Law & Order is STUFFED.

You dont consent to coward (in the old days 'King') punches on the field. That gets me pretty wild. Utter cowards. Like to see them in a ring/jojo one on one with their opponent front on and ready...

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arapiles

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?

---

Are you suggesting that Judges moderate their sentencing to cater for the criminals perceived intent?

: the judges do need to not simply go to the maximum each time, to discourage criminals from doing the worst that they can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Short answer, you consent to a certain level of violence when you play a contact sport but if that gets exceeded there'd be the chance of being charged. If I remember correctly, back in the 80s the Vic police did charge someone for on-field violence.

---

Controlled aggression is the assumption. Cheap shots are not tolerated. Nor should they be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob10

Controlled aggression is the assumption. Cheap shots are not tolerated. Nor should they be.

---

Correct - which is why it was being suggested that Gaff could be charged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob10

Are you suggesting that Judges moderate their sentencing to cater for the criminals perceived intent?

: the judges do need to not simply go to the maximum each time, to discourage criminals from doing the worst that they can

---

Intent is a key element in criminal law - it's the difference between murder and manslaughter.

My point was that there's a desire to retain the strongest punishments for the worst crimes, that is to apply some kind of sliding scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Intent is a key element in criminal law - it's the difference between murder and manslaughter.

My point was that there's a desire to retain the strongest punishments for the worst crimes, that is to apply some kind of sliding scale.

---

I see your point, But I'm not sure the victims would .I believe when making judgement, reference is often made to historical cases, and judgements made . This then suggests all generations have the same values, which clearly is not the case. Try bringing back the death penalty, for example. We would like to think the Law is black and white, as in the day of the lash and the noose. Arguably, society has come 180 degrees from that, and punishments reflect todays society's values. However, I believe an 18th century lunatic is no different from a 21st century lunatic, but a 21st century lunatic is often given the chance to offend again. I often wonder if society will evolve back to the lash and the noose, if we perceive our 21st century values don't apply to lunatics. Or drug addicts. Or any other poor soul living on the fringes of society.

Here we go, what hope the rest of us, when society's leaders can't do the right thing.

New York GOP Rep. Chris Collins arrested over insider trading charges

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob10

I see your point, But I'm not sure the victims would .I believe when making judgement, reference is often made to historical cases, and judgements made . This then suggests all generations have the same values, which clearly is not the case. Try bringing back the death penalty, for example. We would like to think the Law is black and white, as in the day of the lash and the noose. Arguably, society has come 180 degrees from that, and punishments reflect todays society's values. However, I believe an 18th century lunatic is no different from a 21st century lunatic, but a 21st century lunatic is often given the chance to offend again. I often wonder if society will evolve back to the lash and the noose, if we perceive our 21st century values don't apply to lunatics. Or drug addicts. Or any other poor soul living on the fringes of society.

---

Drug addicts and lunatics lol.

No mention of all the white collar criminals?

We go rob a bank and we do life in jail.
Bank robs us and its business as usual.

As seen in the recent scandal.

We hit someone and we get assault charges.
Priests abuse children and destroy there lives and wait 50 years before being charged and then getting the lightest sentence possible.

Hit a cop and you now have mandatory jail.
Cop hits you and its resisting arrest.

Rant over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAMINK

Drug addicts and lunatics lol.

No mention of all the white collar criminals?

We go rob a bank and we do life in jail.
Bank robs us and its business as usual.

As seen in the recent scandal.

We hit someone and we get assault charges.
Priests abuse children and destroy there lives and wait 50 years before being charged and then getting the lightest sentence possible.

Hit a cop and you now have mandatory jail.
Cop hits you and its resisting arrest.

Rant over.

---

And there lays the conundrum. EDIT. Each of the examples above could be judged as senseless. Utterly senseless is one of the descriptions of insane. Insanity can describe a lunatic. It's a broad brush.

Quote:

---

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 ?

---

Yes, it should. It was vicious and deliberate and not in the context of the play. If the perpetrator did this on the street in an entertainment precinct he would be charged under the coward punch laws and be facing 5-10 years gaol. An eight week suspension is not even a slap on the wrist. If he escapes criminal charges over this matter he should be suspended for the rest of this season plus all of next year.

Think back to 1983 when Les Boyd bashed Darrel Brohman and broke his jaw. He was suspended for 12 months. Brohman later sued Boyd and was settled out of court for a sum believed over $100,000 In 1984 Boyd lashed out again at Billy Johnstone and was suspended for 15 months.