a lot of not guilty pleas are down to disputes over facts or legal positions, or where an offence has a subjective element to it. Or where there might be a fall back offence. Many reasons beyond lying. In a way I'm glad she's been found guilty and will have her (political) life ruined - but only because that's what would happen to me if I had the audacity to try to get off a speeding ticket like that. But the proportionality of crime vs punishment is completely wrong here - the crime is speeding, not 'lying to the court'.
For example, someone charged with Dangerous Driving can be tried. If found not guilty of Dangerous Driving, they can be found guilty of the alternative of Careless Driving. A defendant can go to trial fully believing they are innocent of Dangerous Driving but guilty of Careless Driving. They would have to plead not guilty and face trial to get to Careless. Are they lying or misleading the court? Of course not.
But how about this. In the car was a passenger, and that passenger had been subject to the most terrifying ordeal, telling D to slow down repeatedly. Before talking to the Police, D paid off the passenger to give a favourable witness statement where the fear and demands are not present. Is it fair and proper that this criminal attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the justice system is ignored, and the original offence dealt with in isolation?
Equally, someone defends their home against intruders. In the struggle an intruder is killed. The defendant believed their actions were proportionate to the threat. The CPS believe otherwise. There is a trial in which D pleads not guilty. Is he lying? Of course not.
But how about this. D in fact came downstairs to find the intruder trying to get out of the property. D stabbed the unarmed intruder in a frenzied attack, then places a knife in the intruders hands. Is it fair that D is given no separate punishment for his acts designed to cover his tracks?
PCOJ is an offence in its own right. If it didn't exist, those who are accused of crimes or who feel at risk of being accused of crimes would be able to do anything and everything in their power to misdirect the justice system, knowing that, if they get caught, they're only on the hook for the original offence and no more.
Taking speeding as an example, if you knew you could lie on the s172 without risk of sanction for doing so, what would be the incentive to tell the truth (aside from common decency)? You may as well say it was your great aunt from Brazil and leave it for the authorities to investigate. And we all know the Police have unlimited resources to investigate these things. When you're caught out for telling porkies, all you get is your £100 fine and 3 points?
Nonsense.
MickC said:
Drumroll said:
No it is actually a fundamental part of our legal system, (perverting the course of justice) if people can lie to a court without consequences, than we may as well not have a legal system. The initial crime is irrelevant.
But people (in fact most criminals) lie to the court all the time. How many people plead not guilty and are then found guilty? OK they don't get a discounted sentence for pleading guilty in the first place, but they don't get 4-18 months added to their sentence because they lied and said 'It wasn't me gov, I was in the pub'.In a way I'm glad she's been found guilty and will have her (political) life ruined - but only because that's what would happen to me if I had the audacity to try to get off a speeding ticket like that. But the proportionality of crime vs punishment is completely wrong here - the crime is speeding, not 'lying to the court'.
janesmith1950 said:
When you're caught out for telling porkies, all you get is your £100 fine and 3 points?
Nonsense.
OK. So maybe another 3 points and another £100 fine? Or 6 points etc? 8 months inside is disproportionate even if you did try to get out of it, its a minor offence in the first place. Nonsense.
And I still think many criminals lie in court/lie to police/make stuff up to try to be found not guilty, and are not punished like this. This is all about scaring motorists into confessing, which I don't like at all UNLESS its aimed at the rest of the criminal fraternity too.
MickC said:
OK. So maybe another 3 points and another £100 fine? Or 6 points etc? 8 months inside is disproportionate even if you did try to get out of it, its a minor offence in the first place.
And I still think many criminals lie in court/lie to police/make stuff up to try to be found not guilty, and are not punished like this. This is all about scaring motorists into confessing, which I don't like at all UNLESS its aimed at the rest of the criminal fraternity too.
PCOJ is not an offence about motorists. And I still think many criminals lie in court/lie to police/make stuff up to try to be found not guilty, and are not punished like this. This is all about scaring motorists into confessing, which I don't like at all UNLESS its aimed at the rest of the criminal fraternity too.
MickC said:
janesmith1950 said:
When you're caught out for telling porkies, all you get is your £100 fine and 3 points?
Nonsense.
OK. So maybe another 3 points and another £100 fine? Or 6 points etc? 8 months inside is disproportionate even if you did try to get out of it, its a minor offence in the first place. Nonsense.
And I still think many criminals lie in court/lie to police/make stuff up to try to be found not guilty, and are not punished like this. This is all about scaring motorists into confessing, which I don't like at all UNLESS its aimed at the rest of the criminal fraternity too.
It will always be treated seriously & result in custodial sentences (whatever the initial offence) save for in extreme cases. That's to deter people from doing it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff