Good for Mohammed?

Last week Mohammed Anwar was found to have driven at 64 m.p.h in a 30 m.p.h. zone in Glasgow. Such an offence would require instant disqualification from driving. Instead, he was fined £200 and had six points on his licence. He continues to drive .

How did he achieve such leniency?

His lawyers claimed that he needed his licence to run his restaurant in Falkirk, and clinched the argument that he needed his car to travel between his two wives in Motherwell and Glasgow. He is allowed up to 4 wives by his religion, and has only two. He "visits" them on alternate nights, and so fulfills his matrimonial duties.

A number of questions arise:

1) Had he been disqualified, could his wives not have visited him, or could he have spent three days with each in turn to minimise travel? Could he not have been faced with the penalty of finding a temporary chauffeur, or used taxis or public transport?

2) What would have happened if he had been involved in an accident, or even worse if somebody had been injured? Is the offence less serious because others, as it happened, were not involved?

3) All sorts of brilliant excuses are thought up by defending lawyers. So if you can afford to employ the best you are more likely to escape punishment.

4) Does punishment fit the crime, or the situation of the offfender?

The last point may be the most important. If there is an uncertain link between an offence and subsequent punishment, what happens to its deterrent effect? Deterrence depends on at least two factors, the punishment involved and the likelihood of being caught. Given the number of speed cameras, likelihood may have increased, but if people are going to be able to wriggle out of responsibility to some extent......?

If you have a business to run and employee's jobs, an elderly mother to visit, two wives to care for, and any number of imaginative excuses, the objectivity of the law is reduced. Worse, the law-abiding will feel cheated and decide to risk things.