In the ever-changing world of crime & punishment, it is astounding what sentences some people can receive in comparison to worse offenders. As an example, in the most recent of cases, the school teacher whom had ran off with a girl pupil, has just received five and a half years. She was not abducted; she went willingly. Of course it was very wrong and he had to be punished but when you line that up against Stuart Hall, a sexual predator on young girls, he received just fifteen months! No doubt he laughed as he did on "It`s A Knockout".
Taking a different tack, one guy locally, was handed a two and a half year sentence for being in possession of TWO wraps of heroin. Then a guy on my round received eight months for possession of FORTY wraps of heroin and cocaine, plus £130 in cash, showing he had been dealing. Then two young guys were given probation for possession of FORTY PLUS wraps of heroin, crack & cocaine, plus cash of more than £400. The judge said they had been naive. Of course they were. Of course they did not spill their guts to everything and everybody to warrant such unbelievable leniency. Neither did my former customer. But the lad with just two wraps must have kept his mouth shut and so paid the price.
Now let us look at very serious incidents. A young man murdered a girl on a beach, but he was found to be mentally incompetent, and therefore avoided the gallows. It has no relevance that his father was the local Police Chief. What about the murder by Ronald True in 1923? He was convicted but the judge ordered a psychiatric evaluation, and not surprisingly, three doctors found him to be insane. The fact that he was the illegitimate son of an Army officer, had nothing to do with it. A man committed at least three or four murders, and after conviction was examined in a secure hospital. Three doctors stated he was insane, but the prison doctor, a GP, said he was normal. Who did the Court of Appeal believe? That`s right! The GP. The man was hanged
To finish, what about treason? When you think about spies, you would come up with Burgess, Philby & Maclean. Even Blake. But what about the revelation in 1983 that Sir Anthony Blunt had been part of that circle, and had been a Soviet spy? Was he charged with treason? Not a chance! What made it worse was that his role as a spy had been uncovered in 1963, and this had been shrouded in secrecy for twenty years. Back in 1963, we still had the Death Penalty, and treason fell into that criteria, but naturally, Blunt was in no danger of that punishment, no matter how many people were killed or jailed through his treachery. He was the Queens` art advisor, so it would have been a shock to Lizzie to see her advisor exposed as a traitor and being hung. Yep, circumstances can help.