RussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7805 posts, RR: 21 Posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2079 times:
This seems like yet another absurdly light sentence from the British justice system.
This woman stole £200,000 from the small company she worked for, and potentially jeopardised the livelihoods at least twenty people. To think that she will probably actually only be in prison for less than a year for stealing such a vast sum is just ludicrous. I think the point about endangering the position of others is particularly pertinent and worthy of serioius punishment, never mind the original offence itself.
What would this sort of crime get you in the US? I have trouble believing it would be anything so light. I know I have posted on this subject before, but it really does seem like we just read about one stupidly inadequate sentence after another from day to day.
A lot of people I know are sick of this, yet no government seems to want to do anything radical to change the situation. I guess the pressure on the jail system and the desire to save money probably plays a huge part in the equation. But seriously, enough is enough! Serious crimes deserve serious sentences.
ajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2041 times:
I saw this before and it shocked me. How she got away so lightly is beyond me, although I read the other day about a lorry driver who was speeding in the rain with an obscured windscreen, killed a cyclist then claimed "his rear light was faulty", and was let off.
The justice system in the UK needs a serious overhaul.
RussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7805 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1919 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 3): If the company was that small, the amount involved should have been noticed much sooner. Clearly there were insufficient controls in place to prevent fraud.
Depends how gradually she did it, but it was eventually discovered anyway. I guess one could say they should have better controls, but then I doubt anyone really thought it likely that anyone would plunder quite so voraciously.
flyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 4553 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
Twenty months for serious injury to the body without long-term disabilty is the going rate here. Stealing 200'000 £ would be punished with about 6 months, I dare say.
In Switzerland, it wouldn't be theft, but misappropriation. If somebody appropriates thingst hat were entrusted to him, the punishment is 10 years at maximum, or a fine. If the person was in a professional profession, the maximum is ten years prison or a fine.
The maximum punishment is extremely rare - and rightfully so, in order not to set a precedent which would "devalue" the punishment of somebody else, who, in the future, would perpetrate an even bigger crime.
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
Aesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 8816 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1823 times:
If you think what she did was financially harmful to the company or the other employees, then a better sentence would be damages to pay to them. There is no need for a long prison sentence for someone who is not a danger to society, in my opinion.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Of course she will be forced to pay back the money, with interests. Coming from a country that is relatively friendly to debtors, after either 20 years or the day she has fully repaid the debt she's given a fresh start.
Until she paid off the debt, she would have to live off about +/- 2000 € per month (1000 € plus health insurance, plus simple accomodation and its ancillary expenses, and if reasonable, a car or public transport). It's about 160 € more than social welfare recipients are getting.
For comparison, the median month wage in construction jobs (20 years old, no work experience, no education, simple and repetitive tasks, 40 hours/week) was 3600 € in 2008.
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
detroitflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1731 times:
Looks like under MCL 750.174 - Embezzlement over $100,000 is a felony punishable by no more than 20 years with a fine not to exceed $50,000 or 3 times the value of the embezzled money (Whichever is greater).
Would she get the maximum? probably not even close, but they would take into account prior record variables and offense variables (how many ppl it effected) to get to the sentencing guidelines.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 944 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1721 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
A lot of people I know are sick of this, yet no government seems to want to do anything radical to change the situation. I guess the pressure on the jail system and the desire to save money probably plays a huge part in the equation.
Changing the situation to enable longer average sentences would cost an enormous amount for additional penal capacity. I would also point out that modifying facilities to a more repayment/rehab emphasis would cost too in the short term but I feel would be superior overall, for society and the economy whilst still punishing the offender.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 6): If you think what she did was financially harmful to the company or the other employees, then a better sentence would be damages to pay to them. There is no need for a long prison sentence for someone who is not a danger to society, in my opinion.
Indeed. I would much rather sentences had a greater emphasis on repairing the damage where possible (so mostly cases where the damage can be quantified financially) with rehabilitation. Punitive effects come third in my estimation, they are still necessary certainly but requiring someone to appropriately severe endure hardships and live on less whilst they repay their crime could serve just as well with less drain on the public purse.
It makes little sense for people to leave prison after a mostly "punishment" term, having done little to right their original wrong in this time, and still in the mindset to offend, possibly being hardened to do so.
The Scandinavian countries appear, at least to me, to often do this much better and indeed more cost effectively compared to the running of UK prisons.