Edward Woollard, the 18 year old who threw a fire extinguisher from the top the Millbank complex during a student protest in November was sentenced today to 2 years and 8 months in prison.
Although there can be no doubt that what Woollard did was both extremely foolish and dangerous, the punishment he has received strikes me as disproportionate. Criminals found guilty of far greater crimes repeatedly receive lesser sentences than Woollard. Thugs can violently attack, beat, rob and even stab people and receive lesser punishments than nearly 3 years in prison. Woollard is an 18 year old boy, still in full time education, with no previous convictions of any kind. He handed himself in to the police and pleaded guilty to throwing the fire extinguisher. It appears that none of these factors were taken into account by the judge responsible for convicting Woollard.
Had the fire extinguisher actually hit someone, and someone was seriously injured or killed, this case would be looked at in a very different light; this was not the case however and so we must take into consideration that although the act was extremely dangerous no one was actually hurt. Woollard does deserve some form of punishment for his actions but such a long stint in prison is completely disproportionate. At most he should have received a suspended jail sentence for his actions. Despite the fact that there is no real justification or defense for this young mans actions, it is more than likely that Woollard bought into the 'mob mentality' and acted impulsively. Luckily, as no one was injured, the court should have taken this into account when thinking of a suitable punishment.
On a final note, regardless of the excessive sentence in itself, imprisoning a young boy for this mindless act is simply counter productive. Woollard is no hardened criminal or real threat to society and so to place him with those that are will do nothing more than take away any chance of Woollard becoming a contributing member of society. Woollard will now face the rest of his life as an ex-con, who will probably leave prison with a 3 year degree in crime. Imprisoning people is extremely expensive to the tax payer and only really effective if inmates leave rehabilitated or are kept locked away from society inorder to protect it. As Woollard does not threaten society or need rehabilitating then would it not make more sense to sentence him differently? How about a long term community service order? This punishment would suffice as he would still 'pay' for his actions whilst coming to terms with the severity of them himself. He would also be contributing to society and the community and saving the government and thus the tax payers £31,106 a year. (http://www.sps.gov.uk/) Isn't this a time of austerity and government spending cuts?
