I’ve had a bit of a disagreement with several twitterers and FaceBook people over my views on Huhne’s potential custodial sentence. It seems that it’s pretty automatic for anyone convicted of perverting the course of justice to be sent down to meet Mr Big who runs D Wing and hands out the extra-slippery soap.
For the first half hour after the news broke, I shared the schadenfreude. Rejoice! An MP politician will be sent to jail. Only 649 to go!
But then I asked myself , who was the victim here?
Maybe his ex-wife is the victim. It seems he may have put her under pressure to accept the points on her licence. But she was, it seems, a willing victim. He may even have paid her fine. The only harm she would have suffered is a number being appended to her driving licence, perhaps increased insurance premiums (which maybe he paid), and a record on a computer system somewhere in Swansea. It seems to me that she was not an unwilling victim, nor was she harmed, her property violated, or anything else.
Maybe “society” is the victim. After all, if people get together with friends and family and decide who will take the rap for someone else’s crime, then society is not getting the justice from the criminal that it demands. This is true when it comes to murder, rape, burglary etc. But remember, we’re talking about points on a licence here.
Maybe it’s road users who are the victims. After all, if everyone did this, then more dangerous drivers would be out on the roads putting us all in peril. But remember, there was no accident, no one was killed, no child injured. So there was no victim.
It’s even been put to me that some general crime victims are the real victims in this, as their crimes weren’t given the priority they deserve as the police were focussing on Huhne’s crime instead of theirs. I would argue that it’s the police who were wasting time on this trivia, rather than putting the fault at Huhne’s door.
My thoughts on this put me at odds with many people who I consider to be sound libertarians. Maybe I’m missing something?
I consider it to be one of the basics of libertarianism that the state should not deprive someone of their liberty without a very good reason indeed. The default position, for me, is to not incarcerate someone unless absolutely necessary for the protection of the public or to send a clear deterrent message to others who might be encouraged to try the same.
Lying to the police and courts is not a good thing – and must be discouraged. But at the end of the day, no one was harmed, no one had their “rights” abused. I believe the punishment must have regard to the nature of the “crime” about which justice was perverted. Speeding is just about the lowest level of “crime” that we have. It is victimless. As such, no matter what we might think of politicians, a custodial sentence would seem to be the genuine perversion of justice in this case.
As I said, I seem to be in a minority of one on this. Maybe I’ve missed something here….
Libertarian Home 
With the benefit of hindsight it’s easy to dismiss this as trivia gone overboard, yet how would the police have known, for example, the wife was a “willing victim” otherwise, don’t you think they should have a duty to investigate all possible crime?
I’d like to think that he’d get a slap on the wrist over this and his real loss would be a political career, but considering the merry band of crooks in his line of business it would more likely be a badge of honour.
LikeLike
From what I gather, the wife snitched him out in order to get him back for leaving her, and it’s all snowballed from there. Huhne is learning the meaning of the old saying “hell hath no fury…”
LikeLike
Huhne, together with his predecessor, Ed Miliband, have done incalculable damage to the British economy, countryside, industry and British people, by wasting taxpayers money on windmills and suchlike garbage. A key statistic is that 24,000 British people, mostly OAP’s die every year during the winter months from cold, due entirely to high energy prices.
Just like Al Capone, I don’t care WHY Huhne is going to jail, I am just pleased that he IS going to jail!
For perverting the course of justice, Archer got 4 years, Aitkin got 18 months, the maximum sentence is life.
LikeLike
Interesting deliberations. I must admit my pleasure at the case is coloured by a dislike of the man. But I think wider issues than just the question of a victim is necessary. There have been other cases where the eventual sentence seemed unduly harsh when compared to the original offence, but basically the law has to protect itself. There must be sanctions against those who disregard it and flout it. Otherwise the whole system breaks down. That’s not because I am a great believer in speed cameras – I loathe them, but I obey them because that’s the law.
LikeLike