Thread: Our "Justice" System?

Originally Posted by Pickles2

I was in New York, just before the Twin Towers event.
When We arrived, having heard many things about New York's "crime", I asked where it was not safe. They said that We could virtually go anywhere we liked, except walk through Central Park in the dark.
The reason for this, we were told, was Mayor Guiliani, who'd been in power for a few years when we got there?....His motto,.."Ya do the crime, ya do the time",....the result of which was a SIXTY % drop in the crime rate. We walked all over the place, Police everywhere,...we never had any issues at all.
So, I'm sick of all the "rehab, don't put 'em in jail, let 'em out" stuff, absolutely sick of it. All this rubbish Rosie Battye comes out with,...AIN'T GONNA MEAN NOTHING to the drunken man belting his wife & family,..He won't even think about what she's got to say, BUT,..put him in jail with the "Big Boys", who don't like Women bashers, & see if He does it again.
This is why violence is on the increase,....."IF" they're caught, what will the sentance be?
Pickles.

Pickles, this why people are reacting, not your original post.

In regards to the "case study", that guy did get rehabilitated. To make a long story short, he now has a job, does volunteer work and, instead of costing us $292 a day to keep, he now contributes to society.

As COOPS has said, there are many factors that affect crime rates. In the case of NY in the 90's, unemployment dropped by 39%, the police numbers rose by 35% and there was big improvement in general economic conditions which, combined, were a huge factor in crime reduction.

I actually agree with much of your original post, as I am sure many do. Obviously there are many people that should stay in jail and not see the light of day, as have been named here. But one size does not fit all and unfortunately some judges/panels etc do get it wrong in sentencing.


My younger brother spent 7 months in remand for supposedly breaking an avo. There were several easily proven lies in the ex's statement, he's not perfect, but our mother brought us up better than that and he's a fairly tough character who doesn't need to pick on women to prove he's a man.

He tried to commit suicide twice in jail. It took seven months for him to have his say in our "justice" system. When he did, he was released on the spot. The judge criticised the system Our "justice" system could have kept him jail for up to 2 years before he got to have his say. The fact that she texted him and invited him around to visit the kids was ignored by the cops. There were several other obvious facts that the cops "overlooked". The judge (a retired family law court judge of 35 years experience) was scathing saying that he should never have been locked up as there were several inaccuracies in the statement and the police had wasted court time.

So yes, they get it wrong, but it can go both ways and it is very complex.


Tom.

No worries Bathurst, and I'm glad he did get rehabilitated, as I think in answer to the question You put to me, I did say that He should be, so naturally, and seriously, I am happy with that result.
And yes, I agree with you, that the situation is, as you say, "complex".
However I'm afraid that I see & read too much, not to say that some of our Judges need a reality check.
How many times do I see, outside Court, repeat offenders,..."getting off",.....and I see their family & their mates, and,......not a scrap of remorse,...giving everyone "the finger", assaulting people who they feel are in their way etc,...and then you see & hear from the victim's family.........
I'm sure there are a lot of people "inside" that shouldn't be there, just as there are many "outside" that should be.
Regards, Pickles.

Interesting thoughts.
Prior to my current employment, I moved many convicted criminals and accused to jail or to court amongst other things.
One of my favourites- beat his wife into a coma for a week and received 6 weeks gaol.
Released and immediately put her back in hospital via beating and pouring a jug of boiling water over her.- 3 months for that.
Released and immediately beat her, stabbed her in the head, then wrapped her in foam mattress and set fire to her.- 6 months for that.
No need for anything further because she died after the last effort- problem solved- yay for the system,
The first indicator of rehabilitation efforts is recognising if the effort will bring results.
There is an excuse pre made for anyone and anything- whether that excuse is a justifiable reason is another matter.

Originally Posted by BathurstTom

My younger brother spent 7 months in remand for supposedly breaking an avo. There were several easily proven lies in the ex's statement, he's not perfect, but our mother brought us up better than that and he's a fairly tough character who doesn't need to pick on women to prove he's a man.

He tried to commit suicide twice in jail. It took seven months for him to have his say in our "justice" system. When he did, he was released on the spot. The judge criticised the system Our "justice" system could have kept him jail for up to 2 years before he got to have his say. The fact that she texted him and invited him around to visit the kids was ignored by the cops. There were several other obvious facts that the cops "overlooked". The judge (a retired family law court judge of 35 years experience) was scathing saying that he should never have been locked up as there were several inaccuracies in the statement and the police had wasted court time.

So yes, they get it wrong, but it can go both ways and it is very complex.
Tom.

These sorts of outcomes are the result of the "get tough on crime" attitude of our politicians which has the effect of overloading the system, causing backlogs and delays everywhere. Pollies are reluctant to spend more money on the system to cover the increased workload as it doesn't buy votes.
The basic principle for any justice system should be that it is better to allow a criminal to get out of jail than it is to allow an innocent person to remain in jail. That's the core of our "beyond reasonable doubt" principle. But when the system is overloaded, errors such as the one cited above occur more often.
In spite of that, the system gets it right more often than it gets it wrong, but you won;t read much in the papers about the right decisions. But at least in this state (SA) you can read what the judges thought when they passed sentence. This includes a description of the facts of the crime and makes for some very interesting reading.
Sentencing Remarks
Cheers

C00P

Originally Posted by strangy

Interesting thoughts.
Prior to my current employment, I moved many convicted criminals and accused to jail or to court amongst other things.
One of my favourites- beat his wife into a coma for a week and received 6 weeks gaol.
Released and immediately put her back in hospital via beating and pouring a jug of boiling water over her.- 3 months for that.
Released and immediately beat her, stabbed her in the head, then wrapped her in foam mattress and set fire to her.- 6 months for that.
No need for anything further because she died after the last effort- problem solved- yay for the system,
The first indicator of rehabilitation efforts is recognising if the effort will bring results.
There is an excuse pre made for anyone and anything- whether that excuse is a justifiable reason is another matter.

Why wasn't he charged with murder?

C00P

Originally Posted by C00P

Why wasn't he charged with murder? C00P

Yes he was.
Paroled after less than 24 months

Originally Posted by strangy

Yes he was.
Paroled after less than 24 months

I can understand your concerns. Most states have minimum non-parole periods for murder convictions. In SA it is 20 years, and is probably similar in other states. He must have been convicted of a lesser offence such as manslaughter. Perhaps he got off because he claimed he didn't mean to kill her. I'd like to read the sentencing remarks for that one, or a transcript of the state's case and the defence's arguments. It's certainly one out of the box in my experience...

C00P

Whilst I do agree with some points , allowing the media's interviews with victims to be used to justifie harder sentencing is not a good 1. That is the very reason we have independent judgements of cases. To allow that is to basically turn the lynching gang loose! Soon all and sundry would be accusing every other in the most petty ways! Whist I lean to some anchasist type thoughts , law and order free for all is not in there!