www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... yce-prison ... after serving one quarter of their sentences, in open prisons. Obviously, rehabilitated in double quick time. Well done them. Warms the cockles etc. Oh, they haven't paid the prosecution costs yet. They are still challenging the size of the bills. Or, their QCs are........

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... yce-prison ... after serving one quarter of their sentences, in open prisons. Obviously, rehabilitated in double quick time. Well done them. Warms the cockles etc. Oh, they haven't paid the prosecution costs yet. They are still challenging the size of the bills. Or, their QCs are........

Both been tagged though, so that's ok

Would holding them in prison longer actually serve much purpose, I doubt either of them are dangerous to anyone except the Liberal Democrat party.

I reckon quite a few of the people currently residing in our prisons are 'not dangerous', but most of those will serve at least half of their sentences.

Well, to do half their sentences, even in an open prison, would be the average retribution/punishment which most people would have to do.

I don't think it's rare though for someone to be released early on low sentences. In the Guardian article you linked to says its possible
[iPrisoners serving sentences of between three months and four years, with certain exceptions for violent and sexual offenders, may also be eligible for release on a home detention curfew.[/i
I would have thought they were perfect candidates for that scheme.
I don't know what the stats are for people released early from prison for perverting the course of justice but I doubt they've been more leniently dealt with.

True but I would imagine such things like being a flight risk and risk of reoffending would be taken into account too, not to mention to be released early you have to be given a lower sentence.

I think you can confidently state that no offender could possibly have been more leniently treated, ever. Maybe they merit being the joint most leniently treated jailbirds, who knows.

I know of one such person who was dealt with in the same way, his crime was money laundering so slightly higher up the scale than putting your wife's name down on the dobbing-in form, a few weeks in a low grade prison and he was being allowed home on weekends "to run his business" and then a tag and release a couple of months into his sentence.

I also know of someone dealt with in a similar way. Also done for perverting the course of justice but had previous offences and was let out with a tag in the same way that these 2 have.

Which one of them drove home?

I must admit to thinking a prison sentence was rather OTT anyway. Being dragged through the courts and reputations ruined probably cost them far more on a personal level. I don't really see what purpose was served by locking them up.

I was listening to the radio today on the way to work and there was something about how many cautions are being given out in London for violent crime and sexual offences. A quick google leads to thishttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/13/metropolitan-police-cautions-raperl

So basically crimes I consider far worse are not receiving any punishment while these two got sent down for perverting the course of justice over a speeding ticket. Now don't get me wrong perverting the course of justice is a serious crime but there didn't seem much sense of proportion here. No one died or was wrongly imprisoned etc as a result of their collusion.

We go to great lengths to convict these two and then lock 'em up but at the same time are giving people cautions for robbery, drug trafficking and even rape.

Perverting the course of justice is a serious crime and rightly carries a custodial sentence, in a country when the law is upheld with the consent of the people it can't be seen to be held in contempt by its citizens.

Maybe I've missed something, but I fail to see how any instance of rape can result in only a caution being issued to the offender.

What if your immature and besotted son had got it on with his school's Miss World, they are in love of course and unofficially engaged and devoted to each other "for eva", she looks 25 but is in fact a month under the legal age of consent. They thought there was nothing wrong with it, that no-one would find out, that it was nobody else's business and in 2013 was no big deal.

You are the judge. What sentence would you impose?