Tuesday, 5 February 2013

Crime and Punishment

All over the UK news at the moment is the fact that a former cabinet minister, Chris Huhne, is looking at some prison time after committing a criminal act.

What I can't understand is why this is so newsworthy. That fact that a politician has committed a criminal act surely cannot be that newsworthy, and the fact that he then went on to lie about also cannot be that newsworthy. Isn't that what politicians do? Break the law and tell lies?

In one respect I feel a little sorry for the manner in which Huhne has met his end, because it’s all down to his embittered ex-wife, Vicky Pryce. As a man who also has an embittered, and verging on the psychotic, ex-wife I can empathise. However, the fact that the accusations that Ms Pryce has made have turned out to be true, as opposed to my ex-wife's crazed nonsense, limits my empathy.

Huhne's problems began in 2003 when he was caught by a speed camera on a motorway. He would have incurred a fine and three penalty points on his driving licence. In the UK, if a driver amasses 12 points during a three-year period, they will be disqualified from driving for about 6 months. Penalty points also stay on the licence for four years.

It appears that he then convinced his wife, Ms Pryce, to claim that she was driving and have the points on her licence instead. By doing this, both have committed the offence of perverting the course of justice. And no doubt, no-one would have been any the wiser, had Huhne then not had an affair and decided to leave his wife.

In an obvious fit of pique, Ms Pryce then contacted a journalist and informed them of her husband pressurising people into taking his penalty points for him. When this claim was published, the Police investigated and the result was that both were charged with perverting the course of justice, and faced the possibility of several months in prison if convicted, despite both pleading not guilty.

Huhne then spent months categorically denying any wrongdoing and accusing his ex-wife of lying. Until yesterday, when, after thousands had been spent investigating and bringing the trial to court, he changed his plea to guilty and admitted everything. So it now looks likely that a custodial sentence is a lot more than a possibility.

As for his ex, she is still pleading not guilty on the grounds of marital coercion, but will probably face a similar sentence if convicted. Perhaps the best punishment for them both would be that they have to serve their sentences as cell mates!

However, compared to the sentence that  Lindsay Sandiford is facing, a few months in prison will be nothing. This British woman is currently in prison in Bali and facing execution for attempting to smuggle 4.8kg of cocaine into the country.

The biggest surprise about this is that there can be very few people who are unaware of this region's strict anti-drug laws, and the fact that the maximum sentence is death. There have even been films made, Bangkok Hilton and Dadah Is Death being just two, although only the latter was based on fact.

Although she claimed that she had been coerced and had expressed remorse, she was tried and convicted of drug smuggling. The surprise was that despite the prosecution recommending a sentence of 15 years the judges have sentenced her to face a firing squad.

Of course there has been an outcry by some in this country about the death sentence, but whether or not you agree with capital punishment, this is a woman who attempted to commit a crime in a country where the death sentence is carried out. She must accept that if you commit a crime in any country, you are subject to that country's laws and punishments.

I also find it somewhat ironic that this woman has people trying to sue the British Government for not providing her the funds to hire an "adequate" lawyer in Bali. Had she not committed the crime in the first place there would be no need for any lawyer, "adequate" or not, but that appears to be lost on these people. I bet that if she hadn't been caught, her cut of the £1.7m (€1.95m, $2.66m) wouldn't have benefited the British Government in any way, so why should they help her out.

Although it can be argued that these two stories are extremes, they both feature people who have been reluctant to accept the consequences of their actions, although in the first case, at least he's now admitted his wrongdoing. As the old saying goes, "If you can't do the time don't do the crime".

No comments: