Northbourne murderer gets 10 years

Stevian said :

Robertson said :

Thumper said :

I should add that your idea that all soldiers are all trained killers is completely and utterly laughable. Have you ever served? Most just wear a unifrom and know how to march, salute and fire a weapon once a year at the range. It’s only fighting corp that are so called ‘trained killers’.

They’re not trained to kill anyway – they’re trained to stay alive.

What’s the difference, and if they were concerned about staying alive why join up in the first place?

To get training in how to stay alive, of course.

I see the scumbag has already received a discount to probation his time, thanks to the wonderful skills of another scumbag:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-teenager-jailed-for-northbourne-avenue-murder-has-probation-halved-20131015-2vjux.html

Robertson said :

Are there two Darkfalzes?

Quit trying to pigeonhole people and you’ll be fine. If you agree with someone on A it doesn’t follow that you’d also agree with them on B.

Robertson said :

Thumper said :

I should add that your idea that all soldiers are all trained killers is completely and utterly laughable. Have you ever served? Most just wear a unifrom and know how to march, salute and fire a weapon once a year at the range. It’s only fighting corp that are so called ‘trained killers’.

They’re not trained to kill anyway – they’re trained to stay alive.

What’s the difference, and if they were concerned about staying alive why join up in the first place?

Thumper said :

I should add that your idea that all soldiers are all trained killers is completely and utterly laughable. Have you ever served? Most just wear a unifrom and know how to march, salute and fire a weapon once a year at the range. It’s only fighting corp that are so called ‘trained killers’.

They’re not trained to kill anyway – they’re trained to stay alive.

Darkfalz said :

GardeningGirl said :

Very disappointing.
I see two problems, the inconsistencies with when people are considered adult enough for what, and the idea that it all suddenly changes at midnight on a certain day.

Agreed. 2 months from his 18th birthday and he’s probably halved the sentence he would have got. Probably feels like he won the lottery. I think to back to that Skaf rapist Mohammed Sanoussi who was freed recently. His lawyer, a typical long haired hippie GreensLabor voting social justice type who no doubt sees his “client” as the victim, was asked if he’d changed while inside. His response? “Yes, he’s about three times the size he was when he went in”. If that’s not enough to chill one’s blood, I don’t know what is. Similarly, this guy is going to get out of prison in 10 years, twice the size, angry that some “slope” had cost him 10 years of his life, hardened by the criminals he’ll meet inside (many of whom will probably be impressed by his choice of victim) and our legal system is really going to say he’s an acceptable risk to society? It’s just insane. These aren’t crimes of passion or even opportunity. They are calculated acts of deliberate savagery and people who commit them are not fit to set foot in society again, let alone when even more capable of causing carnage.

You really blow hot and cold Darkfalz – this is another example of an excellent post by you, in contrast with some of the truly miserable contributions you sometimes make.

Are there two Darkfalzes?

Thumper said :

IrishPete said :

Thumper said :

IrishPete said :

Thumper said :

IrishPete said :

dkNigs said :

Ah 17 year olds, mature enough to be allowed to make the decision to join the military and kill for their country, but not mature enough to understand murder is wrong.

Indeed, you are right. The recruiting age for the military is out of sync with the rest of society. I believe the United Nations considers 17 year olds to be Child Soldiers.

We will train you to kill, but you’re not allowed to buy a beer or cigarettes. Or vote.

I would suggest the military should recruit mature adults (well into their twenties).

IP

Except that 17 year olds are not allowed to serve in warzones.

Relevance? If Australia had any morality we wouldn’t be in any war zones anyway.

It is the training to kill that is the problem, less so the actual killing since all war represents a failure of diplomacy.

IP

Relevance?

Mate, you were the one banging on about 17 year olds being considered child soldiers.

Incorrect. The military angle was first raised by dkNigs.

IP

And you happily equated the reference to child soldiers.

Which in the context of Australia is utterly incorrect.

I should add that your idea that all soldiers are all trained killers is completely and utterly laughable. Have you ever served? Most just wear a unifrom and know how to march, salute and fire a weapon once a year at the range. It’s only fighting corp that are so called ‘trained killers’.

“Which in the context of Australia is utterly incorrect.” Incorrect again. A soldier is a soldier. Saying they don’t get sent to war zones does not make them not a soldier. Do they get retrained at 18 so they can be sent to another unnecessary war?

So let’s start again. Someone made the comparison of the age of adult criminal responsibility with the age at which someone can join the army. And I questioned the legitimacy of that comparison.

Also see post 33.

IP

Tooks said :

It’s difficult to properly judge how appropriate a sentence is without either sitting in on the sentencing itself, or reading the transcript. Sentencing is a very complex process which takes a lot of factors into consideration. Obviously the fact he is a juvenile and he pleaded guilty are two factors which had a big impact on the sentence in this case.

Having said that, I think most people would find this sentence ridiculously lenient, but I expected him to serve a minimum of 12-15 years so it’s not that far off my expectations. Personally, I think all murders should come with a life sentence and the only chance for parole would be if the offender enters a guilty plea, but that’s never going to happen.

I have to say that I agree completely with this first paragraph. I do think it would be an unimaginable task to balance everything here. Complex indeed. Wise words tooks.

GardeningGirl said :

Very disappointing.
I see two problems, the inconsistencies with when people are considered adult enough for what, and the idea that it all suddenly changes at midnight on a certain day.

Agreed. 2 months from his 18th birthday and he’s probably halved the sentence he would have got. Probably feels like he won the lottery. I think to back to that Skaf rapist Mohammed Sanoussi who was freed recently. His lawyer, a typical long haired hippie GreensLabor voting social justice type who no doubt sees his “client” as the victim, was asked if he’d changed while inside. His response? “Yes, he’s about three times the size he was when he went in”. If that’s not enough to chill one’s blood, I don’t know what is. Similarly, this guy is going to get out of prison in 10 years, twice the size, angry that some “slope” had cost him 10 years of his life, hardened by the criminals he’ll meet inside (many of whom will probably be impressed by his choice of victim) and our legal system is really going to say he’s an acceptable risk to society? It’s just insane. These aren’t crimes of passion or even opportunity. They are calculated acts of deliberate savagery and people who commit them are not fit to set foot in society again, let alone when even more capable of causing carnage.

neanderthalsis said :

Capital punishment has a 100% success rate in preventing recidivism.

.

So does life in prison where life actually means life. You’re never going to stop people doing truly evil, savage things. No number of marches or promises of rehabilitation will prevent the existence of people for whom laws and the rights of other people to live in peace have no meaning. You can’t shame sociopaths and psychopaths into being good law abiding citizens. All you can do is try to prevent them being able to carry out their evil desires, and if they manage it anyway, make sure they are never a danger to society again by either putting them away for life (meaning until they die in prison) or executing them. There’s no rehabilitation for the Lewis Schmidts and Adrian Baileys of the world – there is only the responsibility to protect society from them.

IrishPete said :

Thumper said :

IrishPete said :

Thumper said :

IrishPete said :

dkNigs said :

Ah 17 year olds, mature enough to be allowed to make the decision to join the military and kill for their country, but not mature enough to understand murder is wrong.

Indeed, you are right. The recruiting age for the military is out of sync with the rest of society. I believe the United Nations considers 17 year olds to be Child Soldiers.

We will train you to kill, but you’re not allowed to buy a beer or cigarettes. Or vote.

I would suggest the military should recruit mature adults (well into their twenties).

IP

Except that 17 year olds are not allowed to serve in warzones.

Relevance? If Australia had any morality we wouldn’t be in any war zones anyway.

It is the training to kill that is the problem, less so the actual killing since all war represents a failure of diplomacy.

IP

Relevance?

Mate, you were the one banging on about 17 year olds being considered child soldiers.

Incorrect. The military angle was first raised by dkNigs.

IP

And you happily equated the reference to child soldiers.

Which in the context of Australia is utterly incorrect.

I should add that your idea that all soldiers are all trained killers is completely and utterly laughable. Have you ever served? Most just wear a unifrom and know how to march, salute and fire a weapon once a year at the range. It’s only fighting corp that are so called ‘trained killers’.

IrishPete said :

Relevance? If Australia had any morality we wouldn’t be in any war zones anyway.
IP

Hmmm…My next door neighbour about 15 years ago served in East Timor as a peace-keeper, trying to look after the locals. Him and a couple of his mates duked it out hand to hand with a bunch of Indonesian sponsored hoods, and then then legged it into the weeds moments before a grenade came through the window of their house and blew it to hell. He was almost killed trying to protect people for no other reason than it was his duty to do so.

Those guys were in a war zone, trying to help people and doing good. I know several other people, including my next door neighbor, who’ve served in honorable roles in East Timor, The Solomon Islands and Afghanistan at risk of their lives.

If you’re suggesting that their sacrifices (and believe it, they have made sacrifices) are without a moral basis then I’d suggest that you simply don’t know what you’re on about.

Thumper said :

IrishPete said :

Thumper said :

IrishPete said :

dkNigs said :

Ah 17 year olds, mature enough to be allowed to make the decision to join the military and kill for their country, but not mature enough to understand murder is wrong.

Indeed, you are right. The recruiting age for the military is out of sync with the rest of society. I believe the United Nations considers 17 year olds to be Child Soldiers.

We will train you to kill, but you’re not allowed to buy a beer or cigarettes. Or vote.

I would suggest the military should recruit mature adults (well into their twenties).

IP

Except that 17 year olds are not allowed to serve in warzones.

Relevance? If Australia had any morality we wouldn’t be in any war zones anyway.

It is the training to kill that is the problem, less so the actual killing since all war represents a failure of diplomacy.

IP

Relevance?

Mate, you were the one banging on about 17 year olds being considered child soldiers.

Incorrect. The military angle was first raised by dkNigs.

IP

IrishPete said :

Thumper said :

IrishPete said :

dkNigs said :

Ah 17 year olds, mature enough to be allowed to make the decision to join the military and kill for their country, but not mature enough to understand murder is wrong.

Indeed, you are right. The recruiting age for the military is out of sync with the rest of society. I believe the United Nations considers 17 year olds to be Child Soldiers.

We will train you to kill, but you’re not allowed to buy a beer or cigarettes. Or vote.

I would suggest the military should recruit mature adults (well into their twenties).

IP

Except that 17 year olds are not allowed to serve in warzones.

Relevance? If Australia had any morality we wouldn’t be in any war zones anyway.

It is the training to kill that is the problem, less so the actual killing since all war represents a failure of diplomacy.

IP

Yes, let’s disband our military and instead re-train them all to be diplomats.

You really do live inside a magical wonderland inside your head, right Pete?

IrishPete said :

Thumper said :

IrishPete said :

dkNigs said :

Ah 17 year olds, mature enough to be allowed to make the decision to join the military and kill for their country, but not mature enough to understand murder is wrong.

Indeed, you are right. The recruiting age for the military is out of sync with the rest of society. I believe the United Nations considers 17 year olds to be Child Soldiers.

We will train you to kill, but you’re not allowed to buy a beer or cigarettes. Or vote.

I would suggest the military should recruit mature adults (well into their twenties).

IP

Except that 17 year olds are not allowed to serve in warzones.

Relevance? If Australia had any morality we wouldn’t be in any war zones anyway.

It is the training to kill that is the problem, less so the actual killing since all war represents a failure of diplomacy.

IP

Relevance?

Mate, you were the one banging on about 17 year olds being considered child soldiers.

Thumper said :

IrishPete said :

dkNigs said :

Ah 17 year olds, mature enough to be allowed to make the decision to join the military and kill for their country, but not mature enough to understand murder is wrong.

Indeed, you are right. The recruiting age for the military is out of sync with the rest of society. I believe the United Nations considers 17 year olds to be Child Soldiers.

We will train you to kill, but you’re not allowed to buy a beer or cigarettes. Or vote.

I would suggest the military should recruit mature adults (well into their twenties).

IP

Except that 17 year olds are not allowed to serve in warzones.

Relevance? If Australia had any morality we wouldn’t be in any war zones anyway.

It is the training to kill that is the problem, less so the actual killing since all war represents a failure of diplomacy.

IP

IrishPete said :

dkNigs said :

Ah 17 year olds, mature enough to be allowed to make the decision to join the military and kill for their country, but not mature enough to understand murder is wrong.

Indeed, you are right. The recruiting age for the military is out of sync with the rest of society. I believe the United Nations considers 17 year olds to be Child Soldiers.

We will train you to kill, but you’re not allowed to buy a beer or cigarettes. Or vote.

I would suggest the military should recruit mature adults (well into their twenties).

IP

Except that 17 year olds are not allowed to serve in warzones.