Thread: Why are Oz Courts so namby pamby in sentencing.

I agree with your sentiment, however the charge of Murder requires premeditation, ie must have been planned. While the gunfight was planned (and maybe the murder of their opponents), the murder of Mr Knight was not, hence the charge of Manslaughter. Actually I am surprised he was even found guilty of this - while I don't personally agree, the charge of "Unlawful Killing" might have been more appropriate but I do not clearly know all the facts.

But I agree this is not a good outcome and does not send a good message.

Garry

Hi Garry

I tend to agree with your comments. Still while strongly disagreeing with many aspects of the US legal system, I think the legislation in the US where all people intentionally involved in a crime where anyone is killed, such as armed robbery, are all convicted as if they pulled the trigger. Usually the conviction is 1st degree murder, even though murder was not the intention of the planned crime.

In this case, the crime was the gun fight and carrying the guns to the scene was the intention. The weapons were being used illegally and while I don't know their status, the weapons were most likely unregistered and the users most likely unlicenced. = intention to commit a gun related crime -> someone dies = murder.

The Law is never that simple is it?

All States justice systems are very weak on punishment. Thats the effects of putting fools in charge. But the DPP does make deals with lesser offenders to secure a convection of the major offender, or in cases risk having them all go free. Best to make a deal or all the scumbags go free. But time to toughen up the justice system.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

In this case, the crime was the gun fight and carrying the guns to the scene was the intention. The weapons were being used illegally and while I don't know their status, the weapons were most likely unregistered and the users most likely unlicenced. = intention to commit a gun related crime -> someone dies = murder.

The Law is never that simple is it?

No it is not that simple .

I think the reason the guy was charged with Manslaughter over Unlawful killing or even Negligence Resulting in Death was because of the intended agro. If a person fired a gun in the burbs and (accidentally) killed someone 500m away then Manslaughter would not have been considered.

The sad thing is that some innocent hard working guy got killed - I would like to say it is a shame that they did not shoot each other but ..........

Garry

Someone posted up a study a while back, which showed that >75% of (potential) jurors think that sentences in AU are too lenient. However, after sitting on a jury, >90% think that the sentence handed out in the case they heard was appropriate (i.e. not lenient).

A big part of the problem is that Magistrates used to be drawn from Clerks of the Court. People who had worked in the legal system for a significant period of time and had worked their way up the chain and had observed first hand the abuses of the legal system by criminals. Now Magistrates are taken from law students after they have spent their years at university being indoctrinated by the civil liberty groups.
I am 100% behind the libertarians tenet of limiting government intrusion on the lives of regular people however if you are a convicted criminal then you deserve to have the book thrown at you very hard! The current crop of Magistrates who seem to believe everything the grubs say to them are beyond a joke. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Today, Mahmoud Mariam, was convicted of the manslaughter of truckie Bob Knight when a stray bullet hit Mr Knight in the head during a gun fight Man guilty after stray bullet kills truckie - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). The other two involved in the gunfight have been acquitted.

How can this be? The two groups, both took guns to the scene, all three "men" had intention by being at the scene and by took part in the gunfight which resulted in Mr Knight's illegal killing.

Why are they all not being convicted and convicted of murder?

• Isn't gunfighting illegal in this country? YES
• Isn't the aim of a gun fight to kill the opposition? YES
• Just because it was an innocent passer-by that was killed instead of one of the protagonists, aren't they all guilty of the truckie's murder?

UNFORTUNATELY NO

I get dismayed by the inconsistencies in our legal system.

The charge of murder was never going to stand up in this case.... as explained by garrycol

And, there is probably no way under our legal system that such criminal acts can be adequately punished

You may note also, that because the prosecution was "succesful" in relation to the major charges, I expect that no punishment will be exacted for the potential firearms crimes including having unlicenced firearms, ammunition, not keeping them safely, discharging them dangerously etc etc - in effect they will be "let off" these crimes.

The other matters not being mentioned here (perhaps because the posts are in General Chat ? ) are what are generally regarded as the "elephants" in the room .... ( including for example if r......n is mentioned it has to be in the soapbox does it not ?)

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Someone posted up a study a while back, which showed that >75% of (potential) jurors think that sentences in AU are too lenient. However, after sitting on a jury, >90% think that the sentence handed out in the case they heard was appropriate (i.e. not lenient).

One of the problems is that the information we are (usually) working from is that presented by the media. They are in the game to sell papers/advertising/etc. not to portray all of the relevant facts. So, they'll cut out material that they think is boring or makes the story less "saleable" but the jurors get to hear it all, as well as the arguments and counter-arguments from the legal folks. That's why you get the results portrayed above.
So we should contain our sense of outrage (encouraged by the media, as that whips up the story and ensures more readers/viewers/listeners) because we are often being fed a selective view of the entire proceedings.
That's NOT to say that there aren't miscarriages of justice- people who can afford good legal representation get lesser sentences, on the average- and sometimes people who should be punished get off on technicalities. But the system works on the premise that it is better to let a criminal go free than to convict an innocent person. And while they don't even always get that right, that's the way the system is biased. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Coop