Student protester jailed

Castiel · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:01

thepedster said:
32 months isn't 3 years ???

It is 2 years and 8 months. Somewhat less than the 6 months that a drunk driver got for killing the 15 year old son of a friend of mine several years ago, even though he was already banned for drink driving and was driving down a pedestrianised area in the early evening on Christmas Eve.

I realise that we shouldn't compare different cases in this way, but it is hard not to.

Rameses · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:03

GREAT NEWS!

mushroomsoup · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:03

its not that harsh since he will probably serve very little of it. serves him right though, it was an incredibly malicious and dangerous thing to do.

neocon · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:04

he'll only serve half the sentence in a young offenders institute

DJMK4 · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:04

Bennie-Mac said:
Thats a surprisingly harsh sentance, but i assume the judge was going for a "Let this be a lesson to all of you"

However this in my opinion is a good thing. Well done judgey

Would it still be harsh if it hit someone on the head and killed them?

Pate · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:04

Exceptionally harsh.

Yes it COULD have killed someone. Fact is it didn't.

This is the political system interferring with justice. A harsh sentence was needed to keep people in their place. This was the perfect example.

And now, I wouldn't say it was done with intent. It was a stupid thing done in the heat of the moment. Nothing more nothing less.

3 years has destroyed what little was left of the fool's life.

Dolph · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:05

scorza said:
Got any evidence to back that up? Prison is supposed to rehabilitate people, fair enough if this isn't the guys first offence but I can't see how sending him to prison for three years isn't going to do anything other than make him more likely to re-offend in three years time. I thought the judiciary were supposed to be free from political interference?

They are, but they do tend to look harshly on people who recklessly and knowingly endanger the lives of others, even if they are 'caught up in the moment'.

If this chap thought his behaviour was in any way appropriate or acceptable, then he needs significant rehabilitation, especially given that he was also trespassing and committing criminal damage. If he was 'caught up in the moment', he needs significant rehabilitation to stop him being an easily led ****.

I'm all for reducing the prison population for victimless crimes, but this was only victimless through luck, not through the nature of the act of thuggery.

tigerstyle · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:05

First I've heard of this stroy, but he looks like a complete plank, and he royally proved himself to be one... Hope he enjoys being inside!

Bennie-Mac · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:05

Darkpilgrim said:
To be fair no one was hurt,yes it was stupid,yes it was dangerous,yes it could have killed someone but it didn't.
How many people on this fourm have gone over the speed limit,you could have killed some one.imagine getting 3 years for speeding insteed of a fine.

Thats not exactly a fair comparison, however if i was i was plastered all over the papers speeding through the middle of a crowd of people and police, missing people by inches thats a different story.

Its all down to circumstances in this case, if no-one was around at 3am and he chucked it off the same roof for a laugh, do you honestly think anyone would care? Slap on the wrist, boys will be boys, have a small fine. Its still stupid, but not as stupid as to do it above a crowd of hundreds of people, police and the media.

scorza · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:05

Burnsy2023 said:
No, prison has three key aims: punishment, rehabilitation and to protect the public.

So it is supposed to rehabilitate people then...

Punishment? yes if he'd actually hurt someone, but since he didn't I'd say a non-custodial sentence would have been enough. Protect the public? well that depends on whether he's learnt his lesson or not. From what I've read in the media he has.

Energize · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:07

Good that he's in jail, about the same sentence you get for murder nowadays though.

Burnsy2023 · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:07

I think it's very much to punish rather than rehabilitate. I don't think he'll reoffend.

Simmz · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:07

Still think it's a little over the top, especially when you see things like this still.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12007100

Pug · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:07

i think it sends the wrong message tbh.

To me it says "Those that question the state, those that are defiant to a media which has the governments interests at their core (instead of reporting the truth) and those that will stand-up for a belief (however stupidly they did it) get a tougher sentence than those who premeditate a crime or do more grevous crimes".

And the reason? Just to make a statement.

Bennie-Mac · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:08

DJMK4 said:
Would it still be harsh if it hit someone on the head and killed them?

No, but something tells me he would have gotten a much longer sentange for...that thing...whats it called...oh yeah, murder.

I thought the whole point of the judicial system was to punish people for the crimes they committed, not what they could have done.

Tefal · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:09

kenmare said:
Exceptionally harsh.

Yes it COULD have killed someone. Fact is it didn't.

I thought these things where judged on what a"reasonable person" would expect to happen.

Ie the fact no one was hurt isn't relevant because he as being judged on how he acted just before and when he threw it not what happened after.

yes if he'd actually hurt someone, but since he didn't I'd say a non-custodial sentence would have been enough.

So being an incompetent criminal should be a defence?

A person whop does a drive by but doesn't have the aim to pull it off should just get an "oh you" and a slap on the wrist?

deuse · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:09

LeJosh said:
I love the justice system, keeps our beloved child molesters on the streets but keeps those pesky fire extinquisher bandits at bay. Facetious, this is.

Danthus · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:10

Pug said:
i think it sends the wrong message tbh.

To me it says "Those that question the state, those that are defiant to a media which has the governments interests at their core (instead of reporting the truth) and those that will stand-up for a belief (however stupidly they did it) get a tougher sentence than those who premeditate a crime or do more grevous crimes".

And the reason? Just to make a statement.

You can do all of that without the need to throw a fire extinguisher though.

Vonhelmet · 11 Jan 2011 at 13:11

Pug said:
i think it sends the wrong message tbh.

To me it says "Those that question the state, those that are defiant to a media which has the governments interests at their core (instead of reporting the truth) and those that will stand-up for a belief (however stupidly they did it) get a tougher sentence than those who premeditate a crime or do more grevous crimes".

And the reason? Just to make a statement.

If he wanted to do all those things he should have bought a 20p biro and written a ****ing letter to his MP. Not thrown a fire extinguisher off a roof at the rozzers. Honestly, what else would the expected outcome be?