Junkie idiot jailed for crashing car....

Moley

Moley

Moley

Soldato
Joined
29 Aug 2006
Posts
4,298
Location
In a world of my own
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11299938

So George Michael has been given 8 weeks for crashing his car whilst under the influence of cannabis. Not the first time he's been caught behind the wheel under the influence and I for one think this sentence is far too light - he'll be out in a matter of weeks, no doubt get a load of publicity going into rehab on his exit, write a bio or new album and make the most of the public interest.

This seems to me to be a golden opportunity for the courts to make an example of someone who is fairly significant being prosecuted for what is a relatively new crime.

What do you think?
 
This seems to me to be a golden opportunity for the courts to make an example of someone who is fairly significant being prosecuted for what is a relatively new crime.
Click to expand...

Wait so scentencing shouldn't be decided on your crime but on your "fame" ?

Good lord.


also driving under the influence isn't a new crime.
 
Tefal said:
Wait so scentencing shouldn't be decided on your crime but on your "fame" ?

Good lord.


also driving under the influence isn't a new crime.
Click to expand...

"Drug-driving" as it has been termed is a relatively new offence to hit the news - this is what I meant.

Sentencing should be determined by the crime and yes to a certain extent by the offender too - a small fine wouldn't for example have been a suitable punishment when it would have had no effect on George Michael whatsoever.

Do you think that some random kid off the back streets of London would have got off with such a light sentence? I for one don't and I think it's exactly because of George Michaels 'fame' that he got off lightly - exactly the opposite effect to that which I believe should have happened.

Justice must be done and be seen to be done - which means making examples of high-profile offenders sometimes for the greater good.
 
Considering he didn't actually hurt anybody aside from himself, I don't see the problem with his sentence.

Think of the harm that has been done:

- he trashed his car;
- a shop was crashed into.

You want to send him down for a long time on that basis? I think you need to step away from your keyboard for a minute, as such a 'message' would basically say that the punishment of such a crime is not based on the harm caused or intent behind it.
 
and yes to a certain extent by the offender too
Click to expand...

only in relation to their attitude/past behaviour not because they are famous.


a small fine wouldn't for example have been a suitable punishment when it would have had no effect on George Michael whatsoever.
Click to expand...

there's still the five year ban.


Do you think that some random kid off the back streets of London would have got off with such a light sentence?
Click to expand...


five year ban, some jail time and a 1k+ fine?

yeah they'd have probably got about the same.


Justice must be done and be seen to be done - which means making examples of high-profile offenders sometimes for the greater good.
Click to expand...

Then that is not justice.
 
A custodial might just be the catalyst for him to get a grip of his life. He has had more than one chance.

A week or so in a high security prison will not be a pleasant experience for him before he is shipped out to a Cat D.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
A custodial might just be the catalyst for him to get a grip of his life. He has had more than one chance.

A week or so in a high security prison will not be a pleasant experience for him before he is shipped out to a Cat D.
Click to expand...

As he's only going to be in for four weeks, might as well keep him in a local training prison for the duration tbh.
 
Moley said:
As he's only going to be in for four weeks, might as well keep him in a local training prison for the duration tbh.
Click to expand...

This is where I think the prison service gets it wrong.

George Michael will be placed in a high security prison until he gets approved as a Cat D, ie a non escape risk.

Surely he is the type who will play by the rules and be a model prisoner as he will want to get out as soon as possible. Why can't this be established prior to sentence ?

mrthingyx said:
You think somebody like George Michael is going to find it easy on the inside?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure he will get such a hard time if he is placed on a wing for more trusted inmates and less so in a Cat D where people usually play by the rules as if they don't they get shipped back to a Cat B or C.
 
Moley said:
This seems to me to be a golden opportunity for the courts to make an example of someone who is fairly significant being prosecuted for what is a relatively new crime.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Going by that he should have been set free because he’s a good and upright citizen and all the scumbags that get off with cautions should get locked up. Why change the system. You’ve got to have faith in it. I bet only one word is in Michael's mind at the moment and that’s “Freedom”.
 
Also, prison isn't as cushy a place in the uk as people make you think. From what my friends and some family say I wouldn't want to be stuck in there for 8 weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom