Avoiding jail

[technodup]

Id it right that people can be convicted of a crime which would normally carry a custodial sentence then be spared because they have children/elderly parents/a sick wife?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... efits.html

This particular case interests me because on one hand I don't agree that a single person should be jailed when others aren't for the same offence.

I'm also interested as I don't believe what he did should be considered an offence in the first place. My friend was in a similar position several years ago and couldn't see why if two people are made redundant, one with savings and one without, they are treated differently by the DWP. Why punish those who have saved? £27k isn't a massive amount and would disappear quickly with no income. Then if no job beckons onto benefits anyway. The state have had it away with £27k of hard earned and the other guy hasn't lost a penny.

It stinks, but if he's convicted then kids or no kids he should be jailed like anyone else.

 

[Alison]

I think a custodial sentence will probably cost the tax payer just as much if not more to keep him inside, so fine him and be done.

There has to be some cut off point on savings and benefit claiming as then people with hundreds of thousands in the bank could claim benefits, they, the DWP, I believe, have set it at £6000, so he is simply breaking the law.

You get the same problem with the elderly and care, if they have property or savings over a certain amount they have to use it to pay for their care, may not seem fair, but then it's only unfair for close relatives who are desperate to get their hands on some inheritance and begrudge using it for their relatives care.

In the end no prison should not really be for benefit cheats, a criminal record and fining should be the way to go.

Although I diddled the DHSS once, about 27 years ago, when I wanted some gears, was on benefits at the time, so pretended I had lost all my giro and had it replaced, may the Lord forgive me

Alison

 

[hamster]

The question you have to ask in sentencing is about equality of treatment and equality of outcome. Say both Simon Cowell and me both get caught speeding and are both fined £100 - is that fair? For him it's probably the same % of his income as £1 for me. Yet if he was fined £10k would that be fair?

I'm not saying I know the answer, but I don't envy judges in sentencing. The judge's consideration is probably more about the needs of the children in this case.

 

[FMJ]

The question you have to ask in sentencing is about equality of treatment and equality of outcome. Say both Simon Cowell and me both get caught speeding and are both fined £100 - is that fair? For him it's probably the same % of his income as £1 for me. Yet if he was fined £10k would that be fair?

Don't speed in Finland if you're flush.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... eeding.htm

 

[technodup]

The question you have to ask in sentencing is about equality of treatment and equality of outcome. Say both Simon Cowell and me both get caught speeding and are both fined £100 - is that fair? For him it's probably the same % of his income as £1 for me. Yet if he was fined £10k would that be fair?

For me the same offence should carry the same penalty. The fact that someone has done 'better' financially shouldn't come into it. Likewise kids or anything else. Is it fair that I'd be punished more heavily because I have no children?

Mind you I believe that for tax as well, in that if the rate is 20% it should be 20% for everyone. I can't fathom how it's fair to tax people at a higher rate just because they earn more. 20% of £100000 is already more than 20% of £20000 but the rate is the same, that seems fair to me. No wonder people avoid it like the plague.

 

[Alison]

The question you have to ask in sentencing is about equality of treatment and equality of outcome. Say both Simon Cowell and me both get caught speeding and are both fined £100 - is that fair? For him it's probably the same % of his income as £1 for me. Yet if he was fined £10k would that be fair?

For me the same offence should carry the same penalty. The fact that someone has done 'better' financially shouldn't come into it. Likewise kids or anything else. Is it fair that I'd be punished more heavily because I have no children?

Mind you I believe that for tax as well, in that if the rate is 20% it should be 20% for everyone. I can't fathom how it's fair to tax people at a higher rate just because they earn more. 20% of £100000 is already more than 20% of £20000 but the rate is the same, that seems fair to me. No wonder people avoid it like the plague.

I agree, if you earn £150000+ it's about 50%, but no government however left or right wing they are, are ever going to give up that income to make the system fairer for those earning £35000 +

Alison

 

[daugs]

seen this, top 1% earners pay 30% of all income tax

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... e-tax.html

if they didn't pay who would ?

back to prison question, prison serves 4 purposes ?

Retribution - punishment for crimes against society, depriving criminals of their freedom is a way of making them pay a debt to society for their crimes.

Incapacitation - removing criminals from society so that they can no longer harm innocent people.

Deterrence - preventing future crime, ie warning to people thinking about commiting crimes, and that the possibility of going to prison will discourage people from breaking the law.

Rehabilitation - to change criminals into law abiding citizens.

since fining people with limited finances just results in further benefits needed, without prison there seems to be little deterrent to anyone of similar profile

 

[Alison]

seen this, top 1% earners pay 30% of all income tax

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... e-tax.html

if they didn't pay who would ?

back to prison question, prison serves 4 purposes ?

Retribution - punishment for crimes against society, depriving criminals of their freedom is a way of making them pay a debt to society for their crimes.

Incapacitation - removing criminals from society so that they can no longer harm innocent people.

Deterrence - preventing future crime, ie warning to people thinking about commiting crimes, and that the possibility of going to prison will discourage people from breaking the law.

Rehabilitation - to change criminals into law abiding citizens.

since fining people with limited finances just results in further benefits needed, without prison there seems to be little deterrent to anyone of similar profile

So many times on the news I've heard prison officials say that prison is not about rehabilitation, it's about taking people off the streets and them "paying their debt to society" To be honest prison is more likely to teach better tricks of the criminal trade than rehabilitate the criminal.

When someone is fined they are not given extra benefits to help them pay for it, they have to cover it with what benefits they already receive or they pay with their wages. If you put them in prison, then it costs the state a fortune, which would not apply if they were left in the community paying for their misdemeanor with community service.

Alison