Pays The Price, not quite

lister

Newbie
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
500
Reaction score
0
How can the police say that Ms Dynamite is paying the price, wow she has been ordered to pay £750 in costs & has been given a 60 hour community work order. WTF if that was anybody else but famous they wud have been given an asb, about £1000 fine & prolly done a week or 2 in prison. What a load of bullshit, she proly makes£750 in a few hours.

Source
 
Woo hoo, sensationalism, put on thy hat and come on down.

On what do you base your suggestion that she is getting a lighter sentance than a non-public figure would? Bring us a case of a woman with a clean-ish record slapping a wpc and getting a significantly harsher sentance than ms dynamite did before you start making claims like this.

Bear in mind that the fine is as nothing compared to what she will lose in retail. Bear in mind, a large part of her audience base is teenagers, who vet what they listen to/buy. They are less likley to allow then to buy the music of a convicted criminal.

Also bear in mind that she has made public appologys and has never tried to hide what she did. She admitted it and stood up to the consequences.
 
The real issue here is that if it had been a Mr. Dynamite, he would've gotten months in the slammer.
 
More than likely if it was Joe/Jane Bloggs who commited this offense, it wouldn't make Sky news, probably just mentioned in a local rag.

Any publicity is good publicity!
 
I thought it was 3 years for assaulting a police offcer.



It should be 4 + 2year revokcation of citizenship IMO though...
 
15357 said:
I thought it was 3 years for assaulting a police offcer.



It should be 4 + 2year revokcation of citizenship IMO though...
That's a scary scray thought.

I think this punishment is about right in all honesty.
 
What if people thought: "Oh, I'm gonna slap that police officer around. I'll only get £750 fine & a 60 hour community service" ?
 
Only £750? That's a lot of money to you and I. To a Brit award winner, that's pocket change. That's the difference.
 
lol,over here we would have tazed her ass,then she would to go to jail for a year^_^
 
Maybe she deserves a bit more, but then I am oh-so-authoritarian like that. But aren't they supposed to consider the financial status of people when they set fines? Still, it seems pretty evident that she didn't intent to seriously injure or harm the police officer.
 
JNightshade said:
The real issue here is that if it had been a Mr. Dynamite, he would've gotten months in the slammer.

And rightly so, a man striking a woman is far worse than assaulting an officer, imo.

As to the fine, I think they take financial status into consideration to a degree, but I think it should be done as a percentage of total income rather than a figure. Yes I realise how difficult this would be to enforce, ecpecially with extremely wealthy people (bonds, investments, off shore tax avoidance etc etc) but it would be a more just system.

I agree with ComradeBadger, I think her punishment is fair, considering.

15357 - What if people thought: "Oh, I'm gonna kill that police officer. I'll only get life imprisonment"? The point is that the punishment should be enough to put someone else off from doing the same thing, and to me at least, that is certainly deterent enough, not that I need one. If a few people might consider the punishment acceptable and commit the crime, should we really over punish others just to put them off? After all, with that logic, you eventually reach a system where the penalty for everything is death.

Whilst I suspect the conviction handed down at the bench would be the same for your average joe, I have to admit Ms Dynamite probably got special treatment by the police. After all, she didn't fall down several sets of stairs, or go round headbutting peoples fists around the back of the station...
 
15357 - What if people thought: "Oh, I'm gonna kill that police officer. I'll only get life imprisonment"? The point is that the punishment should be enough to put someone else off from doing the same thing, and to me at least, that is certainly deterent enough, not that I need one. If a few people might consider the punishment acceptable and commit the crime, should we really over punish others just to put them off? After all, with that logic, you eventually reach a system where the penalty for everything is death.

Well, that would be a bit bad, I'd suppose, but there will be almost absolutely 0 crime. Except accidental ones.
 
15357 said:
15357 - What if people thought: "Oh, I'm gonna kill that police officer. I'll only get life imprisonment"? The point is that the punishment should be enough to put someone else off from doing the same thing, and to me at least, that is certainly deterent enough, not that I need one. If a few people might consider the punishment acceptable and commit the crime, should we really over punish others just to put them off? After all, with that logic, you eventually reach a system where the penalty for everything is death.

I agree with this system, with only slight exceptions for very minor first offenses.

For what she did I think it was about right but who is this Ms Dynamite person?
 
15357 said:
Well, that would be a bit bad, I'd suppose, but there will be almost absolutely 0 crime. Except accidental ones.

Actually deterrence rarely works for two reasons. Most crimes are either:
- spur-of-the-moment. Thus the offender doesn't actually consider the consequences of his/her actions.
- committed in the asumption that the offender won't get caught. Thus they may consider the consequences but will be unlikely to take any heed of the possibility of punishment.
 
Sulkdodds said:
Actually deterrence rarely works for two reasons. Most crimes are either:
- spur-of-the-moment. Thus the offender doesn't actually consider the consequences of his/her actions.
- committed in the asumption that the offender won't get caught. Thus they may consider the consequences but will be unlikely to take any heed of the possibility of punishment.

Plan B: Have CCTVs on every public area and have armed military police patrol around. And put up signs like WE ARE WATCHING you and they'll remember that they will not get away with it.

Only Spur-of-the-moment crimes will remain and that will still be cntroled by the patrolman.
 
short recoil said:
She should get what she gave.
A good kicking about would sort her out.
...and thieves shalt be punish-ed by having their sinful hands sever-ed from their arms, and these wretches shalt thus know that they hath reap-ed what they hath sewn.
 
15357 said:
Plan B: Have CCTVs on every public area and have armed military police patrol around. And put up signs like WE ARE WATCHING you and they'll remember that they will not get away with it.

Only Spur-of-the-moment crimes will remain and that will still be cntroled by the patrolman.
Here's hoping none of your ideas come to fruitiion.
 
ComradeBadger said:
Here's hoping none of your ideas come to fruitiion.

Have you ever been robbed by a guy with an iron pipe?


BTW, I do NOT support killing off people for srimes other than murder or treason.

15357 is secretly the Combine Advisor.

-Angry Lawyer

I.... what? How... did you....

JNightshade said:
Angry Lawyer is secretly Jenna Jameson in a man-suit.

-bvasgm

*extremely confused*
 
JNightshade said:
The real issue here is that if it had been a Mr. Dynamite, he would've gotten months in the slammer.
Despite it being funny this is a good and true post.
 
If it was a man then he probably would have punched the guy. But if he was a man and he slapped the guy on the face once I doubt he'd get a custodial sentence. Of course it would depend on the judge.
 
NONONO! Here's the key:

It was a policeWOMAN she hit. Now, if a man hit a policeman, he'd do time, but if he hit a policewoman... forget it.

Also I can sing and Angry Lawyer is just jealous. And I only cry myself to sleep because my tears are pure whisky. It's a genetic defect.
 
Back
Top