Reply With QuoteAll it means is he can apply for parole. Vic. Parliament is taking steps to deny him parole, that's how the law works, frustratingly slowly some times, but mostly, they get it right. The sky isn't falling just yet.Originally Posted by Pickles2
ChatterBox
Nope, apparently the disparity is perfectly acceptable in todays society. It's called the pussy pass. For committing the same crime as a man, if you are a woman you get statistically MUCH lower custodial sentences or avoid jail altogether. A very good example of this is female teachers sleeping with underage male students compared to male teachers who sleep with underage female students. Both are equally bad, but the female teachers usually get a slap on the wrist while you see radically different sentences handed out to the male teachers. Thanks feminism! Unfortunately, you might as well get used to it.....
Life is just a series of obstacles preventing you from taking a nap.
CTRL + V!
SubscriberAll it means is he can apply for parole. Vic. Parliament is taking steps to deny him parole, that's how the law works, frustratingly slowly some times, but mostly, they get it right. The sky isn't falling just yet.
I’m pretty sure the dinosaurs died out when they stopped gathering food and started having meetings to discuss gathering food
A bookshop is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking
This is a subject close to my heart i guess.
My old man is due for parole in 5 years..... Well not "due" but eligible for parole.
I often think by the time he is due to sit the parole board there will be no parole for him anymore.
Given his original sentence of life x 4 i can understand the public wanting no possibility of parole for people serving such sentences.
But and the big but here. If you were given your sentence on X date should we the public be allowed to change the rules retrospectively?
If you get life with 18 and serve your 18 should you not be eligible for parole then despite what the government of the day wants?
I understand changing the rules, but not retrospectively. Change them and change them for anyone who gets sentenced after the date you write the laws.
I mean whats next? Everyone on parole gets sent back to jail? Parole is a way of getting rehabilitated prisoners back into society and hopefully fully functioning. Least thats how i interpret it.
OldBushie
SupporterMaybe a "Life" sentance should be just that and to be incarcerated for the rest of the prisoners life with NO parole.
You only get one shot at life, Aim well
2004 D2 "S" V8 auto, with a few Mods gone
2007 79 Series Landcruiser V8 Ute, With a few Mods.
4.6m Quintrex boat
20' Jayco Expanda caravan gone
The judicial system needs to address that. If society wants no parole then so be it. Governments makes laws and the judicial system adheres to it. Thats not my argument here.
Mine is to try change laws retrospectively. I dont think thats the correct thing to do.
CTRL + V!
SubscriberThat's interesting. We never seem to think about the families. You make some good points, and I'm not quite sure how to feel about that. I think fear is the over riding feeling in the public, more than the wish to keep punishing prisoners. I guess families suffer as well as the prisoners, but what else can be done? I don't have an answer.
I’m pretty sure the dinosaurs died out when they stopped gathering food and started having meetings to discuss gathering food
A bookshop is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking
OldBushie
SupporterAny law that gets changed to keep people off the streets that dont belong there is a good idea and any change in the law has to be applied retrospectivly.
Usually laws are watered down and are applied retroactively so what is the problem applying a toughened up law retrospectivly.
You only get one shot at life, Aim well
2004 D2 "S" V8 auto, with a few Mods gone
2007 79 Series Landcruiser V8 Ute, With a few Mods.
4.6m Quintrex boat
20' Jayco Expanda caravan gone
OldBushie
SupporterIt is sad that the family of the convicted suffer because of the actions of one of its own But the families of the victim's are the ones that deserve our concern more.
How do you think these people feel when a villan gets of easilly or gets out of jail early?
You only get one shot at life, Aim well
2004 D2 "S" V8 auto, with a few Mods gone
2007 79 Series Landcruiser V8 Ute, With a few Mods.
4.6m Quintrex boat
20' Jayco Expanda caravan gone
So the recent law change where confessionals now have to notify of child tampering as an example.
Should they enforce that retrospectively and if so how far back do they go retrospectively? 10 years, 50 years?
No mention of that was there? Because its ludicrous to think it could be applied like that.
If we decide that anyone ever given a life sentence should have there parole taken from them then we would have to send everyone who is on parole (life sentence) back to prison?
That again is a crazy thought and would be fought out in the courts because a judge of the day had made judgement.
I think there are laws in place to stop this actually. Double jeopardy of something like that?
The topic is not about emotions. Its about law.
If a judge sentences you to X with Y parole then thats your sentence. Does not matter what others think as the judge made judgement. Appeal if its of a concern.
We use emotion to force knee jerk reactions to situations now days. The complaints should be addressed at the time of sentencing not at the time of parole.
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks