Fire Extinguisher Throwing Student

[rabid]

the number of MPs who have since spoken in support of Chaytor saying he was a 'conciousness MP' is sickening.

[eFestivals]

Why, because their grasp of the English language is so bad?

doh, bloody spell-checker.

I of course meant conscientious.

[eFestivals]

Its an interesting concept though - do we punish on actions or consequences.

In general, the law in the country works on actions and not consequences.

The best example to show this is with drunk driving. Any drunk driver runs the risk of causing an accident and someone dying as a result - ultimately, it comes down only to circumstances (what others are doing while that person is driving when drunk) as to whether it happens or not.

Those caught drunk driving are generally hit with a fine and a ban. Those caught drunk driving who also cause an accident have the book thrown at them.

The action is essentially the same in both cases - drunk driving. It's the consequences of that action - whether an accident also happens - which determines the sentence given out.

Edited January 12, 2011 by eFestivals

[beLIEveR]

I take Neil's point (the comeback from the MP fraud scandal has been farcical). But at the end of the day, if you do something that could reasonably be expected to kill someone, you've got to expect a stiff sentence. I've no doubt that there will be further convictions from the student demonstrations, and that many of those will be ridiculously harsh and politically motivated. But this one certainly wasn't.

[Snufflebutt]

As has been said, its difficult to say without detailed knowledge of the case. However, I wonder if there hadnt been such media interest in the case whether he'd been given such a sentence. Although I have heard of people who have chucked stuff off bridges and it killing people below being charged with manslaughter and getting pretty long sentences, so maybe its not.

[Snufflebutt]

In general, the law in the country works on actions and not consequences.

The best example to show this is with drunk driving. Any drunk driver runs the risk of causing an accident and someone dying as a result - ultimately, it comes down only to circumstances (what others are doing while that person is driving when drunk) as to whether it happens or not.

Those caught drunk driving are generally hit with a fine and a ban. Those caught drunk driving who also cause an accident have the book thrown at them.

The action is essentially the same in both cases - drunk driving. It's the consequences of that action - whether an accident also happens - which determines the sentence given out.

[eFestivals]

What about the difference in sentence between those charged with murder, and attempted murder? TBH I think they should be treated the same.

I agree - the only difference between the two is the incompetence of one.

And similarly, I think that all drunk drivers should be prosecuted on the same basis, no matter the consequences of their drunk driving (whether someone is injured or not) - the only difference in outcome is really only one of luck and circumstances, the action of the offender in both cases is the same.

[Snufflebutt]

I agree - the only difference between the two is the incompetence of one.

And similarly, I think that all drunk drivers should be prosecuted on the same basis, no matter the consequences of their drunk driving (whether someone is injured or not) - the only difference in outcome is really only one of luck and circumstances, the action of the offender in both cases is the same.

[jump]

I agree - the only difference between the two is the incompetence of one.

And similarly, I think that all drunk drivers should be prosecuted on the same basis, no matter the consequences of their drunk driving (whether someone is injured or not) - the only difference in outcome is really only one of luck and circumstances, the action of the offender in both cases is the same.

[rabid]

What about the difference in sentence between those charged with murder, and attempted murder? TBH I think they should be treated the same. But it depends on what you think a prison sentence is for - is it primarily to punish the perpetrator or to stop them from doing it again? I personally would say the latter.

[eFestivals]

Although if we were to give everyone the same harsh sentence irrespective of the consequences the penal system would be f**ked (the same reason why only a small number of people who ie under oath aren't charged with perjury imo)

I'm not necessarily saying that each drunk driver should get the same stiff sentence that currently a drunk driver that kills would. If we worked the system on a different basis, where the action counted and not the consequences of the action, then the whole system would need to be reconsidered in light of that different basis.

But talking of perjury, did anyone see that the kid of an MP went down yesterday for drunk driving, while his mother who falsely claimed to be driving rather than him got an 8 weeks suspended sentence? To my mind, her attempt to undermine the law is no less of an offence than she was trying to undermine and sho9uld have got a sentence at least as big as her son's.

[eFestivals]

Neil's analogy with drivers hits the nail on the head... how many people do you see driving while using their mobile (for example).. all creating a situation where someone could get killed

the number of drivers who use their mobile is frightening, if the claims that it makes a driver no less distracted than being drunk are true.

It seems weird that a society that has fully turned against drunk-drivers still seems so generally accepting of drivers using their mobiles when considered on that basis.

[ampersand]

the number of drivers who use their mobile is frightening, if the claims that it makes a driver no less distracted than being drunk are true.

It seems weird that a society that has fully turned against drunk-drivers still seems so generally accepting of drivers using their mobiles when considered on that basis.

[rabid]

But talking of perjury, did anyone see that the kid of an MP went down yesterday for drunk driving, while his mother who falsely claimed to be driving rather than him got an 8 weeks suspended sentence? To my mind, her attempt to undermine the law is no less of an offence than she was trying to undermine and sho9uld have got a sentence at least as big as her son's.

[RABun]

Neil hijacked my point

[ampersand]

what would be a reasonable sentence..?

3 years in jail for being on the phone?

[eFestivals]

Really? It was a mother trying to protect her son. Is she likely to do it again?

It's very normally the case that the law considers offences that undermine the law (such as lying under oath to try and gain an untrue result in a case) to be just about the most grave offences.

I strongly suspect that if she'd not been the wife of an MP she'd have been given a much harsher sentence.

If it's merely considered on the likelihood of whether she'd do it again then they surely wouldn't have bothered to prosecute her in the first place.

[rabid]

If it's merely considered on the likelihood of whether she'd do it again then they surely wouldn't have bothered to prosecute her in the first place.

[Snufflebutt]

what would be a reasonable sentence..?

3 years in jail for being on the phone?

[Jaybles]

The length might be a bit overboard......Maybe 12-18 months would have been more reasonable.

But he will serve 16 months in a young offenders institution before being eligible for release. So should be out before he is 20.

Very hard lesson learnt with a harsh penalty. But i think he should serve time for his actions.

[RABun]

so sue me...

I meant to mention you...

but it's mad really

I wonder how much the total lack of any security at Millbank Tower has to do with the sentence... as in, oops, we obviously f**ked up there, let's shift the point of any responsibility somewhere else

and I'm not saying it's the cops fault that he threw the fire extinguisher, but it's partly their fault that he and everyone else got in the building, unchallenged, in the first place

[Jaybles]

all of his short to medium term plans in tatters...

i wonder how much respect he'll have for authority when he comes out...

[eFestivals]

But what he did was extremely stupid and dangerous, and given the spotlight on the riots he was naive to think he would get away with it.

you think he was thinking about anything much at all?

People do those sorts of things precisely because they're NOT thinking. Yes, it was very stupid and reckless and dangerous, but it's precisely because things like that are a spur of the moment thing that the sentence is IMO more than a little harsh.

When put against a member of parliament deliberately choosing to rip the country off, the actions of that stupid student are quite minor when considered in the context of it being an unthinking act.

[Jaybles]

you think he was thinking about anything much at all?

[jump]

I think he said during the trial his thinking behind it was that he wanted to create anarchy to show the protests against the cuts.