Thread: Law & Order is STUFFED.

Originally Posted by ozscott

Judges dont always get it right but overall our judicial system is the best in the world. That doesn't mean things can't be improved but mandatory sentencing and over involvement of politicians with a 3-4 year outlook only is not the way. There is a hell of a lot that goes into sentencing and it's an unenviable task.

Cheers

Hi Ozscott

Thanks for your posts. The reality is that sentencing is a complex area and it's far too easy for the tabloids and shock jocks to manufacture outrage. And sometimes the Court's decisions are based on reasoning that's counter-intuitive, which doesn't help and is rarely explained. For example, you'd think that all rape should draw a real life sentence, but legal scholars, including feminist legal scholars, have always opposed it. Why? Because the fear is that if someone knows that they're going to get a real life sentence for a rape then they'll figure that there's no reason not to murder their victim as well - because they won't be spending any longer in jail as a result. This is the basis for the "gradation" judgements that occasionally hit the press, where a judge is criticised for saying something like "this wasn't in the worst category of offending", when what was done does sound pretty awful. Cue outrage, from The Age in the case I'm thinking of, but sadly ignorant: the judges do need to not simply go to the maximum each time, to discourage criminals from doing the worst that they can. In a case where a friend survived an attempted rape/murder (but another woman didn't) the DPP actually appealed the sentence as too harsh - largely because they wanted to leave space for sentencing someone who did worse things. Although this particular criminal must have been well along the continuum.

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Hi Ozscott

Thanks for your posts. The reality is that sentencing is a complex area and it's far too easy for the tabloids and shock jocks to manufacture outrage. And sometimes the Court's decisions are based on reasoning that's counter-intuitive, which doesn't help and is rarely explained. For example, you'd think that all rape should draw a real life sentence, but legal scholars, including feminist legal scholars, have always opposed it. Why? Because the fear is that if someone knows that they're going to get a real life sentence for a rape then they'll figure that there's no reason not to murder their victim as well - because they won't be spending any longer in jail as a result. This is the basis for the "gradation" judgements that occasionally hit the press, where a judge is criticised for saying something like "this wasn't in the worst category of offending", when what was done does sound pretty awful. Cue outrage, from The Age in the case I'm thinking of, but sadly ignorant: the judges do need to not simply go to the maximum each time, to discourage criminals from doing the worst that they can. In a case where a friend survived an attempted rape/murder (but another woman didn't) the DPP actually appealed the sentence as too harsh - largely because they wanted to leave space for sentencing someone who did worse things. Although this particular criminal must have been well along the continuum.

Sorry, but that is just so much ill informed rubbish.

Originally Posted by bob10

Sorry, but that is just so much ill informed rubbish.

Not sure how you can conclude that - how, for example, is the sentencing of the criminal who attacked my friend "ill informed rubbish"? Do you mean that she wasn't actually attacked and that he wasn't actually sentenced to a long stint in jail?

And more,......
One punch killer who got 6 yrs minimum (far too little) is allowed out of jail at the weekends to play for his footy team???!!!
Pickles.

Will , or should the punch in Sunday’s al match result in a court appearance ? Or is on field violence different to that on the street ?

Originally Posted by trog

Will , or should the punch in Sunday’s al match result in a court appearance ? Or is on field violence different to that on the street ?

Very good question.

Well, he got 8 weeks. The player he hit was 18, just new to the AFL .

West Coast midfielder Andrew Gaff suspended for eight weeks for punching Andrew Brayshaw

Originally Posted by Pickles2

And more,......
One punch killer who got 6 yrs minimum (far too little) is allowed out of jail at the weekends to play for his footy team???!!!
Pickles.

He's playing for a footy team that needs the numbers. And he hasn't hit anyone. Unlike Gaff. There was however a guy on parole who broke a kids jaw, and he will be punished.

From The Age:

"The football clubs who use prisoners are Rushworth, Merrigum and Murchison-Toolamba.Murchison-Toolamba football club president Craig Thompson said his club had allowed three prisoners to play at a time for the last two seasons with no issues.
Contrary to concerns, he said he’d found the prisoners to be “model members” of his club who used the opportunity as a vital rehabilitation resource.
“We have three that play and three that come strictly as volunteers who help with the scoreboard and take water bottles around. It’s been happening for a long time, since the ’80s, but we’ve only resumed it in the last two years,” Mr Thompson said.
“During the preseason we go and watch them play at the prison with the two other teams and select three players each.
“We understand there’s two sides to every story but we’re giving these people an opportunity and they’re great support for us.” "