British courts soft on celebrity drug users
p2pnet news | Off Topic:- UK singer Amy Winehouse (right) was questioned by police, but not arrested, after a British newspaper splashed a video of her supposedly smoking crack.
"The Babyshambles frontman Pete Doherty, meanwhile, was given a suspended jail sentence and a 12-month drug rehabilitation order last year after pleading guilty to possession of crack cocaine, heroin, ketamine and cannabis," says the Independent, and, "model Kate Moss has been interviewed by police over photographs of her allegedly taking cocaine, but no charges were brought against her.
"Chelsea FC sacked their Romanian striker, Adrian Mutu, after he tested positive for cocaine in 2004. The police never became involved."
And that’s sending the wrong message to kids, says United Nations drug control agency the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB).
According to INCB board member Hamid Ghodse, "There should not be any difference between a celebrity who is breaking the law and non-celebrities, says the story.
On top of that, "the wider public become cynical about the responses to drug offenders".
Celebrity ‘endorsement’ of drug-related lifestyles is particularly relevant when it comes to the issue of deterring drug use among youth, "who are often most vulnerable to the cult of celebrity and its attendant glamour," says an INBC statement, continuing >>>
The fact is that when a celebrity uses drugs, he or she breaks the law, states the report. Young people are quick to pick up on and react to perceived leniency in dealing with such offenders. This raises questions about the fairness of the justice system and could undermine wider social efforts at reducing the demand for drugs.
The same is true for higher level drug offenders.
The Report notes the wide differences between countries and regions when it comes to tolerance towards drug-related offences and offenders. Penalties for similar offences may seem severe in some places, but lenient in others.
The BBC has criminal law solicitor Julian Young saying courts in the UK will always try to go for rehabilitation rather than jail.
"Custody is seen as a last resort, and even then, such sentences are fairly short-term with up to six months per offence, and less if the offender pleads guilty," he says in the story, also stating it would be "unpractical" to jail everyone convicted of a drug offence.
And fines, in UK magistrates’ court a maximum of £5,000 ($10,000) for a drug offence, don’t have an impact on celebrities who are multimillionaires, he says, adding the community service option isn’t as, "targeted or as imaginative as community service has been in the US".
[NOTE - p2pnet is running a special reader's survey. It only takes a minute - literally. Please click here. Cheers! And thanks ... Jon]
Also See:
splashed a video – Amy Winehouse’s privacy invaded, January 22, 2008
Independent – Celebrity drug abusers ‘treated softly by police’, March 5, 2008
BBC – Do celeb drug-takers get off too lightly?, March 5, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:53 am
It seems rather intrusive to suggest that Amy Winehouse or Kate Moss should be charged with a crime for simply having PHOTOS of apparent drug use made available. Drug use is not technically illegal, only drug possession. You can’t be put in prison for being a drug user unless you’re caught with actual drugs.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 am
Perhaps the fact that celebrity drug users generate more money. Itâs not up to a british court to apply portuguese law or vice versa. Craig Robinson Pleads Guilty To Drug Possession.
======================================================
Peter
Crack Cocaine
February 24th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
it makes me furious, to tell the truth, that one could be suspected and questioned
for a crime based on such evidence as what could amount to no more than a
photo-shopped, or should I say ‘photo-CHOPPED’ ? video or snap…give me a break.
Don’t the police have better ways to waste the tax money than this??