8 May 2009

Courts not coping with the caseload?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
8

The ABC brings word that our Supreme Court needs more judges and a bigger building to cope with its burgeoning caseload.

Some might quibble that the “modern jury trial” is just a way for defense lawyers to pad their fees while bombarding juries with so much useless information that the poor men and women, good and true, are no longer sure what colour the sky is, let alone the guilt of the defendant.

Others might wonder that if the justices handed down longer custodial sentences to the serial offenders which adorn our city then those offenders would have less scope to commit further atrocities on the public which in turn require still more jury trials.

Local legal bods are certainly in furious agreement that a fifth judge is needed, if only because they would very much like to be that judge.

Join the conversation

8
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Jack Pappas for the next judge!!

They can’t even cope with a few excess kangaroos being shot. Pathetic.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy3:56 pm 08 May 09

Not with the high concentration of bleeding heart leftys in this town…

ant said :

Good point. It beggars belief that the same judge can see the same clown coming before them umpteen times, and still hand out non-custodial sentences. Tehy must think that committing criminal acts is “normal”. Locking up all teh criminal certainly worked in New York – it was heavy-handed and often wrong, but it worked. People are out walking their dogs at 2am now, chatting with each other. (in New York).

Agreed. I want to scream every time I read about the latest crim to go before the courts having “29 previous offences”.

*SURELY* a sane society would take notice when somebody reached *3* offences and would take steps to ensure that person stopped re-offending?!?!?!?!

Perhaps the old building could be turned into a museum to justice!

“Others might wonder that if the justices handed down longer custodial sentences to the serial offenders which adorn our city then those offenders would have less scope to commit further atrocities on the public which in turn require still more jury trials.”

Good point. It beggars belief that the same judge can see the same clown coming before them umpteen times, and still hand out non-custodial sentences. Tehy must think that committing criminal acts is “normal”. Locking up all teh criminal certainly worked in New York – it was heavy-handed and often wrong, but it worked. People are out walking their dogs at 2am now, chatting with each other. (in New York).

It’s heritage nominated but not listed at this stage. Beautiful facade. Shitful interior. Leaking roof. Non-functioning air-conditioning. Bursting at the seams with staff. New Court building definitely required.

Not quite on topic, but concerning the Court Building nonetheless.

I am quite fond of the existing Supreme Court’s facade. I consider it an iconic building of Canberra. I am probably just a nut and totally alone in that opinion.

However, would this building have been included on a heritage register? Should it be?

Am I just being attached to an old building for no particular reason?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.