He is given 7 and a half years for causing death by reckless driving. The maximum sentence is 14 years. He is pissed twice over the legal limit. He was advised by a friend not to drive. He was doing speeds at upto 100mph on the motorwway.

He will be eligible for parole in 3 and a half years.

He got a 4 year driving ban.

He killed 2 kids aged only 8 and 10.

If the maximum is 14 years and considering how reckless and ignorant he was when he got in the car how come he only got just over half the maximum sentence.

The law is shite

Canoe man 6 years for fraud.

McCormack 7 years for killing 2 kids and crippling another person the law is an ASS.

And with the current legislation his driving ban will start straight away. So by the time he comes out, if he only does 3 and a half years, he will be able to drive again after 6 months.

One of our neighbours is currently campaigning to get the law changed on this, so that any driving ban only starts after the prison sentence has been served. Her daughter was killed when travelling with a drunk driver, who lost control, and she lost her life in the resulting crash.

There is no consistancy in the law. John Darwin's ridiculously severe sentence is one of the obvious examples. Jeffery Archer being another. A while back I posted the average sentences for various crimes and Archer had been given more jail than the average for everything up to manslaughter.

Crazy.

Mind you, Bob 'pisshead' Newton only got nine months for deal whilst drink driving.

In Jeffrey Archers case I think he should have a heavy sentence as should any politician,lawyers,cops, etc who break the law.
Not only have they broken the law but have abused a position of trust.

when you are given a driving licence you are trusted not to drive it pissed and kill people. To cover up embarrassing facts bt lying or ripping off an insurance company is way below taking peoples lives in my humble opinion.

I fully agree the guy should get hammered,but I also believe that those we trust to make & uphold the law should be hit harder than anyone else when they break it.

Who trusted Archer? I don't think so!

Two things; firstly the punishment should fit the crime, archer's didn't, its was entirely based on revenge. Secondly, opinions on Archer's sentence tend to be based on dislike of the man rather than analysis of the crime.

Now I know this may sound barbaric and old fashioned and the 'chin strokers' on the board may be up in arms here, but if he did this to my nieces or newphews, It would jut be a stay of execution for the bloke, because I would kill the bounder when he got out of jail

McCormick didn't help himself by saying how badly he'd been affected by it all - how insensitive can you get, he killed two young lads???!!

Mr I - you should be awarded this year's "The Former Lord Archer" prize for services in defending the reputation of the disgraced former peer!

Archer deserved all he got, he perverted the course of justice, he was a piss poor MP, and arsehole and a bounder as well
He lied time and time again and thought the 'old school tie' mob would get him off