What chance do we have?

[Lee]

If the state premier makes these sort of statements -


"It's an appalling situation," Mr O’Farrell said. ‘‘Like members of the community, I’d like to see these people locked up forever and the key thrown away.
‘‘But unfortunately, that’s not how the legal system in this country works.’’

(The state attorney general has also made similarly limp statements about the parole system lately)


What chance do we have for some decent laws reflecting what the community obviously wants - violent offenders (esp repeat/sex offenders) to be incarcerated for as long as it takes, to keep the rest of us safe from them....


If our politicians seem to think its too hard to change, we're in trouble....

[entity62]

If the Law did what the community wanted, then we would not need any courts/judges, ( other tread going has the answer) we could just throw them off trains and watch them bounce of the wall's and die.
Community expectation and reality should not mix.IMHO
Darrell

[Lee]

Actually the laws are the community's, and can, and should be changed with time to meet community expectations, ie by voting in people to do it....

[cfranks (Charles)]

The trouble is that the politicians pay more heed to the PC whining minorities than the people who elected them.

[Starless (Brian)]

Originally Posted by cfranks

The trouble is that the politicians pay more heed to the PC whining minorities than the people who elected them.

Here here!

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Was he talking about two teenage girls on a train?

A tad excessive, no?

Oh, I see not. Jolly-ho, then. Where's my pitchfork?

[entity62]

To get what you want, the Legal System would have too have a radical change IMHO. Minimum Sentencing.
Minimum Sentencing for a crime. Here is what the Law Institute of Victoria thinks

Mandatory sentencing regimes are intuitively appealing on the basis that they provide consistency in
sentencing, by removing the discretion of the judicial officers to decide on the most appropriate
sentence. The aim of mandatory sentencing is to provide consistency both between the offence and
its sanction (so that the punishment fits the crime) and between punishments imposed on different
offenders.
Discretion is seen as the enemy of consistency, and inconsistency is seen as equalling injustice
.
Indeed, consistency in sentencing is the first purpose of the Sentencing Act 1991
.
However, this principle belies the reality that human behaviour is invariably complex and diverse and
can involve an almost limitless variation of blameworthiness or culpability in relation to any particular
offence.
Mandatory sentencing does not lead to consistency in sentencing. It results in harsh and unjust
sentences, where offenders of unequal blameworthiness and culpability are sentenced to the same
result.
Further, where mandatory sentencing regimes succeed in removing the discretion from judicial
officers in sentencing, empirical evidence shows that that discretion is not removed from the criminal
justice system, but merely displaced on to prosecutors

Link to full letter to Victorian Attorney General
http://www.liv.asn.au/getattachment/...entencing.aspx

Darrell

[Barrykgerdes]

Everyone seems to forget that the courts apply the law but this is quite often not justice. The judges administer the law on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial. However much uncorroborated and hearsay evidence on what may have been the true crime cannot be used.

The present "knee jerk furor" is based entirely about repeat offenders serving their sentence and then committing the same crimes again. 60 years ago many American states applied the "three times you're out" and hung them. Do we want to adopt this barbarian system?

The parole system is administered by public servants, Many of them political appointees. Need I say more?


Barry

[entity62]

Parole Board members are appointed in SA by the Governor of SA
With the following qualification
the Presiding Member (Chairperson) is required to be either, a judge of the Supreme Court or District Court or a person who has extensive knowledge of and experience in the science of criminology, penology or any related science;
two members are appointed as Deputy Presiding Members;
one member must be a qualified medical practitioner with extensive knowledge of, and experience in, psychiatry;
one member must be a qualified social worker or sociologist;
one member must have extensive knowledge and experience in matters related to the impact of crime on victims and the needs of victims of crime;
one member must be a person of Aboriginal descent;
one member must be a former Police officer; and
there is one additional deputy (occasional) member appointed to replace a member who is unable to attend a Board meeting.

Darrell

[Lee]

I would like something along the lines of - first violent offence - let the judge decide on your sentence, as per current system, everyone deserves a chance (within reason of course).... subsequent violent offences would then carry a mandatory maximum sentence for that convict.

[xelasnave]

When a dog attacks a human it is put down removing the opportunity of another attack. Simple but effective. Could such an approach be effective for naughty humans.

[Kunama]

Perhaps the victims families should be allowed to sue the Parole Board in these cases, then maybe they would think twice before putting these predators back on the street.

My personal view is that if one is sentenced to 10 years, then they should do ten years, if they are of good behaviour they are let out after 10 years, if they don't behave they stay a little longer.

For far too long we have been forgetting that the victims and their families deserve that justice be done. Punishment first then worry about rehabilitation.

[Lee]

I agree Matt.

Plenty of other professional people are subject to legal action/disciplinary action if they make a bad call. Maybe if the parole board members (and even judges for that matter) were subject to the same, they'd be more careful.

[Kunama]

Alas, it will never happen........

what about this scenario ....... (just to arouse thought amongst us all...)
Police are manning a speed camera on the Hume Highway ...... a car speeds past.......... the Policeman snaps a picture of the offending vehicle and makes notes in his diary about the incident ... and gets ready for the next speeder to come into his trap ... Meanwhile, 1 kilometre down the road the original speeder runs over a pedestrian at high speed ....... should the pedestrian's widow be able to sue the Policeman for failing in his sworn duty "to prevent the continuation of an offence" ?????


Food for thought !

[AndrewJ]

Gday Alex

When a dog attacks a human it is put down removing the opportunity of another attack.

Not always, esp if the owner decides to fight it tooth and nail in court.
Many owners will spend a small fortune to protect their animals,
and when that occurs, police/councils etc normally find a way not to pursue it due to the legal costs involved, esp if it is only an "attack" not a death.
We know we only get law not justice from our present system,
but when we cant even afford law anymore, we've had it.

Andrew

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by cfranks

The trouble is that the politicians pay more heed to the PC whining minorities than the people who elected them.

Not this one they don't.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by Kunama

Alas, it will never happen........

what about this scenario ....... (just to arouse thought amongst us all...)
Police are manning a speed camera on the Hume Highway ...... a car speeds past.......... the Policeman snaps a picture of the offending vehicle and makes notes in his diary about the incident ... and gets ready for the next speeder to come into his trap ... Meanwhile, 1 kilometre down the road the original speeder runs over a pedestrian at high speed ....... should the pedestrian's widow be able to sue the Policeman for failing in his sworn duty "to prevent the continuation of an offence" ?????


Food for thought !

Well, if the police officer was a doctor, and the speeding motorist was psychotic and a bit more unsettled than usual, I bet the widow would have a crack at suing the doctor... like I said, plenty of professionals come under this sort of action when they make bad calls....

[Zaps]

Death penalty: First it's the serial killers; no problemo. Then it's the rapists; fine. Then it's robbers; hmmm. Then it's shoplifters; huh? Then it's silly kids; maybe yours. Then it's anyone who doesn't share an opinion.

This has all happened before.

[Chris85 (Chris)]

Yeah, death penalty. Because every country which implements it is a lawful utopia

[Wavytone]

Originally Posted by Lee

Plenty of other professional people are subject to legal action/disciplinary action if they make a bad call

In Roads & Maritime Services you can lose your job for traffic infringements, especially speeding. If you work there in any capacity, you ARE expected to set an example.