By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Two men, Daniel Graham and Adam Carruthers, received prison sentences for the criminal damage of the Sycamore Gap tree, a beloved landmark, after felling it in a “moronic mission.” Graham and Carruthers were found guilty of the damage, despite initially denying the offense. The judge cited “sheer bravado” as a likely factor, as they filmed the incident and reveled in the infamy, causing widespread distress and an “overwhelming sense of loss.” The court rejected claims of intoxication, emphasizing the planning and premeditation involved in the act.
Read the original article here
Two men behind ‘senseless’ felling of Sycamore Gap tree jailed for more than four years – that’s the headline, and it’s a real head-scratcher, isn’t it? The story has sparked so much discussion, and it’s clear why. Eight days in court seems like a lot to go through to reach this verdict. It’s a bizarre situation, and the public response really reflects that.
Beyond the act itself, the question on everyone’s mind is, why? Why would someone do this? Right now, it seems like the motive is elusive, as if the men acted simply out of a combination of arrogance and poor judgment. The reactions are pretty intense, and honestly, it’s understandable. The crime certainly has a certain level of senselessness, making it hard to process for a lot of people.
It’s easy to say they deserved to be locked up. There’s a sense of a general lack of decency that some people believe exists in the world today, and this incident certainly feels like a prime example of it. Many people are left scratching their heads, wondering what makes someone make such a decision.
Thinking back to another tree incident, someone took down an endangered cypress tree. The thought was it was for a Christmas tree, which is just beyond words, demonstrating a lack of concern for the natural world. The age of one of the men, 39, adds another layer to the shock. It just seems as if it shouldn’t be happening, and the emotional reaction is really intense.
It does feel right to ask, why did they do it? Was it established? The justice system of any country has its own quirks, and the sentence, a little over four years, has prompted considerable debate. Some feel it’s too short, while others consider it excessive for the crime, especially when compared to other crimes with potentially more severe outcomes, such as drunk driving and child sexual assault.
It’s hard not to feel like there is something seriously wrong if someone gets drunk and decides, “Hey, let’s chop down this famous tree.” What seems like a prank or a fleeting impulse has resulted in a very real and lasting consequence.
What might happen to them once they are out of prison? How will they be received? It’s true that cutting down a landmark has real consequences. The reactions highlight a sense of anger and the value people place on cultural icons and the natural world. There’s the sentiment that cutting down a tree deserves a genuine penalty, a punishment that goes beyond a simple fine.
People have different opinions on how justice should be served. Some lean towards the viewpoint that more time would be more appropriate; however, on the other hand, there are those who feel that the system may not be acting logically, with the argument of how other criminal acts are handled in comparison.
The costs associated with imprisonment are often raised. Instead of a sentence, it is suggested that fines and community service, like planting new trees, might be a more effective route for rehabilitation. Some feel that it would be a more positive approach and better for the community.
The sentence itself of four years sparks further discussion. Some would argue it is excessive for the crime, while others think it should have been the maximum allowed by law. The comparisons being made to other crimes, such as drunk driving, put the sentence into perspective, and the opinions vary drastically.
The defense offered by the men is unknown, but it seems there were no solid explanations or justifications for their actions. Some argue the defense used was similar to that of teenagers being naughty or just seeking attention, which is seen as insulting to the victims.
Suggestions regarding punishment include planting a large number of saplings or the allocation of money for all the costs incurred, showing that people are not looking for vengeance, but also a need to make the perpetrators actively responsible for the damage they caused.
There’s no denying that the act was a type of national vandalism. The tree held a special place in the hearts of so many people. The issue is the actual severity of what the men did. If they were sentenced to four years, it makes sense that they were punished, but maybe not for that amount of time. Some would say that the outcome of other cases, where criminals received very little time for actual deaths, makes this ruling seem even stranger.