Star caught driving over the limit gets to pick and choose when he serves his sentence and receives glowing praise from his bosses. Real role model stuff.
tinyurl.com/267n8j
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 10/10/2007 at 23:35
|
"Kiefer made clear to us at the time of his arrest that his first concern was the welfare of those he worked with and that he intended to do whatever was necessary to prevent shutting down the show," it said in a statement.
"He told us that even if he had to sacrifice more time in custody in order to protect the show and the jobs of those who work with him, he would do so. "
Yup, I agree. A proper gentleman.
|
|
|
|
The law and social situation is different in the USA.
|
Well of course the bosses will praise him - his availability saves them a fair wedge. As for Keifer - it's rather making a virtue out of a necessity, n'est pas? I could imagine all sorts of contractual penalties if he caused a studio to delay or cancel a major TV series by his own 'voluntary' misbehaviour. The article doesn't inidcate that he did in fact consequentially attract a longer or more onerous punishment, so that idea of heroic sacrifice is a rather moot point.
What does surprise me is the flexibility of the courts. I wonder if the same helpful attitude would be extended to an ordinairy John Doe?
Dreadfully boring & predictable TV series as well, imho.
|
What does surprise me is the flexibility of the courts. I wonder if the same helpful attitude would be extended to an ordinairy John Doe?
It's not unknown.
Some years ago, a friend of mine got a three week sentence for "assaulting a police officer", i.e. the officer pushed her into a ditch and jumped on her. She found it easy to negotiate over when to do her sentence, and spent christmas in prison.
Another person sentenced in similar circumstances pointed out that his proposed sentence would severely disrupt some village activities he was running, so he was let off.
|
i.e. the officer pushed her into a ditch and jumped on her. >>
Shouldn't it be the officer serving the sentence in this case?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>> i.e. the officer pushed her into a ditch and jumped on her. >> Shouldn't it be the officer serving the sentence in this case?
That was not the court's view. When the officer's testified that he had ended up lying on top of her, and that she was on her back, the magistrate saw where the case was heading and asked the officer to reconsider his story (because he was coming close to confessing to a sexual assault). After several suggestions that maybe the woman was lying face-down, the officer
suddenly remembered that he had in fact been beaten up by a woman lying face-down in a ditch. The magistrate decided that this revised story was sufficiently plausible to allow a conviction.
Anti-nuclear protesters like her routinely got an interesting form of justice. It's not just uncalibrated speed cameras that lead to dubious convictions :(
|
Having read the article, Seems fair enough, a lot of people are involved in the production of that programme who depend on it for a living, no Sutherland, no production loads of humble hard-workers on the dole.
At least he's honest enough to have copped a plea and not try to wriggle out of it using "laws are for little people" defences.
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 10/10/2007 at 23:20
|
Just re-read it - its a very fair and balanced bit of Justice. Lot for this Country to learn from.
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 10/10/2007 at 23:38
|
Just re-read it - its a very fair and balanced bit of Justice. Lot for this Country to learn from.
I agree with you PU that it would indeed be unfair for people employed in the production of the show to suffer but surely Mr. Sutherland would do well to remember that before drinking and driving.
I'm no pious, do what I say type, but surely on his income he could afford a taxi or a driver knowing that DUI is an offence ?
I do not even pretend to understand how the law works but if he was caught over the drink drive limit how can he then negotiate to have the second charge dropped bearing in mind he is currently on probabtion for a similar offence in 2004.
Does this mean if someone is caught speeding for a second time they can negotiate to extend the period the points from the first conviction can be extended and forget about the second offence ?
I would have thought DUI was quite serious given what can happen from a seconds misjudgment behind the wheel while under the influence.
|
|
|
|
Anti-nuclear protesters like her routinely got an interesting form of justice. It's not just uncalibrated speed cameras that lead to dubious convictions :(
bit of a sweeping statement....some of them were awful people.......not for this forum, but i do have proof........(and i have no doubt the other end of the spectrum was the decent folk trying to do their bit)
|
|
|
|
|
