"...and he got fifteen years for the sake of that pair of Trimm Trabs, ha ha ha!" Mr. David Call-Me-Dave shares a joke with Daily Mail readers, recently.
Noting, as I did today, that Mr. David Call-Me-Dave feels that the court's tough line apropos; sentencing for those involved in the recent civil unrest, however peripherally, is justified in the message it conveys, I am interested in his opinions on sentencing policies for serious offences not committed within the context of the riots.
I have thus dispatched the following missive to him personally:
Dear Prime Minister,
On Tuesday, 16 August 2011, two young men were sentenced to four years' incarceration at Chester Crown Court for "inciting disorder" via the Facebook website. Today, you stated that "it is good that the courts feel able to do that", i.e. to issue severe sentences for offences such as inciting disorder. This would seem to indicate that you feel that a four year custodial sentence is appropriate in such circumstances.
This being the case, I should be grateful if you could enlighten me as to what you feel would be an appropriate tariff for an offender convicted of all of the following offences: multiple, wilful breaches of privacy laws and the Data Protection act, corruption of serving police officers, perverting the course of justice and obstructing the police in the course of their duties by hampering a murder investigation.
Admittedly, these offences were not committed against a backdrop of civil disorder, but if the courts are emboldened enough to issue more severe penalties in order to act as a deterrent, then I should have thought that a custodial sentence in the order of 70 to 80 years should be appropriate.
What do you think?
Yours faithfully,
Eric Tampon.
I shall publish Mr. Call-Me-Dave's reply on this cyber-strand when, and if, I receive it.
Do others feel he may evade the issue by stating that sentencing policy should be a matter for the sentencing judge?
No comments:
Post a Comment