The ABC is reporting that the jury in the trial of Ian Edward Hirst, who is alleged to have murdered his neighbour, has retired to consider its verdict.
Hirst is accused of stabbing David Bagnall at the Fraser Court Flats in Kingston on December 4, 2006 and has been on bail since the incident
Loading ...
GNT – it is possible that there hasn’t been a ‘murder’ as the eyes of the law see it. That just means too many people are being given the wrong charge for their offenses.
A low murder conviction rate in the ACT could be due to:
(a) ACT laws making it more difficult to prove intent;
(b) ACT judges being ‘soft’ and reluctant to convict; or
(c) a low murder rate, possibly due to our higher than average education/income/socio-economic class.
Just as it is wrong to assume the courts always get it right, it is wrong to assume the courts are getting it wrong just because of the statistics.
Ingeegoodbee said :
I agree… kill ’em all
It’s a bit like Hot Fuzz. All the serious crimes get swept under the carpet all in the name of statistics.
GnT – are you even living on this planet?
inhotep said it all – no explanation needed – it’s bloody obvious.
GnT said :
I doubt that. I think it is wrong to assume that the courts always get it right. The courts (and the judiciary) should not be above criticism. If a particular jurisdiction has conviction and sentence rates far lower than average I believe we are entitled to ask why.
Having spent a fair amount of time in courts (not as a defendant), I have the view that the last place you will hear ‘the truth’ is in court;
-A Barrister’s job is largely to manipulate, distort and omit evidence to suit his/her client.
-Rules of evidence often mean that vital and pertinent facts are not admitted.
-Judges are entirely fallible and partisan, just like the rest of us. I don’t understand why people are reluctant to be critical of decisions or sentences, or to assume that the judge has greater wisdom and insight than the rest of the population.
I believe that a court’s decisions should largely reflect the view and values of society. I don’t think this is happening in the ACT.
There hasn’t been a murder conviction in 10 years – perhaps there hasn’t been a murder in 10 years? Maybe this is something we should be proud of?
Do you think the Supreme Court judges should have convicted someone just to get the numbers up?
Canberra Times, Saturday 3 May – see section B2 – article by Victor Violante.
There has not been a murder conviction in the ACT courts since 1998. Yes, you heard right. 10 years.
Those Supreme Court judges should be ashamed of themselves.
That is a rather amusing image you seem to have of me, although I think you put a little too much into it for comfort. Word of advice; save the anger for people who will hopefully give a sh*t, not the imaginary ones. It helps.
On the verdict, I said I accepted the fact that were I in the situation that the courts found to have taken place that I would have taken similar action. The murder/manslaughter thing was just a thought that popped out that applied generally to murder cases in the ACT.
You go do your important stuff now, don’t worry about me…
^^^^^^^
What a curious post. Glug glug.
Wow DMD, as I was away working for most of the day, with my head up my arse of course, I have only now seen you’ve been busily typing away at your numerous “non-slothful” posts.
But really, your reply to me explains a lot about who you are…
I must admit, I am slightly jealous of you – I wish that I was so far up my own ass that I thought every idea I came up with was perfect, but alas, it turns out I am human therefore am capable of being wrong.
It must be nice to feel that you are the overlord of truth and all that is right -perhaps writing on an anonymous blog makes you feel like the world actually gives a shit about your opinions because the computer accepts them when you press the Post button??
I actually like to think that you sit in front of your computer fuming over people who disagree with you and have the gall to post it – how dare they!!! I wonder how you react in the real world when someone decides to express a differing opinion to yours… Do you say “Hey, you’ve got your head up your arse?”, or do you go back to sharpening your pencils (2-1 the latter, 500-1 the former…)
At the end of the day, peers of the accused decided his fate. That is the way it should be, and that’s the way it happened. Pretty simple really…
Crikey: No prize for first either buddy. Although if there was you wouldn’t recieve it. Whats your problem?
lol, pretty much.
I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken….lol
Oh, no, sorry, that makes complete sense. I was half right both times. Well, I learned something today, thanks Proud.
That’s what I initially thought…but I thought I was wrong?
The Police lay the charges initially, but it’s ultimately the DPP who decides what the final charge(s) will be. They can add/drop or change charges to what they think is appropriate in the circumstances.
Yeah, I had considered Porrits case. It still seems a little strange to me, however, that with at least 2 what were considered murders a year in this city (risen to 6 or so at the highest, I think), that a minimum 20 cases of murder that haven’t resulted in a conviction.
The courts can downgrade charges…If there is not sufficient evidence to support the murder charge, but enough to substantiate, for instance manslaughter, they can be found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter, as with he Poritt case.
If they are found not guilty of murder and totally aquitted, the evidence would have most likely not supported a manslaughter charge either. ie – the defence raised would cover both charges.
Kudos to Heavs for pointing it out, btw…
Oh, and Maelinar – what are you contributing to this thread? Do you have anything to say on the matter?