Thread: Law & Order is STUFFED.

Originally Posted by Bigbjorn

Consistency in sentencing would be an improvement.

Here is an example. I knew the two guys. One was an old friend. The other was a relative. Both were terrific ****pots. Both were arrested for drink driving at about the same time. One in Brisbane and one at Warwick. Both by coincidence blew 0.28. Very ****ed by any standard. The friend was seen to leave the local hotel by a mobile patrol, followed for several blocks before being pulled over. He had bought a 6 pack before leaving the pub and had opened one for the short drive home. He was also smoking a cigarette at the time. The other one was a farmer who had been to a football match and driven nearly 40 k's towards home when the local law found him asleep at the wheel, nose down in a drain, lights on and engine running.

The rellies wife phoned me to ask if i knew anyone who could forecast what punishment he was likely to get. I asked a police prosecutor I knew. He said the then current guidelines for such a high reading was a fine of not less than $2000, minimum two years suspension of licence, and as ove 0.15 no conditional licence was possible. Must have different standards in country courthouses. He got $500, 6 months suspension, and was granted a conditional licence. My prosecutor acquaintance was stunned. The other guy was sentenced in Brisbane Magistrates court, $2000, 5 years suspension, and refused a conditional licence. Both were first time offenders. God alone knows how as they drank (big heaps) and drove consistently throughout their adult lives.

Interesting. I'd have assumed that drinking while driving would attract a higher sentence, but I guess running off the road shows inability to control a vehicle.
Anyway the point remains that it's better to have a system in which independent people attempt to be impartial than one in which angry relatives seek revenge.

A good mate of mine was recently killed in his truck when a ****wit on drugs driving a truck hit him head on whilst on the wrong side of the road. The ****wit scored 2years in prison, but will be out in 12’months on probation.

How do you expect relatives and friends etc to accept that bull****.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Interesting. I'd have assumed that drinking while driving would attract a higher sentence, but I guess running off the road shows inability to control a vehicle.
Anyway the point remains that it's better to have a system in which independent people attempt to be impartial than one in which angry relatives seek revenge.

In most cases it isn't all about "revenge" it is about "Justice" and in many cases Justice is NOT being served.
There HAS to be consistency in sentencing otherwise our laws become meaningless.

Certainly has to be consistency, we agree about that, but I'd rather have our system thanks.

The thing is, and was commented above...

Its not about angry relatives or victims taking justice into their own hands, but the Judiciary ruling towards full sentences and ONLY the victims able to “offer” any leniency to the sentence.

Originally Posted by johntins

Really? That is exactly not how you come across: so, either you have been misjudged, or you are amazingly disingenious. Your inability to spell may also come into play.... ( eth n ic )

You're jumping to conclusions, John. Mick may have meant to type e p ic white Anglo-Saxon Grumpy Old Man.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Certainly has to be consistency, we agree about that, but I'd rather have our system thanks.

Good Lord Mick I NEVER suggested using any other justice system YOU did FFS.
Do you actually engage your brain before your fingers?

Originally Posted by trout1105

Good Lord Mick I NEVER suggested using any other justice system YOU did FFS...

It's what's called a 'straw man' - where one misrepresents an argument in order to attack it.