Huhne / Pryce: I just don’t see how ‘prison works’ for anyone here

His crime was speeding then lying (and lying some more). Her crime was lying and self-immolating revenge. Last night they spent their first night in prison.

Few people will spare much sympathy for either Chris Huhne or Vicky Pryce. They are, as Mr Justice Sweeney said yesterday when sentencing the pair to eight months each, the architects of their own downfall. Though I also think it would take a particularly stony heart not to look at the ashen-faced photos of them, besieged by a mob-handed press as their humiliation is played out in real-time in the full glare of publicity, and not feel any sympathy at all. And if not for them, at least spare a thought for their kids.

Their shared crime, perverting the course of justice, has come at high cost. Not only to them and their family, but also to the taxpayer. It cost us over £150,000 to prosecute them. It would cost a further £100,000 to keep them in jail if they served their sentences in full. That’s an expensive way of making them an example that no-one (“however high and mighty” in the Prime Minister’s phrase) is above the law.

Do they pose a risk to others? Is there any chance of them re-offending? If you answer no to both those questions you have to ask whether jail is the right punishment, rather than hefty fines and lengthy community service.

Yes, they’re being treated consistently with others found guilty of the same offence. But that’s a reason to question our obsession with imprisonment-as-punishment rather than a justification in itself. And, by the way, that applies to all types of non-violent crime — not just the middle-class-professional-sort which seeks (as Huhne/Pryce did) to brazen out speeding offences. Their sentencing is just as disproportionate in its own way as was the jailing for four years of first-time offenders for posting messages about the 2011 riots on Facebook.

Prison works if your goal is to protect society from a threat or to offer justice to a victim. I don’t see how prison works here.

>> You can see what my LDV colleagues thought about it all in Caron’s post last night here.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in News and Op-eds.
Advert

48 Comments

  • It cost so much because both of them decided to continue to lie and therefore aggravate the issue. If they had plead guilty at the outset I would have agreed prison was not appropriate, but as they continued to try to abuse the criminal justice system I’m afraid it is the correct outcome. If either had demonstrated they did not feel above the system and demonstrated a willingness to take responsibility for their actions from the outset I would agree that prison should have been avoided.

  • Steve Way, I am in full agreement. This was surely behaviour that can truly be described as “being above the law” and thus genuine “contempt”. Sad all the same to see gifted people behave in such a way.

  • Adam Corlett 12th Mar '13 - 9:16am

    In my view, sentencing is only justified in so far as it achieves one or more of the following:

    1) Prevent crime by physically removing someone from society, or by monitoring them etc.
    2) Prevent crime by deterring the guilty party from reoffending
    3) Prevent crime by deterring other people from making the same mistakes
    4) Prevent crime by rehabilitating the offender
    5) Make reparations, e.g. “by the payment of compensation or through restorative justice”

    This is close to the legislation on “what sentences are for”: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing/what-sentences-for.htm
    A key difference, however, is that I don’t think we should ‘punish’ offenders as an end in itself. And I don’t think, Stephen, that imprisoning should “offer justice to a victim”. *If* distinct from the goals above, these approaches (‘punishment’ and ‘justice’ as ends in themselves) are not going to make the world a better place.

    But, back on topic, I think you’re a little unfair in not asking whether these prison sentences will deter other people from committing the same crimes. If they will, the sentences seem fine, even to a wishy-washy liberal like me. So whether “prison works” in this case is down to whether it scares others away from perverting the course of justice. As I understand it (I’d love to hear more), people are driven more by the odds of getting caught than how severe the punishment is, and this exceptional case doesn’t seem at all helpful in improving the former.

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 12th Mar '13 - 9:17am

    I agree with you Stephen – the only thing is that the Judge’s hands were pretty much tied. It would have been impossible given the sentencing guidelines for them not to have been given a custodial sentence. However, the sentencing guidelines are wrong and he went over the odds, I think, for the nature of the offence.

    Prison should be for people who are a danger to society, or who repeatedly stick two fingers up to the law. Not for people like this.

  • “Prison works if your goal is to protect society from a threat or to offer justice to a victim. I don’t see how prison works here.”

    This sentence is not about removing a threat or offering justice. It is the criminal justice system that is the victim here and the sentence is a demonstration to others who might be thinking of doing the same. Prison is often used inappropriately, but not in this instance.

  • @Caron Lindsay
    “who repeatedly stick two fingers up to the law”

    Er, that’s precisely what they did.

  • As Huhne knew from minute 1 he was guilty, try thinking of it as a £150,000 theft from public funds. Had he admitted his guilt the cost to the public purse would have been negligible and therefore and therefore a community sentence preferable.

  • gery mcgregor 12th Mar '13 - 9:34am

    I agree that prison for anyone committing this crime is wrong. Some other punishment would be the correct thing. What is disagree with is the title of the article and others like it. It gives the impression that we only think this because they are LibDem figures, which I know is not the case. Would we be making this amount of noise if it were joe bloggs and his ex wife. I hope some of us would be not collectively not as much. It is a good blog just the wrong title.

  • The sentence is thoroughly merited.

    A dangerous driver broke the law to continue driving when he should have been off the roads. Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence – if we want to live under a system of laws then we need to respect the justice system.

    Prison is not only about punishment for an individual. Its also about sending a message to wider society. Its far from a waste of resources to send Huhne+Pryce to prison for several months. A lot of dangerous drivers will think twice about doing what Huhne did.

    A lot of the complaints about the severity of specific sentences for perverting the course of justice would carry more weight if they had been made prior to Huhne’s recent difficulties.

  • Sid
    I wrote about this specific case. If I wanted to discuss general sentencing policies for various crimes I would have done so.

    Do you think that Huhne’s sentence will have no deterrent effect amongst people who hitherto regarded what he did as a harmless crime and may not even have been aware of the severity of the law (but know now) ? I think a great outcome would be fewer dangerous drivers on the roads.

    There are many good arguments for reducing sentences for some crimes but I don’t regard perverting the course of justice as being such a crime.

    Given your stance, it might be easier if you explain why a dangerous driver who (a) perverted the course of justice (b) continued driving illegally and was a threat to the rest of us road users and (c) lied, lied and lied about it and cost of the tax payer a lot of money shouldn’t serve time in prison for 8 weeks or so ?

  • Matthew Huntbach 12th Mar '13 - 11:54am

    I felt in Vicky Pryce’s case, although the defence of marital coercion was not upheld, it was a grey area. In between being absolutely forced into it, and happily agreeing to it, there is feeling uncomfortable about it but doing it because of the damage to the relationship it would cause if one took a stand against it. I appreciate more evidence would have been given in court to try and judge exactly where both stood on it, but it seems to me unless it was really shown both were equally willing to do this, rather than one exerting personal pressure on the together to do it, a lesser sentence for the one who was pressurised would be appropriate.

  • No, you miss out the most imortant function of any justice system – collective revenge. Societies which lack an effective justice system develop a culture of personal/family revenge & subsequent feuds. Even worse, they get mobs instead. Its part of The “Social Contract”, we each give up our right to revenge & in return we get “Justice”.
    These sentences are not meant to help Huhne & Pryce or even people like us; they are meant for the people most at risk of being sucked into criminal activity. Its a way of saying -“Look, we really are all in this together.”
    Prison is the only way open because these are succsessful professionals. Even if the courts could strip them of all their property that wouldnt be enough because they both have succsessful friends who would help them out. Only prison can reduce everyone to the same level & be seen to do it.

  • Sorry but I do not agree with the vast majority (particularly the conclusions) of your article. Whilst prison protects the public from the threat that offenders may pose (e.g. Murderers) and may provide some form of “justice to a victim” (whilst not one if its primary aims), it also performs a very important role in society as a deterrent to stop others who may be considering committing crimes (whether “minor” or otherwise). If the punishment was merely a fine then this would be no deterrent to those who can afford it. If community service, then whilst potentially causing some short-term embarrassment for the offender (and close family) this is another form of punishment that few people (if any) would genuinely fear.

    Prison, on the other hand, is somewhere that I suggest the vast majority of the population would never wish to go; and have a healthy fear of ever going to such an establishment. I, for one, have such a fear, which stems from my upbringing when I was taught right from wrong (and the consequences of the latter). I accept that there is an element of society (that choose a life of crime), which do not fear prison but view it simply as an occupational hazard. They, however, are in the minority.

    Prison deprives a person of their freedom. Whether that be only for a matter of months, it is something that most people do not want to lose. Ironically, it was the restriction on Chris Huhne’s freedom (driving ban that he would have incurred for the points he offloaded to his wife) that motivated them them to break the Law. A punishment of prison (rather than just a fine or community service) acts as real deterrent to the vast majority of people who may be tempted to break the law. Those who think they will never be caught (or are above the law) fully deserve to go to jail and must be sent to jail in order to set an example (and reminder) to the rest of society that it is unacceptable to willfully break the law. Otherwise, respect for the law is lost.

    Whilst what Huhne and Pryce did 10 years ago was an offence, it was also the start of a decade of lies and deceit, which snowballed out of control once it really started rolling. I teach my children to tell the truth; and the consequences of lying. They are all under 10 years old but appear to have a better grasp of right and wrong! As Huhne has now endorsed in his recent interview, lying requires more and more subsequent lying to try to cover up earlier lies.

    Whilst Huhne has (belatedly) put his hand up, it is only right that such continued deceit deserves strong punishment, particularly given his position in society. Lying fundamentally undermines trust; and without trust civil society would start to disintegrate. To suggest that a more lenient punishment would have been more appropriate appears to be ill thought out, as this would have sent out a message that it is not that bad to break the law.

    With regard to your comments regarding sympathy to them and their family, whilst I commend your compassion, you appear to have your priorities mixed up. Sympathy is appropriate for people who have no control over their misfortune, therefore I share your view that sympathy should be shown to their children. However, prior to extending sympathy to Huhne and Pryce (who share 100% responsibility for their current predicament), smpathy should be, first, extended to the thousands of innocent children whose parents offend (and are jailed) each year.

  • Caron – you say, “Prison should be for people who are a danger to society, or who repeatedly stick two fingers up to the law. Not for people like this.” Isn’t repeatedly sticking two fingers up to the law exactly what Chris Huhne did? First, he broke the law by speeding, then he broke the law by nominating his wife as the driver, then he persuaded his wife to collude with him in the crime, then he “lied and lied again” (his words) goodness knows how many times since the allegations surfaced, by denying his crime to the courts, the police, his constituents, party colleagues, government colleagues, the media. We may not know when he did or didn’t finally admit to his kids that their father (and mother) had stuck two fingers up to the law, and then tried to convince them that it was somehow for their sake too, and not to save his own skin. With regard to people being a danger to society: yes, it’s unlikely that either of them would represent such a physical danger to anyone else that imprisonment would be necessary to safeguard the rest of us. But surely sticking two fingers up to the law (repeatedly), safe in the knowledge that you’ll either get off scot-free or be given a namby-pamby punishment (like a fine you can easily afford or community service that’s hardly back on the chain-gang) is just a different kind of danger to society, ie allowing a culture to flourish that gives those in privileged roles in high public office the confidence to behave like common criminals, while the rest of us (whose taxes pay their salaries, not to mention the costs associated with by-elections!) soldier on, observing the law (and if we don’t, rightly paying the penalty). And just think how many man-hours must have been invested in this case over the last couple of years by prosecutors, police, court officials and so on – all because one arrogant man thought he was above the law – and the cumulative danger created by diverting all those public servants away from cases involving murderers, rapists, child-molesters, vandals, drunk-drivers, burglars and fraudsters, to name but a few. Giving Chris Huhne a non-custodial sentence may not have posed a direct threat to life and limb (although there’s some validity to various arguments I’ve heard or read today about sending a message to other serial speeders who are clearly a menace on the roads). But there are still dangers to society arising from a softer approach. One last thing: as others on this page have already pointed out, prison is also about punishment and retribution; it’s not just about protecting society from criminals. A hefty fine just wouldn’t cut it for Huhne, while sending Vicky out in a community service uniform (à la Naomi Campbell) might be humiliating but would quickly become a media comedy scrum – hardly punishments for either of them, compared to being banged up. It’s of course unimaginably tragic for the children and families of all those concerned, and the point made in Stephen’s original post about being stony-hearted not to feel sympathy for the kids is spot-on. It’s too too horrible. But we know what the judge had to say about where the blame lay for that. and surely that’s part of the punishment both parents will be reflecting on in the weeks and months ahead – not something that would be driven home quite as effectively with a more lenient sentence.

  • @ Stephan Hall

    “Her crime was lying and self-immolating revenge. Last night they spent their first night in prison.”

    Revenge is only a crime if you do it illegally, if you expose someone else’s law breaking that is not a crime.

    Therefore the revenge in this case is not a crime.

    Her crime was agreeing to lie for him under pressure, and that is all.

  • why is persistent dangerous driving itself not worthy of a penalty that deters further repeat offending ?

  • Simon Bamonte 12th Mar '13 - 5:22pm

    @Caron Lindsay: “Prison should be for people who are a danger to society, or who repeatedly stick two fingers up to the law. Not for people like this.”

    People who speed and drive recklessly are indeed a danger to society, as evidenced by the thousands of deaths caused by dangerous driving every year. And by lying constantly and consistently, he has indeed stuck two fingers up to the law.

    So either you are defending Huhne just because he is a LibDem or because you think dangerous driving and lying to the courts under oath are not serious crimes. Which one is it?

  • Stuart Mitchell 12th Mar '13 - 6:33pm

    @Paul Walter “It is a deterrent, and I sincerely believe it will save lives.”

    Totally agree. Huhne has a list of driving convictions as long as your arm. Shortly after he persuaded his wife to take these points, he was caught using his phone while driving and was banned anyway. I’m puzzled as to how Stephen Tall can not recognize the “threat to society” caused by such a person conspiring in a criminal way to stay on the roads when his appalling record was fully deserving of a ban. If these sentences make a few people think twice about trying to evade just punishment – or even better, make people avoid doing the crimes which lead to the punishments in the first place – then they are well worthwhile.

    Those complaining that a “community sentence” would have been better are overlooking the fact that the system did in fact offer Huhne an extremely lenient non-custodial sentence in the first place, i.e. three more points on his license, a tiny fine and a short driving ban that would have been a minor inconvenience to a man with his wealth. It was because Huhne arrogantly thought he could lie his way out of even such a trifling punishment that he’s ended up in the cell he’s sitting in now. His choice.

    @ johnmc
    “why is persistent dangerous driving itself not worthy of a penalty that deters further repeat offending ?”

    Well quite, but the idea is that the system of points/fines/bans ought to be a deterrent enough for most people. When people show contempt for this system – by lying like Huhne, or flouting bans – then a prison sentence has to be the next resort.

  • Stuart Mitchell 12th Mar '13 - 6:46pm

    Simon Bamonte: “People who speed and drive recklessly are indeed a danger to society, as evidenced by the thousands of deaths caused by dangerous driving every year.”

    Of course. Breaking the speed limit is a direct cause of at least 260 deaths per year according to police figures. The true figure is likely much higher, as the police need to have pretty firm evidence before listing a contributory factor. Many more people die in accidents where speeding is an aggravating factor (i.e. not necessarilly the actual cause, but simple physics tells you that the faster a vehicle is going when it hits something, the worse the damage to people involved is likely to be).

    Of course, none of this will mean anything to those who like to drive their cars fast and, having got away with it up to now, regard the whole thing as trivial. It’s the only ” trivial” crime that kills 260 people per year!

  • Considering that Huhne knew he had a driving problem, he could have saved himself and his family a great deal of trouble and expense simply by hiring a competent chauffeur. Of course, it is embarrassing to have to say “I can’t trust myself to drive in a way that comports with the law.” Perhaps there should be a sort of twelve-step program for compulsively bad drivers, though as far as I know it’s not recognized as an addictive tendency. The problem has been around for a long time, however. One is reminded of Mr Toad.

  • daft h'a'porth 12th Mar '13 - 8:28pm

    @David
    He didn’t even have to say “I don’t trust myself to to drive in a way that comports with the law.” He could’ve just gone with the “Hey, I work so hard I don’t have time to lose hours each day behind the wheel so I’ll sit in the back and gabble self-importantly on my mobile so the world sees how dedicated I am” argument.

    @Matthew Huntbach
    “I felt in Vicky Pryce’s case, although the defence of marital coercion was not upheld, it was a grey area […so…] unless it was really shown both were equally willing to do this, rather than one exerting personal pressure on the together to do it, a lesser sentence for the one who was pressurised would be appropriate.”
    And in point of fact a lesser sentence for the one who was pressurised is (as far as I can tell) exactly what happened. The judge described Huhne as “though not greatly in my view, the more culpable of the two of you”. She got a reduced sentence for being the slightly less culpable. The only reason he got a similar reduction was because, eventually, he chose to ‘fess up.

  • I would question whether it will actually cost £100k out of the public purse for them to be kept in jail. Isn’t that the average, rather than, marginal cost? Or does is cost an extra £205 a day for each prisoner?

  • Stuart Mitchell 12th Mar '13 - 9:48pm

    Daft h’a’porth: ” I’ll sit in the back and gabble self-importantly on my mobile ”

    Or in Huhne’s case, sit in the driving seat and gabble self-importantly on his mobile.

  • R Uduwerage-Perera 12th Mar '13 - 10:02pm

    I have always been a firm believer that prisons do not work, other than to lock people up whom we just wish to remove from our streets for a period of time.

    Having said this if the crime is of such severity that the offender/s need to be removed from society for ours, and their safety the a custodial sentence is appropriate, and where people have colluded to escape justice, such as in the Pryce/Huhne case.

    These two individuals have had benefits and opportunities that many of their peers in prisons will not have had, and they conspired in the most pathetic manner to escape a minor sentence that the rest of us would have put up with.

    They are I am sure now being used as deterrent ‘role models’, to demonstrate that nobody is beyond the law, no matter what position or/and influence they may have.

    As the saying goes “Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time”.

  • I don’t know the details of Chris Huhne’s driving offences, but at the risk of sounding like Jeremy Clarkson it is clearly not the case that being caught by a speed camera necessarily means that one is a ‘dangerous driver’. ( Using a mobile phone while driving is another matter.) And just as there is a qualitative difference in potential culpability between the person I saw driving at 60 mph through a red light the other day and someone driving at 60 on a dual carriageway in the middle of the night with no traffic around when the speed limit is 50, then so there is, I would suggest, between conspiracy to pervert the course of justice when partners swap penalty points and when someone gives a false alibi to get someone they know off a murder charge. I find it quite surprising that none of those commenting adversely upon Huhne and Pryce above should apparently have ever personally faced an ethical dilemma which they resolved in an unethical manner. Or, to put it another way, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.

  • To think that Chris Huhne was also swearing blind that windfarms are good for us.

  • The fact that there are two people posting to this forum under the name of “David” has not, hitherto, been an object of much concern to me, but in fact not all of the posts are by the same person. For instance, the last “David” above is not me.

    I don’t know if there’s an infallible method for distinguishing the two, but it will be observed that of the two, one is verbose, longwinded, prolix, never using one word where two will do, diffusely argumentative, and not infrequently vapid; whilst the other is brief, succinct, sarcastic, and occasionally trite.

  • Robbo, Calum, Simon Bamonte, Stuart Mitchell: I agree 100%

    Two arrogant, privileged, amoral creeps who thought they would get away with it, who probably thought that the judge would look more sympathetically at someone of their status.

    Totally self-inflicted, fully deserved, absolutely appropriate. This gives me faith in the impartiality of our justice system.

  • TonyHill

    I’m a little baffled. How can someone who has repeatedly been caught speeding not be considered dangerous ?
    KE=1/2mv**2 – the difference between 30miles per hour and 42 miles per hour represents an increase of around a factor two in the total energy carried by a car in a collision. Speed kills and the law is (rightly) clear in that we shouldn’t do it.

    Sure, there are other types of dangerous driver and the law deals with them accordingly. This is a specific discussion on one case.

    Your point about not casting the first sin is admirable though not entirely relevant. I haven’t seen much personal bile against Huhne and his wife. Instead there has been a rational discussion of the merits of a modest custodial sentence (~8 weeks) for a serious offence.

    What is the motivation for your argument. Are you defending Huhne because he’s part of your political tribe or because you think that the arguments I posted above are without merit.

    Another poster made a similar point in an earlier part of the discussion. I think this aspect of the debate is well worth taking up.

  • Huhne’s hubris may have made it difficult for him to have been chauffered around his prospective constituency,: from what I can gather he liked to be seen at the wheel, and sitting in the back of a vehicle would have implied a lack of the control he was famous for exerting both on himself and others. However, there would have been no pride lost in turning up at for events in the front passenger seat of a car – as MEP for the south-east his engagements were apparently widespread anyway.
    Even if he genuinely had no friends or party colleagues to help him out, it seems incredible that to save three points on a licence and to avoid a short ban (which he was to incur a few weeks later anyway for using a mobile phone whilst driving) his immediate instinct seems to have been borne not of necessity but rather irritation that he didn’t have a wife who was prepared, as so many do, to dutifully drive her husband around on party business.

    Still, this party should thank Chris Huhne for his fierce dedication to electoral reform and remember the days when there was a senior LibDem who was impulsive enough to take on George Osbourne in cabinet and who had the guts to try and hold him to account.

  • There are far too many people in prison, which wastes more lives than it changes, in England and Wales. We imprison more people proportionately than Germany, France, Sweden – in fact Europe as a whole. Why? Are we just too stupid to find alternatives that really work? At £37,000+ per year to keep someone in prison we are wasting money, which could be better spent on welfare and education. This also applies to the £75 m per year we spend on indefinite detention for immigration purposes …now that’s a whole topic in itself. LD4SOS is tackling that one.

  • Stuart Mitchell 13th Mar '13 - 5:43pm

    tonyhill: “it is clearly not the case that being caught by a speed camera necessarily means that one is a ‘dangerous driver’”

    It’s a useful indicator. A driver who (on several occasions in Huhne’s case) fails to notice a large bright yellow box atop a ten-foot high pole is clearly not paying nearly enough attention to his surroundings, hence is an incompetent and dangerous driver.

  • DaveM – sorry to return to this rather late in the day. My motivation was that I am irritated by the rather self-righteous tone of a lot of the comments about this case. I find it hard to believe that of those commenting on this case none of them have ever placed themselves in a legally dubious situation, even if they may have had more sense than Huhne in backing out of it. I don’t know the details of Huhne’s speeding offences: it may well be the case that he is a dangerous driver, but getting 9 points on your licence is not prima facie evidence that you are – careless, perhaps. I hold no brief for dangerous drivers – I dislike cars and don’t drive. My other objection is the one that has been well-aired which is that of the inappropriateness of a custodial sentence for an offence of this nature. I don’t think that it is a sound argument to speculate on what the possible consequences of Huhne’s driving behaviour might have been. With the exception of conspiracy the law, as far as I know, deals with actual rather than potential consequences of actions.

  • Tony

    I’m still baffled. Can you please explain how a “careless” driver who speeds persistently and uses his mobile phone is not a dangerous driver. I’m at a loss to see any logic in your argument. Licences aren’t taken away from people if they’re safe drivers. Speed kills – this is established or do you seek to refute it ?

    Regarding the other issue you raised, this is a man who conspired to illegally evade the lenient penalty (licence suspension) and carry on driving even though his record showed him to be a danger (sorry but I can’t buy the “careless” isn’t dangerous argument). This shows a total disregard for the law and the safety of other road uses. Furthermore, he’s a lawmaker. I’m at a loss to see why a modest custodial sentence (~8 weeks) isn’t appropriate.

    You complain about people apparently showing a bit too much schadenfreude. That may be so in some cases (though the majority are engaged in a rational discussion). I complain that many libdem supporters here have little understanding the universal nature of laws i.e. that they must apply to everyone equally regardless of whether or not they’re a top Libdem.

  • There is a perfectly clear legal distinction between ‘careless’ driving and ‘dangerous’ driving, and neither apply ipso facto to exceeding the speed limit. I quite agree with you, as I said before, about mobile phone use while driving. I wouldn’t be commenting on the case if it didn’t concern a top LibDem I agree, but if it was a Labour or Conservative cabinet minister I would certainly be taking the view that a custodial sentence was unnecessary in the circumstances. To reiterate the point about prison: people should be locked up if they proved by their actions to be a threat to the populace. Where that is not the case there are other ways in which society should punish those who have transgressed its laws, as I fully accept that Chris Huhne did (although I’m less sure about Vicky Pryce).

  • Stuart Mitchell 13th Mar '13 - 10:06pm

    tonyhill: ” I hold no brief for dangerous drivers”

    You have a funny way of showing it. And why do you talk about “9 points”? He racked up at least 15 that we know of, in a very short space of time. This doesn’t happen by bad luck. Apologies if you find this “self-righteous” but I’ve amassed zero points in 23 years. You have to be a pretty bad driver to get 15 points in less than three years as Huhne did. There is plenty of empirical evidence showing that points are a good indicator of risk. That’s why insurance companies typically charge drivers with 9 points twice as much as drivers with no points.

    “With the exception of conspiracy the law, as far as I know, deals with actual rather than potential consequences of actions.”

    Clearly that isn’t the case or Huhne would never have been convicted of any offence in the first place. See also other aspects of the law like health and safety and child protection.

  • Stuart Mitchell 13th Mar '13 - 10:24pm

    tonyhill: “Where that is not the case there are other ways in which society should punish those who have transgressed its laws”

    Once again you miss the whole point of why Huhne is now sitting in a prison cell. Society attempted to punish Huhne with a perfectly reasonable (some would say very lenient) non-custodial punishment. Huhne thought he was above such things. It was as if, when his speeding ticket arrived in the post, it had a bit at the bottom saying: “Tick this box to avoid receiving these three points. Be aware that this choice carries with it a 1% probability of going to prison.” He ticked it. His call.

  • No need to feel sorry for him. In a few months time, he will be out. He will make money from a book deal. He will do the chat shows and the reality TV circuit. He might revive his political career. He might be welcomed back into the Lib Dem party. He will be leading a luxury lifestyle that is way beyond the means of millions of people who struggle every day just to make ends meet. People who have never committed a crime in their lives.

  • Tony

    Your post is bizarre. Because one offence falls under the name of “Speeding” and the other “Dangerous Driving” then speeding isn’t dangerous ? Around 4000 people are killed or seriously injured on the roads in the UK every year in accidents in which speed is a factor. Yet somehow you argue Huhne (who collected 15 points for speeding) wasn’t dangerous. I hate seeing speeding drivers. They distract me when I’m driving and are an accident waiting to happen.

    Paradoxically you’re upset with Huhne for using his phone but not for speeding. However, the net effect of both types of behaviour is the same i.e. the driver has less time to focus on events on the road. I’m baffled that you see a distinction in terms of one type of behaviour being dangerous and the other ok. I certainly know drivers who think they can speed safely and can also safely use their mobiles while driving. Evidence shows both activities to be hazardous.

    Finally, as also pointed out by others, you’re missing the whole point (perhaps intentionally ??). He’s not behind bars because he was caught speeding. He’s in jail because he perverted the course of justice. The law deemed that he should stop driving because he was dangerous behind the wheel . Whether or not you agree with the law’s pronouncement is beside the point – he decided he forego his mild punishment by lying and is consequently suffering a greater punishment. This is how the law should work.

    Unfortunately he’s also cost the UK a bit of money in the process and furthermore disrupted the running of government. The costs include the cost of the by-election, the prosecution and some policing costs (which they’re now trying to recover).

    To point out that he got what he deserved is not to gloat at his misfortune. Many of us are simply pleased to see that law working as it should.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Simon R
    That's a very thoughtful article that gives a good account of the problems we need to solve, thanks @William. @Steve: Two answers to your question about weal...
  • Steve Trevethan
    How can a crumbling society produce sufficient wealth to sustain itself and cope with the current financial extractions by the tax favoured wealthy? We seem ...
  • William Wallace
    Steve: We need wealthy people because, even if they don't pay a very high proportion of their income in tax, it nevertheless adds up to a very useful amount of ...
  • Nigel Jones
    Yes we need a strong narrative to justify a fairer tax system which also raises more for investment as well as public services. I suggest part of that narrativ...
  • Steve Trevethan
    Why do we need very wealthy people who value personal wealth more than loyalty to our nation?...