[TW]Fox;12732822 said:
Nobody is saying it's acceptable - or at least, nobody with a brain. We are merely suggesting the punishment does not fit the crime.
Without knowing the exact details of the case it's hard to know whether it fits the crime or not, imo.
While I agree that simply driving at 130mph is not inherantly dangerous, and so a prison sentance could be seen as harsh, particularly when compared to other offences.
However, there could be other factors that influence the decision. For example does the fact that he filmed himself, give any indication to his 'motives' for driving so fast. Perhaps it could be seen as evidence of him not just driving quickly to make good progress while the road was clear, but an indication that his speed was based on a simple desire to see how fast he could go, or how far he could push things towards a limit?! Possibly considered, more reckless than simply just speeding.
I'm purely speculating, as I have no idea of the case, or the laws surrounding it - but to sweepingly say that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, is possibly wide of the mark, imo.
[QUOTE='[TW]Rarely, for example, are people who try to evade police in their cars and swerve into oncoming traffic ever jailed..[/QUOTE]
Again I can't really comment on the accuracy of 'rarely', but I'm happy to agree that there will be at least some cases where this is true. But there are plenty of stupid 'punishments' handed out to people - such as 'banning' people who are either uninsured, already banned, or don't even have a licence in the first place. Many of these people will have no problems with driving while 'banned'. So what is the point of this punishment? Generally all it serves to do is make it less likely for the offender to comply with the full laws in future, as the ban usually means that their insurance premiums will be higher.