Fraud - Consistent Punishment?

[Sylar]

I'm a bit confused reading through a couple of the leading stories on the BBC Scotland News website:

On one hand, there's Jim Devine - the ex-Labour MP for the Livingston who was jailed for 16 months for fraudulently claiming £8,385 in expenses during his time as an MP (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12918742)

On the other hand, here's a parasite of a woman (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12918834), a s*** sucking leach who created 11 children and fraudulently claimed nearly £17k in benefits (whilst not claiming for her only existing child) and has only been punished by a 2 year probation sentence and given 200 hours community service.

Now, I'm not trying to defend one or crucify the other, but why are they treated differently? This troll of a woman claimed more than double Jim Devine's total, yet received a far more lenient sentence.

I'm aware there's the argument for trying to reduce the number of prisoners in Scotland to alleviate pressures of overcrowding, but surely there must be a fixed concept/definition of fraud in Scots law which actions are assessed against and punished accordingly, in respect to the severity of said infringement.

[Removed]

I'm a bit confused reading through a couple of the leading stories on the BBC Scotland News website:

On one hand, there's Jim Devine - the ex-Labour MP for the Livingston who was jailed for 16 years for fraudulently claiming £8,385 in expenses during his time as an MP (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12918742)

On the other hand, here's a parasite of a woman (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12918834), a s*** sucking leach who created 11 children and fraudulently claimed nearly £17k in benefits (whilst not claiming for her only existing child) and has only been punished by a 2 year probation sentence and given 200 hours community service.

Now, I'm not trying to defend one or crucify the other, but why are they treated differently? This troll of a woman claimed more than double Jim Devine's total, yet received a far more lenient sentence.

I'm aware there's the argument for trying to reduce the number of prisoners in Scotland to alleviate pressures of overcrowding, but surely there must be a fixed concept/definition of fraud in Scots law which actions are assessed against and punished accordingly, in respect to the severity of said infringement.

:agree: I saw both of those earlier and thought exactly the same thing tbh

[Removed]

16 months, not years!

A typo :agree: but the woman never got a custodial sentence at all. That's the bonkers bit.

[Sylar]

16 months, not years!

Sorry, an obvious typo.

Changed!

[Mixu62]

Perhaps the legal agrument would be that the MP was abusing a position of trust? Not saying it's right, just a theory.

[Sir David Gray]

Perhaps the legal agrument would be that the MP was abusing a position of trust? Not saying it's right, just a theory.

That's exactly what the difference is. :agree:

As you say, MPs are in a position of trust and they have to be seen to be beyond reproach. Jim Devine was one of a number of MPs who breached that trust, brought disgrace upon the House of Commons and who brought parliament into disrepute.

If anything, it was the judge who sentenced the woman to a non-custodial sentence who got it wrong, rather than the judge in Jim Devine's case.

[steakbake]

It's relatively uncommon for women to be given custodial sentences compared to men. Even where a custodial sentence is given, im fairly sure in saying that a woman may expect a shorter tariff for the same crime as might a man. There's various reasons for it and not entirely unreasonable ones at that.

In these cases, i think its the breach of trust element which is the significant factor.

[IWasThere2016]

I'm a bit confused reading through a couple of the leading stories on the BBC Scotland News website:

On one hand, there's Jim Devine - the ex-Labour MP for the Livingston who was jailed for 16 months for fraudulently claiming £8,385 in expenses during his time as an MP (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12918742)

On the other hand, here's a parasite of a woman (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12918834), a s*** sucking leach who created 11 children and fraudulently claimed nearly £17k in benefits (whilst not claiming for her only existing child) and has only been punished by a 2 year probation sentence and given 200 hours community service.

Now, I'm not trying to defend one or crucify the other, but why are they treated differently? This troll of a woman claimed more than double Jim Devine's total, yet received a far more lenient sentence.

I'm aware there's the argument for trying to reduce the number of prisoners in Scotland to alleviate pressures of overcrowding, but surely there must be a fixed concept/definition of fraud in Scots law which actions are assessed against and punished accordingly, in respect to the severity of said infringement.

Cheating ****bag Devine would have signed up to an ethical code eg http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/7/contents

The other cheating ****bag won't have.

Given Devine's standing and responsibilities, I think he has been leniently dealt with tbh and deserves a greater punishment than the woman, and than he was actually given.

[easty]

How could a judge send a mum of 11 to jail, who'd look after the kids....:greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

There are a lot of factors to consider that won't have been reported.

First of all did the lady in question plead guilty? Jim Devine didn't and consistently lied throughout his trial, this has an effect on sentence.

Did the social enquiry and community service reports show genuine remorse and a low risk of re-offending? This has an effect on sentence.

Has she made an attempt to pay some or all of the money back or does she have an agreement in place to do so? This has an effect on sentence.

Was there an underlying cause for her behaviour eg addiction? This has an effect on sentence.

Does she have (real) young children? This has an effect on sentence.

There are many more issues that effect a sentence and it's not just a black and white you took this much so you're sentenced to this, you took more so you're sentenced to a bit longer. It's why a defence agent is allowed to enter a plea in mitigation so that a Sheriff/magistrate/judge has the full picture before passing sentence. Without knowing the full in and outs of a case (and the newspaper/media never give close to the full picture) it's hard to pass comment on sentencing.

[IWasThere2016]

There are a lot of factors to consider that won't have been reported.

First of all did the lady in question plead guilty? Jim Devine didn't and consistently lied throughout his trial, this has an effect on sentence.

Did the social enquiry and community service reports show genuine remorse and a low risk of re-offending? This has an effect on sentence.

Has she made an attempt to pay some or all of the money back or does she have an agreement in place to do so? This has an effect on sentence.

Was there an underlying cause for her behaviour eg addiction? This has an effect on sentence.

Does she have (real) young children? This has an effect on sentence.

There are many more issues that effect a sentence and it's not just a black and white you took this much so you're sentenced to this, you took more so you're sentenced to a bit longer. It's why a defence agent is allowed to enter a plea in mitigation so that a Sheriff/magistrate/judge has the full picture before passing sentence. Without knowing the full in and outs of a case (and the newspaper/media never give close to the full picture) it's hard to pass comment on sentencing.

And got off lightly IMHO.

[CropleyWasGod]

How could a judge send a mum of 11 to jail, who'd look after the kids....:greengrin

You grin, but it's a crucial point.

The cost to the State of caring for the kids, the potentially damaging effects on them of being separated from their Mum and each other, the cost to the State of locking Mum up.... it's all the "public interest" aspects that have to be looked at.

[easty]

You grin, but it's a crucial point.

The cost to the State of caring for the kids, the potentially damaging effects on them of being separated from their Mum and each other, the cost to the State of locking Mum up.... it's all the "public interest" aspects that have to be looked at.

:rolleyes: She, erm, well, she didn't actually have 11 kids....

[CropleyWasGod]

:rolleyes: She, erm, well, she didn't actually have 11 kids....

Och... shut up.. I'm old... you don't expect me to actually read the whole freaking thread, do you?

<suitably chastened smiley>

[easty]

Och... shut up.. I'm old... you don't expect me to actually read the whole freaking thread, do you?

<suitably chastened smiley>

Well she did have one of her own, so I'll let you off.:wink:

[Flynn]

:rolleyes: She, erm, well, she didn't actually have 11 kids....

Lying about having 11 kids isn't as bad as actually having 11 kids. IMO. Just saying. She should have still went to jail though.

[Greentinted]

How could a judge send a mum of 11 to jail, who'd look after the kids....:greengrin

:agree: Many a true thing said in jest. You're bang on the money here.
I was up in court for some bollocks years ago and overheard a conversation between a female accused up on a drugs/assault/breach of peace combo, and her representative. The lawyer said 'he wont jail you because of the kids, but we'll tell him you're pregnant again just to be safe"
Net result - 120 hours community order.

[easty]

:agree: Many a true thing said in jest. You're bang on the money here.
I was up in court for some bollocks years ago and overheard a conversation between a female accused up on a drugs/assault/breach of peace combo, and her representative. The lawyer said 'he wont jail you because of the kids, but we'll tell him you're pregnant again just to be safe"
Net result - 120 hours community order.

Courts generally just seem to be a farce.

I was up, years ago (also for some bollocks :greengrin) with a friend of mine. I was told by my representative that if I could get my friend to plead guilty then my charges would be dropped. I said no......10 mins later she came back to say all charges had been dropped against both of us.

[easty]

Lying about having 11 kids isn't as bad as actually having 11 kids. IMO. Just saying. She should have still went to jail though.

You've put clothes on a dog (if thats your work in your avatar). And for that reason I don't think I can take any opinion of your's as a serious one. Sorry Flynn :wink:

[Pretty Boy]

Courts generally just seem to be a farce.
I was up, years ago (also for some bollocks :greengrin) with a friend of mine. I was told by my representative that if I could get my friend to plead guilty then my charges would be dropped. I said no......10 mins later she came back to say all charges had been dropped against both of us.

:agree: I was up a while ago (also for some bollocks:wink:) and the Sheriff who heard my case was not the most reputable man to put it bluntly. He had been cross examined only a couple of weeks before by Donald Findlay in the trial of Peter Tobin when Tobin had killed the Polish girl who's name escapes me. The Sheriff had been questioned as to what his relationship with the girl had been, apparently he took a girl half his age away to country hotels for a weekend at a time to give her 'golf lessons'.

I would have thought someone who has an affair with a girl less than half his age may not be of th neccesary moral fibre to judge other peoples actions. Add to this the fact the court was meant to start sitting at 10 and was delayed until 12 because the Sheriff 'decided to take a later train'.

[Greentinted]

:agree: I was up a while ago (also for some bollocks:wink:) and the Sheriff who heard my case was not the most reputable man to put it bluntly. He had been cross examined only a couple of weeks before by Donald Findlay in the trial of Peter Tobin when Tobin had killed the Polish girl who's name escapes me. The Sheriff had been questioned as to what his relationship with the girl had been, apparently he took a girl half his age away to country hotels for a weekend at a time to give her 'golf lessons'.

I would have thought someone who has an affair with a girl less than half his age may not be of th neccesary moral fibre to judge other peoples actions. Add to this the fact the court was meant to start sitting at 10 and was delayed until 12 because the Sheriff 'decided to take a later train'.

Angelika Kluk (sp)

And as regards the rest of your post -
Truth factor = 10
Shock factor = 0

[Jack]

I quite often look at how much they have ‘got away with’ in cash terms and divide that by the sentence.

Devine’s 16 months for £8k is really heavy compared to most I’ve seen whereas the cheating bitch works out at £85 an hour or about three and a half grand a week!!! TBH I’d do community service for that sort of money! :agree:

And she’s not the best paid, some of the ‘hourly rates’ put these criminals on a par with Premier League footballers!

Crime does pay and a way has to be found to redress the balance. :blah:

If they paid off their crime at the minimum wage then more prison space would be needed [money/violence crimes] or retirement ages fixed for the amount of community service that would have to be served [non-violent, no threat to the community money crimes]. Add to that a levy for the likes of Devine for abusing trust and BTW, on the minimum wage that wifey would be starting close to 2,900 hours of community service.

[Flynn]

You've put clothes on a dog (if thats your work in your avatar). And for that reason I don't think I can take any opinion of your's as a serious one. Sorry Flynn :wink:

It's a hibs top man. And it only ever goes on for the derbies for a bit of banter. Anyway, don't take my opinion seriously. Take this seriously:

http://subdude-site.com/WebPages_Local/Blog/topics/environment/enviro_worldPopGrowth_charts.htm

:wink:

[ancient hibee]

Apart from the fact that Devine was a law maker so stricter standards apply perhaps the big difference is that he was tried in England whereas she was up here where there seems to be a conspiracy to keep everyone out of jail.Pretty soon it will be better for the innocent to get themselves inside for safety reasons.