Liberal Leader Zed Seselja is promising to introduce legislation to punish the morons punching on with the cops in Civic of a night.
We must do everything we can to deter violent assaults and other offences against police in the course of their duties, Mr Seselja said.
This legislation will send a very clear message: offences against police will result in strong penalties.
It amends the Crimes ACT 1900 to provide tougher penalties for offences against police, meaning a number of offences including assault, manslaughter and threats to kill would be considered an aggravated offence and have higher prosecution penalties.
The legislation applies if an offence is committed against a police officer while on the job or in relation to any actions taken in their official capacity.
Shadow Police and Corrections Minister Jeremy Hanson said the legislation would bring the ACT in line with other states which already have strong laws around offences against police.
On the one hand once again we have the Liberals again reflexively banging the Laura Norder gong.
On the other hand the sort of dick so far gone in violence and stupidity as to start something to police is a mighty menace to the rest of society.
Here’s a breakdown of the changes they’re putting forward.
Proposed penalties under new legislation: Crimes (Offences Against Police) Amendment Bill 2011
|
Offence |
Current penalty |
Proposed penalty if committed against police |
|
Manslaughter |
20 years jail |
26 years jail |
|
Intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm |
15 years jail |
20 years jail |
|
Recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm |
10 years jail |
13 years jail |
|
Wounding |
5 years jail |
7 years jail |
|
Assault with intent to commit other offence |
5 years jail |
7 years jail |
|
Inflicting actual bodily harm |
5 years jail |
7 years jail |
|
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm |
5 years jail |
7 years jail |
|
Causing grievous bodily harm |
2 years jail |
3 years jail |
|
Common assault |
2 years jail |
3 years jail |
|
Threat to kill |
10 years jail |
13 years jail |
|
Threat to inflict grievous bodily harm |
5 years jail |
7 years jail |
|
Possession of object with intent to kill |
5 years jail |
7 years jail |
|
Forcible confinement |
10 years jail |
13 years jail |
|
Affray |
10 years jail |
13 years jail |
|
Stalking |
5 years for certain offences and 2 years for any other case |
7 years and 3 years jail respectively |
Loading ...
What’s Your opinion?
Assaulting Police. Libs move to toughen penalties.
Oops, mucked up my last post, I’ll try again.
what_the said :
I totally agree. Increasing the duration of incarceration available is only worthwhile if it is used. The police have no control over that.
Maybe if the judiciary were to have given the likes of Mully heavy sentences in the first instance, then it may have sunk into the heads of some of the other thugs hereabouts that their behaviour may end up with them being banged up for a long time, a sure disincentive.
But with Canberra having a “soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime”, reputation, what disincentive is there?
And there’s also this sort of apologist idiocy to deal with;
Violet68 said :
johnboy said :
Exactly – this is about protecting Jenny and Joe Average from the violence of dickheads.
what_the said :
Violet68 said :
What they respect is a matter for their own conscience.
But no one in prison has ever started a fight on london circuit.
Here we have one group of privileged, secure, powerful politicians appealing to another group of secure, privileged, empowered voters, offering to protect the most powerful well resourceful and secure group within the community, the police. Add to this the politicization of senior police and their Associations and you start to wonder whether law and order is just about winning personal gain for the well resourced powerful privileged groups of our community.
Id encourage the police to keep tackling the violence in our community even tho it brings the risk of assault. That’s what all the training courses and equipment are for. That’s their job. A job that they have always done well. Dominate violence in the community.
A timely step in the right direction to bring the ACT into line with other States.
Interesting that they’re only looking to amend the Act to consider certain offences ‘aggravated’ rather than just bringing in an ‘assault police’ charge though.
The Courts are fettered by precedent and a raft of other red-tape chains in terms of sentencing that also keeps defence lawyers paid – maybe the sentencing legislation needs to be looked at too?
what_the said :
completely agree
Neither the current or proposed penalties will ever be properly enforced. You see, its all about the cost. Punishment or protection of the public simply don’t come into it.
johnboy said :
Do you really believe that removing them from the community is going to give them more respect for it? Pfffft!
LSWCHP said :
I would be only to happy to see the police who assault those who are obviously intoxicated and unable to defend themselves removed from the streets for a long, long time but I don’t see how giving them extra powers and increasing sentencing options will be of any use, if they continue to be held unaccountable for their actions.
what_the said :
Precisely. I see fairly regular reports about police officers copping a beating and ending up with chipped teeth, lacerations and other injuries. I imagine these might fall under the categories of assualt, wounding, bodily harm etc, but I haven’t heard of too many hoods going down for a 5 stretch as a result.
I would be only to happy to see idiots who assault police officers being removed from the streets for a long, long time, but I don’t see how lengthening sentencing options will be of any use, if the current sentences are ignored by the judiciary.
Mr Seselja appears to believe that it’s about deterrence, though – which seems a bit fanciful to me.
Less value in deterrence as much as just removing from the community.
I’m not sure that liquored up louts punching on with police are the sort to be terribly au fait with the exact sentencing details of the Crimes Act, much less let such concerns enter into their decision calculus.
Still, I can’t see it being much of a negative either, so why not.
How about the ACT Courts actually start applying heavier penalties. It’s not like they’re maxing out the existing penalties, so what’s raising the ceiling going to do? Looks like being seen to be doing something because ‘something needs to be done!’