4 July 2011

Greens not keen on Laura Norder

| johnboy
Join the conversation
7

The Greens’ Shane Rattenbury is letting the world know he’s not a fan of the push for tougher sentencing from our judiciary, particularly with culpable driving:

In an open letter sent to the Attorney General, Shadow Attorney General, DPP, Police Association, Civil Liberties Australia and legal profession, Mr Rattenbury urged the Government to undertake a survey of what ACT jurors think of sentencing before sentencing law reform is contemplated.

“The Greens are concerned about the bidding war that is brewing. We are calling for calm,” Mr Rattenbury said.

“Both the Government and the Liberals have announced plans to increase sentences for culpable driving offences. The Liberals’ proposal would more than double the sentence available, increasing prison sentences from 7 to 15 years.”

“Law and order campaigns never end sensibly because the old parties try to outbid each other to show they are tougher on crime. This means laws are passed on emotion not evidence.

“The Greens are urging the Government to gather statistical evidence on what juries think of sentences being handed down, before going any further with their proposal.

UPDATE: A copy of Shane’s letter is now available.

Join the conversation

7
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
colourful sydney racing identity10:14 am 05 Jul 11

Erg0 said :

Thiunk of jurors as a more informed subset of “the community”. They seem like pretty good people to ask, especially if the alternative is some random punter who half-read a half-truthful account of the case in the paper.

Spot on. As is regularly seen on this site, it is very easy for the uninformed to get into a state of moral panic about inadequate sentences. The people who make up juries are in the best position to determine if sentences are appropriate.

I’ve always been under the impression from the Greens that ANY driving is basically culpable driving in some sense. The Greens are constantly commenting on issues while avoiding their own core issues. So pardon me for drawing a tenuous link, but it’s time this question was asked of the Greens:
How many of our Greens MLAs catch public transport to work, or cycle?

How many of them catch public transport or cycle when they go shopping?

I thought the law was meant to protect, not appease the populace

PrinceOfAles3:31 pm 04 Jul 11

I think all serious criminal trials should be televised in a telethon style where home viewers get to call in with what they believe is an appropriate sentence. Bert Newton or Eddie McGuire could host.

Perhaps we should give all criminals a hug, and make them promise not to do it again. It’ll be utopia before we know it!

Thiunk of jurors as a more informed subset of “the community”. They seem like pretty good people to ask, especially if the alternative is some random punter who half-read a half-truthful account of the case in the paper.

Mike Crowther12:10 pm 04 Jul 11

“The Greens are urging the Government to gather statistical evidence on what juries think of sentences being handed down..” Does this bloke have any idea what the role of a Jury is? They ascertain what evidence (what little of it they are allowed to hear) is to be believed. Matters of law are not their concern and that includes sentencing. Appropriate sentencing is a matter for the community. The community elects an assembly to legislate on their behalf. If a legislator doesn’t agree with the communities expressed will, they should either note their objection but do their duty, or resign.

At any rate, this is an academic discussion. No matter what penalty is legislated, our judiciary is going to keep sentence the same old way. Suspended and/or backdated.

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.