Is this not a bit harsh?

[nedflanders]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/752080 3.stm

I am not condoning what she did but lets face it she never killed anyone? Is this not typical of British Justice, a harsher sentence for a material crime than if she went up her main street and stabbed someone. I know what I would consider more serious. What are your opinions?

[Ethel]

No, it's not harsh.

This chap got life for stabbing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2889931.stm

[Quinlad]

Tricky one.

There's an argument that what she was done is made more wrong by the effort she put into committing it and her refusal to accept responsibility at any stage.

Unlike someone acting recklessly, or in a flash of stupidity or anger, she meticulously planned and executed deceit after deceit.

The level of premediation and the fact that she refused to hold her hands up when confronted with the truth surely must count against her?

I dunno - 6 years seems about right to me.

[Ethel]

On reflection, it must take an extremely cruel and greedy person to allow her sons to believe their father was dead.

That in itself deserves a prison sentence, let alone the fraud.

[whiffy]

No not harsh enough. Anybody who could cause such damage to their own kids deserves everything they get. Greedy scum.

[jake-the-peg]

I think it''s a little strong but notexcessively - I was reckoning on 4-5 years based on previous cases.

I suspect the major air-sea rescue case may have counted against them rather badly.

And unfortunately the high profile nature of the case - the law's meant to be above such considerations but I have my doubts

[sara3]

she deserves it for what she put her kids through. what a greedy, cold and calculating woman she is.

they were in debt but had about 10 properties they could have sold.

absolutely incredible.

[Drisgirl]

I echo the majority -the punishment fits the crime.

Think ot the sentence they dealt their children -they have a life sentence without parents -it was a henious barabaric extremley self motivated act with complete disregard for their own flesh and blood.-and thats without the fraud and deception.

Hard to believe that 2 people- out of all the people in the world -could meet and be as self absorbed.

[anotheoldgit]

6 years is about right, but the trouble is, they will not spend 6 years in jail, given time off for good behavour.

Make them spend the full 6 years in jail, and further increase this if they show bad behavour.

[jno]

her kids are grownups, it's not like abusing toddlers or anything. Cruel and unplesant behaviour to your offspring, but it's between parents and children, I would have thought, and a minor matter for the court to take into consideration. The waste of public resources in what was essentially an attempt to pervert the course of justice was probably the major factor.

Nonetheless if they'd just killed someone in a car accident they might well have got off more lightly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/751 4160.stm

So I guess I'm agreeing with you, ned!

[Eve]

They may be making an example of them, trying to discourage people from doing a similar kind of thing and encouraging deception and fraud.

Maybe they want to impress on the public that the courts are taking matters like fraud, deception, money laundering seriously.

[obNOXious]

And we are all assuming that the kids don't know. I know the official line is that they were horribly unaware, but it's worth considering that if they'd owned up to knowing then they'd all be up on a further conspiracy charge. Not saying for a moment that their kids did know, but it's worth considering that they might have...
I think the sentence is excessive anyway, it wasn't a big fraud, no one got hurt and they'll get the money back.

[jno]

the police seemed convinced extremely quickly that they didn't know, Nox. I don't know how but perhaps they simply looked so absolutely stunned when they were told that it didn't seem possible they were faking.

[Quinlad]

It's not a crime to upset your kids. Or is it?

I'd have thought the sentence refers to the efforts they went to to rip off the life insurance company.

It's not about the hurt caused to loved ones. It's about deceit and theft isn't it? Not sure.

[Oneeyedvic]

There is a major difference between pleading guilty to a crime (and showing remorse), pleading guilty later (ie changing your plea) and pleading not guilty.

If you plead guilty at the earliest available opportunity, you will be treated far more leniently.

[buildersmate]

Which is precisely why I can't get my head around the similar sentences, OEV. One pleads guilty before trial, the other doesn't - very similar sentences. Where's the logic?

[Oneeyedvic]

You are right builders mate - I typed that response with regard to jnos driving death link.

It is a puzzle as to why he didn't get a significantly lower sentence - obviously the jury did not believe her defence of coercion.

[Myriad2112]

John Darwin goes for a medical check-up. The doctor tells him: "I've got some bad news. You've got amnesia and you're technically dead." Darwin replies: "Well, at least I'm not technically dead."

[Hugh Spencer]

With our prisons burstng at the seams I think that financial crimes should be punished differently, The amount involved plus a percentage should have to be paid back, access to all bank accounts by the authorities should be possible, this debt cannot be avoided for the lifetime of the perpetrator. If the money is no longer in bank accounts but spent then monthly deductions should be made from income or pensions and allowances even though their income falls below the statuatory level. That should make them think more than twice before they do it.

[New Judge]

Just to be a bit pedantic (to which I�m prone from time to time) on a point raised by anotheoldgit, they will not get time off �for good behaviour�.

This principle was abolished some time ago. Prisoners used to be able to earn up to one third off their sentences for good behaviour, and it was in the gift of the prison governor to reduce that remission if bad behaviour occurred. (He would award, say, fourteen days loss of remission).

Some time ago (I cannot recall exactly when, but around the time that �Human Rights� in prisons came to the fore) this principle was abolished. Using the usual perverse logic that seems to pervade such matters it was ruled that the remission was a right that could not be taken away save by a properly convened tribunal, and the prison governor did not constitute such a tribunal. Effectively it was said that in acting in such a way governors were imposing additional prison sentences, which they were not entitled to do.

So now prisoners can misbehave as much as they like and receive no penalty unless full and formal criminal action is launched. This is rarely done save in exceptional circumstances as their misbehaviour often does not cross the criminal threshold.

Now all prisoners with defined sentences serve a maximum of half of their sentence inside (regardless of their behaviour) and are released to serve the remainder �in the community�. In practice this second half usually consists of one or perhaps two interviews with a probation officer within the first few weeks of release. Whilst in theory they can be called upon to serve the remainder of their sentence in custody should they reoffend, few are.

[rov1200]

If a criminal admits to guilt they should get a lesser sentence. As he did admit guilt and she didn't then he should have only got 3 years and she the full 6 years. I thought this country was going the way of plea bargaining to reduce the time and effort involved in obtaining a conviction but obviously not.