|
|
Post by fretslider on Aug 1, 2011 12:03:08 GMT -5
Expenses cheat MP Jim Devine was jailed for 16 months in March after being branded a liar by his trial judge.
So how long did he do???
Devine has been released from prison after serving just a quarter of his sentence, and if you can't work that out it's four months. He is the third former MP jailed over the parliamentary expenses scandal to be released. Eric Illsley and David Chaytor have already been 'tagged' after serving a quarter of their sentences. Devine will be on the home detention curfew scheme for the next four months before spending the last eight months of his sentence on probation.
Illsley, 56, who was jailed for 12 months in February for fiddling £14,500 in expenses, was released in May after three months behind bars. He dishonestly obtained an average of £100 a week more than he was entitled to over a three-year period. And Chaytor spent four and a half months behind bars after admitting he fiddled his parliamentary expenses to falsely claim more than £22,000 of taxpayers' money.
Emma Boon, campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said that releasing Devine early "makes his sentence look like a hollow gesture and will do nothing to help restore public faith in parliament".
Or our faith in justice for that matter
|
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Aug 2, 2011 10:51:16 GMT -5
Well, I guess I'm a bit divided on this one.
On the one hand I don't think MPs should be treated with kid gloves if they do a crime.
On the other hand they're hardly a danger to the public.
You can't stack these blokes up against murderers or rapists or paedophiles.
I'm not really in favour of sending people to prison for non-violent crimes anyway.
Though of course for violent crimes I want TOUGHER sentences than we've got now.
I can't honestly get worked up about a few MPs.
It will be interesting to see if, like Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken, they become keen supporters of prison reform when they're released!
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz 
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Aug 2, 2011 21:49:32 GMT -5
I agree Linda. When an MP gets caught fiddling expenses, the public sees it like they'd broken into Buck House and buggered the Royal Corgis. When any of us and our mates get caught fiddling expenses or helping ourselves to office supplies, it's like Stalin had taken charge. There are far worse than that around and they like to direct us to politicians to take the heat off themselves - Murdoch being the most obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2011 10:10:56 GMT -5
no body has a right to fiddle expences...the difference with politos doing it is...they make the laws and we ask them to govern on our behalf
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Aug 3, 2011 10:36:18 GMT -5
I agree Linda. When an MP gets caught fiddling expenses, the public sees it like they'd broken into Buck House and buggered the Royal Corgis. When any of us and our mates get caught fiddling expenses or helping ourselves to office supplies, it's like Stalin had taken charge. There are far worse than that around and they like to direct us to politicians to take the heat off themselves - Murdoch being the most obvious. Can you set the rules about what you can and cannot take, like the MPs did. better still, could you be your own judge and jury if you decided you broken your rules? |
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Aug 6, 2011 11:35:32 GMT -5
To me justice is all about proportionate punishment.
That's why I support the death penalty for murder but oppose it for non-fatal crimes.
In the same way, I think prison should be reserved for violent offenders, paedophiles, rapists, terrorists, that sort of people.
Personally I think the MPs would have been more proportionately punished if they'd had to go and empty the bins or sweep the streets or clean up graffiti or dig ditches or something more useful.
Putting non-violent offenders in prison is IMO a waste of money and resources.
It's better to make community service a proper punishment so the offenders don't want to go through it ever again.
One of the people responsible for the death of Peter Connolly has just been released.
How can you put an MP who fiddles his expenses on the same level as a piece of garbage like that?
To me, HIS release was a joke.
The MP's doesn't really bother me one little bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 12:00:12 GMT -5
Laws are made by humans, enforced by humans, and violations are tried in courts composed of humans.
Humans are human - meaning they can be corrupted, and are prone to human error.
On the wall of what is now Air Force Intelligence Command here in San Antonio was once a very large banner, reading
"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom".
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Aug 6, 2011 13:02:51 GMT -5
And because we are human, laws should not be enforced with computer-like rigidity without taking circumstances, personalities, actual harm done and everything else into consideration. What would be more appropriate in cases like this is what could commonly happen in any job, that the MP is required to stand down and has to face re-election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 13:07:49 GMT -5
"Common sense", in government, the courts, the police, and law?
Surely, you jest.
From here in Texas - death penalty capital of the free world - the US Supreme Court made a landmark dedision (Collins vs Herrera, 1983):
"Proof of innocence is not in itself grounds for appeal".
Think about it.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Aug 6, 2011 15:40:38 GMT -5
Frankly, my dear, I'd rather not.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Aug 19, 2011 12:39:31 GMT -5
"Common sense", in government, the courts, the police, and law? Surely, you jest. From here in Texas - death penalty capital of the free world - the US Supreme Court made a landmark dedision (Collins vs Herrera, 1983): "Proof of innocence is not in itself grounds for appeal". Think about it. that is NOT was the court said. scotus simply reiterated the simple FACT that the federal courts are NOT to listen to evidence about the crime that has already been decided. the federal courts are ONLY for looking at constitutional questions, period. proof of innocence IS a grounds for appeal in state courts, but has no place in the federal system. that is EXACTLY as is should be |
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 9, 2011 8:57:23 GMT -5
Well, I guess I'm a bit divided on this one. On the one hand I don't think MPs should be treated with kid gloves if they do a crime. On the other hand they're hardly a danger to the public. You can't stack these blokes up against murderers or rapists or paedophiles. I'm not really in favour of sending people to prison for non-violent crimes anyway. Though of course for violent crimes I want TOUGHER sentences than we've got now. I can't honestly get worked up about a few MPs. It will be interesting to see if, like Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken, they become keen supporters of prison reform when they're released! Helloooo Linda-amiga.... We basically agree here...non violent criminals are not at the top of my list for doing "hard time". I have a friend (bank president) who embezzled 30 million from a bank. He's doing 6 years in a federal "pen". Considering that he was a first offender, and will probably never work in his "profession" again, or be trusted with anything resembling large sums of cash....I think one or two years would be sufficient. I did get a bit of a "jolt" that you wouldn't imprison them at all. You would simply let Bernie Madoff go free, after bilking thousands of hard working people out of their life savings? |
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 9, 2011 9:34:08 GMT -5
"Common sense", in government, the courts, the police, and law? Surely, you jest. From here in Texas - death penalty capital of the free world - the US Supreme Court made a landmark dedision (Collins vs Herrera, 1983): "Proof of innocence is not in itself grounds for appeal". Think about it. Thought about it, and read about it. The supreme court decision had nothing to do with executing anyone who is innocent. They just said that it had nothing to do with a "cruel & unusual" punishment. The vote was 5 to 3 and a propper one. As for Herrera, .....he's a real "innocent" sweetie. He shot two Texas police officers down in cold blood. Department of Safety officer, David Rucker & Los Fresnos officer Enrique Carrisalez... Carrisalez identified Herrera before he died... The licence plate of he murder-car was traced back to Herrera's live in girl friend. Herrera's Social Security card was found alongside Rucker's patrol car. There was only one person in Herrera's car at the time of the murders. Blood splatter evidence put Herrara at the scene. Herrera pled guilty to the murder of officer Rucker. "proven innocent"? Herrera was executed, and has killed no police officers (or anyone else) since. Think about it. |
|
Alpha 
