Maybe I need to read more of the details, but I haven't seen any mention of the fact that both parents of a family have been sent to prison on the very same day. This seems wrong, even if they hate each other's guts. It assumes that there will be no emergency for which one parent would be needed. That is an arrogant view for a judge to take I think. Even warring families have emergencies which cannot be foreseen and broken families need to be respected at a very basic level. I think they should have been imprisoned in succession instead, or for another method of punishment to be chosen.
The summing up remarks by the judge seems to have an awful lot of emotive words in it. I would prefer a much more neutral and fair assessment of the situation. Many others have pointed out the emphasis on Ms Pryce's actions, when the person who should not have been driving so fast in the first place was Mr Huhne.
My brain is all befuddled from the many issued raised and mixed up in this case.
The strangely arrogant and insulting attitude towards the reasonable seeming questions put by the first jury.
The unclear and complex words used to answer those questions, not respecting the people he was responding to, or by extension, us, who are reading and trying to understand both the questions and the answers.
The way Mr Huhne's denials over months, finally shifting to a guilty plea only when facing trial the next day, were not taken into account in Ms Pryce's case. Surely someone unable to stick to his version of the truth and own wishes would behave similarly or worse in private with his wife? I am baffled by the lack of consideration for what sort of a person Ms Pryce was dealing with.
--
Schiller - Ultramarin
No comments:
Post a Comment