Fraudster Chaytor convicted
- Thread starter Quartz
- Start date
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
One day? That's taking leniency a bit too far don't you think? 12 hours max for me...
When the cost of sending someone to jail for a year is £45,000 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...less-visible-community-punishment-needed.html) and he has already done the taxpayer out of £20k surely the most financially efficient answer, is the £20k + interest at say 10% from when it was done, plus a 200% fine on top of that (including the 10% interest - I have no idea if he's rich - just taking the view that this should sting sufficiently) plus some form of community service (e.g. cleaning graffiti in his local area once a week for say 12 months?) so he's giving something back to the community.
Jailing him for 7 years doesn't make any sense at a cost of £315,000 to the taxpayer - it would be like getting fucked over twice.
Jailing him for 7 years doesn't make any sense at a cost of £315,000 to the taxpayer - it would be like getting fucked over twice.
_angel_
.
It doesn't, and I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that MPs are behind the push to try and make benefit fraudsters enemies of the state and support jailing them for comparatively minor 'frauds'. He really did pull the stops out to defraud, from what I've heard of this.
It might not make financial sense ... but it makes sense in lots of other ways.
This case is classic example of why you cannot / should not argue that prison should only be for violent dangerous offenders. It is often forgotten that prison serves several purposes, not just protection of the public by keeping dangerous offenders locked up. It's other functions include deterrence (of the individual from further offending and, more importantly, of others from following their example) and simple punishment (i.e. a serious sanction to emphasise the abhorrence of society as a whole for what has been done). Both of these aspects are important in a case such as this where the defendant has been in a position of trust / public power - that is (I would suggest quite rightly) a serious aggravating factor and should result in a significantly more serious sentence than an "ordinary" false accounting of similar value.
I would like to see a sentence of 12-18 months imprisonment (accompanied by repayment of all moneys obtained) ... but it would not surprise me to find it ends up being suspended or there being a non-custodial sentence altogether ...
Agreed - it's why I think a lot of things need to be reviewed. E.g. for tax issues it's very easy for HMRC to make a case for it being deliberate and concealed against the little man, whilst letting those higher up the tree (e.g. Vodafone) off with murder. They are entitled to make up to a 100% penalty, so as this is a somewhat more serious issue (e.g. fraud), it's why I think there is merit in the 200% minimum penalty. E.g. £20k with say 10% interest rolling on it since about 2005 when this first kicked off (I haven't read this fully) would come to say £25,000. Slap the 200% penalty on it - you come to £75,000.
A little bit of community service - giving something back to the community and then he was lecturer, Universities have their budgets under pressure, bring him back in on a basic wage and make it results driven. That way the community gets benefits in the region of say £100k, and he gets to feel a little bit better about himself.
Sending him to jail at the cost of £45k per 12 months, with no penalty against the £20k "borrowed" is lunacy (the state is out almost £70k). Make penalties on a sliding scale (e.g. like paying back tuition fees dependent upon the job you get) - e.g. David Law's - multi millionaire - 300% penalty, plus 10% interest, plus some form of community service.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
It would be interesting to know both David Chaytor's voting record and public pronouncements on this issue
It might not make financial sense ... but it makes sense in lots of other ways.
This case is classic example of why you cannot / should not argue that prison should only be for violent dangerous offenders. It is often forgotten that prison serves several purposes, not just protection of the public by keeping dangerous offenders locked up. It's other functions include deterrence (of the individual from further offending and, more importantly, of others from following their example) and simple punishment (i.e. a serious sanction to emphasise the abhorrence of society as a whole for what has been done). Both of these aspects are important in a case such as this where the defendant has been in a position of trust / public power - that is (I would suggest quite rightly) a serious aggravating factor and should result in a significantly more serious sentence than an "ordinary" false accounting of similar value.
I would like to see a sentence of 12-18 months imprisonment (accompanied by repayment of all moneys obtained) ... but it would not surprise me to find it ends up being suspended or there being a non-custodial sentence altogether ...
Agreed again and I can see merit in this, but given the circumstances the UK finds itself in, circling around the edge of the shitter and the chain has been pulled, I can't see the benefit of taking out of the state rather than putting back into it, when some of these individuals are quite clearly capable of giving something back (more so than being an MP). I'd say public community service, would have a worse effect than sending someone to jail, particularly if it was done in his constituency as people can see that he is giving something back to them whilst he has the humiliation aspect of it.
I see the best way of doing it is setting up some sort of fund, where all of the penalties are paid into it and if necessary setting up some form of society where if necessary people are brought in to work for the benefit of the state - through community service (think similar to their £1 a day/hour scheme) until the public deems it acceptable that they have paid their debt to society.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That £45,000 figure is an average taken across custodial establishments, so if Chaytor got the usual fraudster treatment, he'd be in a cat B local until a cat C or open place was found. Ironically, the less secure an establishment, the more expensive it tends to be to run. Sometimes twice the average or more.
Just thought I'd make that clear.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
db - I appreciate an early guilty please adds leniency to any sentence, but how does that square with all the fucking about with parliamentary privilege, all the way to the Supreme Court. Would that have any effect on sentence?
fwiw I think it should, seems very close to trying to pervert justice, certainly an attempt to defeat justice.
fwiw I think it should, seems very close to trying to pervert justice, certainly an attempt to defeat justice.
No, not really. The Supreme Court accepted that there was an important point of law involved. They would not be criticised for delaying a plea until something like that had been decided.
It was definitely an attempt to evade the consequences of their actions ... but people are entitled to have the law clarified in complex cases. Although unusual, it is absolutely not unheard of for cases to go to the appellate courts for a decision on a critical point of law before a trial takes place.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
How about he gets charged for the full cost of his imprisonment?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
One down, 650-odd to go...
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
nah, stick em in the scrubs. or fucking dartmoor.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
is that the usual sentence for such a crime?
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
The crime not so much, but the position of trust that Chaytor was in is what bumps the sentence up.
i agree. To be honest i don't think anyone who isn't a threat to society should be jailed, but like you say these are the people that gloat when poor and desperate people are jailed for fiddling so my sympathy ends there.
a better solution would be to fine them double what they stole
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
His previous "good character" was taken into consideration - halving his potential jail time. Could have been worse...
I wonder if his daughter knew she was a property owner?
Similar threads
