Some sentences can't be suspended

SpecialG ….Somewhere between starting and finishing my post I guess I lapsed into self indulgence fantasy. What I wanted to say was that a criminal assault can take away more than money can replace. That a punishment can last months or years but the effects on a victim can linger for life. Suing criminals for damages might seem to be a good idea on TV, if you are already surrounded by big money, but back in the real world the net worth of those involved is generally zero.

Facts in this case (as reported in the judgement and in Canberra Times) have to evoke strong feelings (sympathy/empathy for victim, rage at perpetrators and their ilk) so I’m pleasantly surprised by reasonably measured comments in response to original post.

I could see ‘country town surveillance’ having up and down sides as flagged, I’d be interested to know any experience/observation of such benefits where photos of persons convicted (not merely accused) are published to match known identities.

clueless70, good points, but where there’s been guilty plea, conviction and sentencing, shouldn’t we take it the convicted hasn’t been falsely accused, at least unless any serious/specific issue raised re coerced plea etc? Of course special care and checking would be required to only publish photo of the right Mr Malizani. (Perhaps in his contrition he would consent to photo?)

Avoiding places/individuals around which bad things happen could be difficult and restricts the innocent instead of the guilty. I wonder what best promotes a contrite offender actually changing (as they’re not going to be locked up for life) – is it critical family support, shunning, or whatever Corrective Services delivers? (I assume people wouldn’t necessarily want to drive an offender out of town unchanged, though a new location consciously chosen might offer fresh start in drug/alcohol free lifestyle.)

Apart from wishing the best for the victim – I hope we don’t hear again about Mr Malizani (or his co-offender) in any context like this.

Muttsybignuts # 2 No the murderer doesn’t pay for his victims funeral, the government pays $50 thousand for victims family which covers funeral costs and other costs for family.

And what is this Higgins was lenient towards the person who committed the violence agaist a victim because he had been drinking, that law went out a few years ago.

We’re talking about convicted criminals, not ‘the accused’ – and I’m not a crim. Yes, there would need to be exceptions – that’s where a grown up/ civilised society gets to exercise its judgement – all or nothing is an easy cop-out and the media shouldn’t be the ones to decide who if anyone from tomorrow’s judgements gets a write up. As it happens, I’m one for keeping as many offenders as possible OUT of custody. Knowing who they are might just help.

Hello Brassrazoo.

Anonymity is in nobody’s interests but the criminals’.

Except in the following cases:

-There is a miscarriage of justice.
-The accused has been falsely accused.
-The accused has rights that outweigh the public interest in identifying him or her.
-Identifying the accused will pervert the course of justice.
-Release of identifying information is not in the public interest.

There are probably others.

In view of what you believe about anonymity, I assume Brassrazoo is your real name.

Publication of criminals’ details could obviate the need for crippling fines and in some cases even the need for a custodial sentence (as the offender would in some respects at least be under ‘community surveillance’ each time he stepped out – the old country town thing). It would also reinforce the notion of crime as an offence against society, not just the immediate victim. Anonymity is in nobody’s interests but the criminals’.

weaponx said :

…but you can’t whine about the courts then not be willing to defend yourself/family.

Sure you can. In fact, since the law specifically prevents me from personally arranging violent and bloody retribution, I should be able to expect the satisfaction of the person I would otherwise lynch being punished by the court.

fgzk said :

Sure weaponX, Yesterday I noticed “someguy” going down on a long stretch in Adelaide for doing exactly the same thing as you suggest. Not to mention how an assault can effect your thinking to the point that leaving the house can be hard. Leaving the house , tracking down and exacting retribution might be a bit much. That is better left to family and friends.

Diff strokes for diff folks of course, just a personal opinion, but you can’t whine about the courts then not be willing to defend yourself/family.

fgzk said :

A good lawyer will organise and pay for some medical support while the victim compensation claim is processed. Criminals generally have nothing worth suing for. When I say worth, I mean cash that comes close to paying for ongoing medical and mental harm they have caused. That is because they are generally worthless shit.

Interesting your approach on this thread towards someone in the justice system. This sentence doesn’t surprise me in the least.

There’s a losely related discussion at http://the-riotact.com/?p=26169#comment-274944

In this case, a person who was given a suspended sentence last Wednesday from the Supreme Court is now back in the Magistrates Court in under 1 week;

You’ll also find him mentioned here;
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/mother-threatened-to-burn-babysitters-house/1329038.aspx

Amongst the evidence for that incident you’d find that he was already on bail for the following and HE COULD NOT HAVE DONE THE ABOVE ATTACK IF HE WAS LOCKED UP;

http://www.police.act.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/act/2006/October/spence-robbery-ends-with-offender-in-custody.aspx

During the attack on the babysitters house he’s described as yelling things along the lines he had nothing to lose because he was already going to jail.

So, do you feel safe having him in your community with nothing to lose???

Should the judge last week be personally responsible for whatever he did in the past week?
…almost.