Is This Actually Worth The Bother ?

[youngmafbog]

http://news.sky.com/story/1142192/benefit-cheats-face-up-to-10-years-in-jail

All sounds good, benefit fraud is no different to any other fraud and costs all of us who pay taxes a lot of money.

But how many times do we see judges, particularly the hand wringing right-on liberal ones, actually handing out a maximum sentence.

So is this a pointless exercise?

[jim360]

There's a certain amount of skill in politicising even the judges as "hand-wringing right-on liberals". What a load of complete and utter tripe.

[jake-the-peg]

Maximum sentences are there for the most extreme cases

Not for when you get most exasperated

I would think that this change has been put in place so that when organised gangs defraud the benefit system they can be correctly changed with criminal fraud.

The point of the lower charge is to prosecute people where there is a lower degree of criminality.

Cases where people in financial distress don't tell the DWP when they get a job and continue to claim for example.

It's really no different from having different levels of culpability in careless driving/dangerous driving/ reckless driving etc

[ummmm]

No, it's not a pointless exercise. I don't understand why you think it might be?

[bazwillrun]

When perpertrators know full well that they wont get anywhere near this sort of sentence...then it is a waste of time

[naomi24]

I can't see many maximum sentences being handed out - unfortunately. Perhaps if ten years imprisonment became the standard penalty, serial fraudsters might think twice.

[Sqad]

I think that the post of JTP sums it up.

Apart from the "exceptional" cases, the extension to the prevailing sentences is a nonsense.............Will be interested in the "first case."

UK jails are full.

[ToraToraTora]

Anything that stops the theives is welcome so they should stiffen all the minimum sentences so the judges and Magistrates are forced to dish out some sort of punishement. Ultimately though the way to stop frauds to stop paying benefits in money where possible.

[douglas9401]

It's NOT a pointless exercise youngmafbog. It's there to divert attention from the various shenanigans still going on with MPs, bankers and sundry executives about the place paying each other obscene amounts in bonuses and incentives just to do what they're supposed to do.
THAT'S the point of the exercise.

[Old_Geezer]

Given the cost of gaoling someone and the knock on welfare costs of keeping their family, one hopes a degree of reasoned judgement would be applied in such cases. Organised crime aside, one may hope the fear of getting caught and ending up with a stiff sentence may have some effect. But folk need to think they will get caught eventually.

[Old_Geezer]

I should also say I think there is fraud and fraud. I don't see the point of going after someone who is desperate and who takes and doesn't declare a low paid cash in hand job. They're at their wit's end anyway. But those who simply play the system and think it's easy street, they're a different situation.

[youngmafbog]

The maximum sentence is for those going out of their way to defraud the state in a big way.

My point is how often is the current maximum sentence handed out and served? Not at all I suspect, so what is the point of increasing it? Use the current law to it's maximum first.

Jim, there are many liberal judges handing out pathetic sentences. It is not tripe if you bother to open your eyes.