Duncan Phillips, defending, said Burrows recognised the theft was her responsibility and that she would have to be punished.Well, when you’ve ripped off the firm that employed you to an extent that four other workers have had to be made redundant, who couldn’t recognise this?
Oh. Right.
Recorder Raymond Herman sentenced her to 16 months in prison, suspended for two years and ordered her to do 200 hours unpaid work.
He told her: “There is no doubt that you deserve to go to prison.”So…why didn’t she?
… he was drawing back from jailing her because her daughters would suffer and the punishment would not directly benefit her victims.OK, a) that’s a shame for them, but that’s something she should have considered, and b) wouldn’t it?
If I’d lost my job through someone else’s criminal conduct, I’d have benefitted immensely from knowing that society took that conduct seriously, and doled out an appropriate punishment…
"Mr Goldwater said she had initially taken the money to pay houshold bills....He added that Burrows refused to say what the cash had been spent on."
ReplyDeleteNOT bills, then. As for her daughters, couldn't her "partner" look after them while Mummy was in stir? And as for repaying the stolen money, yeah, right.
Punishment never directly benefits the victims. If you want that, you have a civil case and compensation. The purpose of criminal punishment is to punish people.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the Yewtree bandwagon rolls on. "Never to late to get justice for victims" and all that.
Priorities?
XX the punishment would not directly benefit her victims. XX
ReplyDeleteYou do not shoot a rabid dog to make wee bitten Jimmy feel better as he rapidly develops a phobia of anything wet.
"NOT bills, then. As for her daughters, couldn't her "partner" look after them while Mummy was in stir?"
ReplyDeleteYup!
"Priorities?"
Oh, indeed. And a welcome distraction?
"You do not shoot a rabid dog to make wee bitten Jimmy feel better.."
Spot on!