What is the point.....

[Workingman]

He did ruin his own life with his blinding stupidity, but that's no excuse for the State to compound that and ruin the lives of his partner and daughter as well.

Yes, he should have stopped to think, but 'Sticks and stones', and 'grow a pair' spring to mind as well. He might have (did) post horrible things, but he never intended to carry any of them out and never had the opportunity to do so. Those things have to be at the core of his sentence. Fine him: Yes. Make him do Community Service: Yes. Jail him: a big NO from me. Don't punish his daughter and partner.

Let me be clear. Cyber bullying is not acceptable and it has to be dealt with, but jailing people for using the language of the streets when online is not the answer. These are just words with nothing to back them up. If Nunn had made these "threats" and then travelled to the area the women lived with the intent of carrying his threats out; that would be different. He didn't, he didn't even know where they, the women, lived.

[shazsha]

What he said was vile and disgusting and isn't acceptable at any level. Personally I don't feel sorry for him in way and if the lives of his wife and child are ruined then it's all down to him-I don't believe the State has any blame in it.

It's interesting though how sentences differ. A woman from West Lothian accused a professional footballer of rape. The case collapsed owing to insufficent evidence. The woman was then discussed on an online forum and one man called her a “filthy wee f****** bitch” and said he would “violently rape” her.

He has received a fine of £1500.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... ed-4338633

This leaves me wondering if the guy WM speaks about was punished more heavily because his victim was a public figure.

[Kaz]

Frank the law has to be able to act without worrying about the effect on the relatives of offenders! The offenders should think of their families before they commit the crimes, if we allow such considerations to hamstring justice we are in deep trouble - I am sure most murderers, arsonists, fraudsters etc etc have families, many of them nice and law abiding themselves

[Workingman]

This is crazy. Everyone agrees that the man should be punished, but it is the type or level of punishment we are debating.

The sentence of 18 weeks (9 to serve) is, to me, a token gesture by a Judge who thought that she had to do something as it was an MP involved. If she had been convinced that Nunn intended to carry out the rape of either, or both, of the women she would have hit him with a long custodial sentence, and he would have deserved it. She didn't she gave him a "token" sentence so as to be seen to be doing something.

Given that it costs, on average, about £30,000 per year per prisoner this man's time will cost us about £5,000 and that is not including the benefits of survival for his partner and child. He will go from being a worker to being unemployed and on benefits - another cost. All I am doing is questioning the sentence and wondering if there are other options.

Shaz has flagged up one alternative, and what was said in the tweet she quotes is a lot worse than anything Nunn said.

Kaz, I agree with what you say about "normal" criminals, but at the time of his tweet he did not realise he was being a criminal, he thought that he was just being a smart-arse. Now, I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it has to be taken into consideration when sentencing.

[victor]

if it had not been an MP ,he would have got a fine or community service

in saying this i am in no way condoning him ,just the system

[TheOstrich]

You've a persuasive case, Frank, I must say, and I certainly respect that.

I think one of the fundamental differences between this and a Saturday night down-town confrontation is that internet trolling is a much more sinister threat. The victim can't run away from it, the threat is left hanging there, the victim has no idea who the perp is, whether the perp knows where they live or not, whether or not the threat can be carried out ... the MP felt threatened enough to instal a panic button. I think psychologically it's a very serious crime. So I think it does deserve a serious punishment. But there's more ....

Don't forget that it wasn't one woman he trolled, it was two; further, he chose to defend himself in court by claiming the right to free speech etc, he didn't exactly plead guilty, and the judge found him "evasive".

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The guidelines (revised in 2013) indicate that when the author of a message expresses genuine remorse, then a prosecution would be "unlikely".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicat ... unications

So basically this guy did not help himself. If he had put his hands up, perhaps he would have copped a non-custodial sentence, or even just received a caution, who knows.

(I can't get at the Daily Record article, Shaz, without filling in an internet survey! Did the guy in that case plead guilty or what?)

Finally, I don't think the fact it was an MP involved actually affected the outcome one way or the other. He affected the outcome entirely himself, IYSWIM.

[TheOstrich]

Arghhh - Deleted - double post!

(I'm truly regretful about this lapse, Kaz, I swear I won't do it again, please don't jail me ...... )

[Kaz]

I agree with you Ossie, a threat like that would scare the life out of me. As you say, there was no way of knowing whether he meant it or not, whether he knew where she lived....... She must have been terrified to install a panic button!

This goes wayyy beyond being a smart-arse IMO