Advertisement

Liberals go fishing on bail for re-offenders

By 9 May 2012 20

With considerable community distress on the subject of career criminals on bail killing people in the course of their illegal escapades the Liberals are laying the ground to make this a big honking deal:

“The Canberra Liberals understand that bail is an important element of the criminal justice system, but residents also deserve to know the safeguards the government has in place to protect them from people who reoffend while on bail,” Mrs Dunne said today.

“That’s why today, we will call on the ACT Labor government to outline, by 5 June 2012:
– The number of people, in the last two financial years, remanded in custody who were acquitted subsequently;
– The number of people granted bail in the last two financial years, who failed to comply with their bail conditions;
– The number of people granted bail in the last two financial years, who committed further offences while on bail; and
– How the government proposes to protect the public from the instances of non compliance and further offending while on bail.

Please login to post your comments
20 Responses to Liberals go fishing on bail for re-offenders
#1
HenryBG9:33 am, 10 May 12

Excellent.

Maybe I’ll vote Liberal next ACT elections.

#2
Tetranitrate9:49 am, 10 May 12

Tetranitrate said :

– The number of people granted bail in the last two financial years, who failed to comply with their bail conditions;
– The number of people granted bail in the last two financial years, who committed further offences while on bail; and

I too would be very interested in seeing these numbers.

#3
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:26 am, 10 May 12

Hopefully this ends up with less scumbags getting bail.

#4
HenryBG12:07 pm, 10 May 12

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

You would lose points every time your office lost a file or every time you create a delay of 18 months to deliver a judgment.

Any of your decisions being subjected to an appeal could lose you a few points, and any successful appeal should be a big loss of points, with obligatory re-training or demotion.

Granting bail, or failing to revoke it after bail conditions were breached, resulting in additional crimes being committed should be a huge loss of points.

Then, we could make 50% of the judges’ salary subject to their performance metric, where 100 points of bad judging would equate to 50% of their salary lost.

Additionally, we could have an annual referendum where the citizens of the ACT get to vote on the judgments they most approve of, and the ones they most disapprove of for the year, and this could tie in with a possible Christmas bonus for the judges who are sentencing in line with community expectations.

#5
Heavs1:18 pm, 10 May 12

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

Obvious troll is obvious.

#6
HenryBG1:54 pm, 10 May 12

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

#7
Jim Jones2:32 pm, 10 May 12

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Who is going to oversee the scheme and mete out rewards and punishments? Wouldn’t be an arm of government would it?

#8
Heavs2:37 pm, 10 May 12

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

You are seriously suggesting that tying the pay of the judiciary to the whims of the government of the day is a sensible way to proceed?

#9
Jim Jones3:37 pm, 10 May 12

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

You are seriously suggesting that tying the pay of the judiciary to the whims of the government of the day is a sensible way to proceed?

Ha. Yes he is.

DEY TERRRK ERRR JERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBS!!!

#10
dpm4:45 pm, 10 May 12

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Who is going to oversee the scheme and mete out rewards and punishments? Wouldn’t be an arm of government would it?

How about a jury of their peers! Hahahaha! :-P

#11
dvaey5:49 pm, 10 May 12

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Who is going to oversee the scheme and mete out rewards and punishments? Wouldn’t be an arm of government would it?

This would be a place for an independant ombudsman-type role. Either that or more senior members of the judiciary (or a panel). If there were very strict guidelines to follow, ie. something like a mandatory 3-strikes rule for bail, it would be more clear cut.

#12
Diggety6:10 pm, 10 May 12

Sounds like quite reasonable amendments.

#13
gooterz6:23 pm, 10 May 12

dvaey said :

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Who is going to oversee the scheme and mete out rewards and punishments? Wouldn’t be an arm of government would it?

This would be a place for an independant ombudsman-type role. Either that or more senior members of the judiciary (or a panel). If there were very strict guidelines to follow, ie. something like a mandatory 3-strikes rule for bail, it would be more clear cut.

Or make it like speeding fines and have a 3rd party hand out a quota of demerits. You get enough and you lose your licence :)

#14
HenryBG6:24 pm, 10 May 12

dvaey said :

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Who is going to oversee the scheme and mete out rewards and punishments? Wouldn’t be an arm of government would it?

This would be a place for an independant ombudsman-type role. Either that or more senior members of the judiciary (or a panel). If there were very strict guidelines to follow, ie. something like a mandatory 3-strikes rule for bail, it would be more clear cut.

Sounds reasonable. At the moment they seem to escape any kind of oversight.

As far as

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

You are seriously suggesting that tying the pay of the judiciary to the whims of the government of the day is a sensible way to proceed?

Can you remind me, how are they appointed in the first place?

It wouldn’t currently be the whim of the government of the day to be making appointments using not-so-mysterious criteria apparently not including long experience at the bar (or even, any experience at the bar at all)?

All we need are simple, objective measurements which would reveal whether they are doing their jobs:

– inordinate delays in handing down judgments and sentences
– mistakes in allowing bail breaches to be ignored
– mistakes in allowing bail to be granted in the first place
– faulty judgments leading to successful appeals

#15
Heavs8:40 am, 11 May 12

Maybe we should just do away with Judges all together. Maybe have cases tried by eligible citizens. Selected from random from, say, the electoral role. That way everyone who felt strongly about the law could do their part when it was their turn.

#16
Jim Jones9:38 am, 11 May 12

Heavs said :

Maybe we should just do away with Judges all together. Maybe have cases tried by eligible citizens. Selected from random from, say, the electoral role. That way everyone who felt strongly about the law could do their part when it was their turn.

Except there’s always some selfish w@nker who thinks they’re too important to do their duty.

#17
Heavs9:58 am, 11 May 12

Jim Jones said :

Heavs said :

Maybe we should just do away with Judges all together. Maybe have cases tried by eligible citizens. Selected from random from, say, the electoral role. That way everyone who felt strongly about the law could do their part when it was their turn.

Except there’s always some selfish w@nker who thinks they’re too important to do their duty.

Yeah but you’d think someone like that probably wouldn’t have an interest in any sort of law and order issues so you’d be better off not listening to their opinion anyway right?

#18
Jim Jones10:22 am, 11 May 12

Heavs said :

Jim Jones said :

Heavs said :

Maybe we should just do away with Judges all together. Maybe have cases tried by eligible citizens. Selected from random from, say, the electoral role. That way everyone who felt strongly about the law could do their part when it was their turn.

Except there’s always some selfish w@nker who thinks they’re too important to do their duty.

Yeah but you’d think someone like that probably wouldn’t have an interest in any sort of law and order issues so you’d be better off not listening to their opinion anyway right?

Totally agree with you.

#19
Lookout Smithers4:50 pm, 11 May 12

They always cast this debate out regardless of party. All pollies do it because they know most in the community think it makes a difference in crime if it is written down somewhere that people won’t tolerate criminally minded behavior. Would love to be in the room when this is debated. Many laughs.

#20
Lookout Smithers5:17 pm, 11 May 12

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

The courts should never be talking to the executive departments directly ever. It is a principal of the separation. Humans respond to incentives, this is very true. How would you reward the courts? On what would you base the rewards on? What does “performance” mean in this sense? I am very interested to hear your idea on this very important matter.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.