8 October 2013

Northbourne murderer gets 10 years

| johnboy
Join the conversation
76

The ABC has the news on the sentencing of a man who can’t be named because he was a juvenille when he brutally murdered Liang Zhao on Northbourne Avenue in 2011:

Today in the ACT Supreme Court, Acting Chief Justice Richard Refshauge sentenced the 19-year-old to 17 years jail.

But under ACT law he will be released after 10 years and six months, and placed on a six-and-a-half year good behaviour order.

Taylor Lewis Schmidt will be sentenced at the end of the month for his part.

Join the conversation

76
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Stevian said :

Robertson 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 :

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?

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?

IrishPete said :

IrishPete 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

Lookout Smithers6:24 pm 14 Oct 13

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 :

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.

IrishPete 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

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:45 pm 13 Oct 13

IrishPete 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 :

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

Queen_of_the_Bun1:54 pm 12 Oct 13

Robertson said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Sure they’ll be chuffed with Australian justice when they hear the human garbage that murdered their son will be out in a little more than 10 years.

How long should he get?

In China, he would be executed. The taxpayer and the law-abiding citizen would both be better served by this approach.

By that reasoning, we should import the legal systems of all our migrants. Sharia law anyone?

I don’t think the mother has called for anyone to be executed. There was a lot of news commentary about how she would have been expecting the death penalty given that’s what would have applied in China. However, we don’t know why she and her family chose to leave to China for Australia. Maybe for a better life in a country with a fairer legal system?

GardeningGirl12:30 pm 12 Oct 13

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.

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

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.

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.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

The evidence does clearly show that having a death penalty in place does not lower rates of crime of crime for the most serious offences. But guess what, I honestly don’t give a flying feck about the evidence.

And we finally get to the truth. You don’t care about justice. You want retribution. You want the level of retribution to be set by an angry mob. You’d fit in well in 1950s Alabama. You must feel proud.

I dare you to go for a walk every night in Charnwood and Northbourne for a month

I walked Northbourne at night for lot longer than that, but thanks for more pointless speculation!

Let’s wrap up shall we?

Number of you who know anything about the law: zero.
Evidence you have to support your claims that harsh sentencing reduces crime: zero.
Number of you who can articulate a better sentencing regime: zero.
Number of you who actually know anything about the effect of sentencing on juvenile recidivism (your ‘omg he’ll kill again’ argument): zero. (This is the funniest one, because if you all had your way, there’s a pretty good chance he’d be more likely to reoffend, not less.)

Total sum of your claims: we’re angry, we’re a mob, burn him. You can hide behind words like ‘community’ and ‘society’ all you like. You’re the antithesis of both.

Stay home and tremble. Leave the hard decisions to rational adults who do care about evidence, and justice.

Mob mentality? Why don’t you just be quiet and stop being a troll?

People are asking you to state your reasons on why you think this sentencing is suitable yet you have nothing to say. Who is the fool here? Whoever you are in real life or whoever you think You are defending, you have failed to put your case forward and you shall from this point onwards be know as a troll who has no compassion.

You think we represent a mob mentality yet overwhelmingly, people who have commented have put forward very smart arguments on why they think this sentencing is horrible. Except you. Someone who has no credibility. Some one who has failed to convince anyone of your absurd and immature views. Someone who think his views are the only right views and failed to accept anything others have to say.

You would make a great dictator one day and one day, when you get overthrown and get mobbed, then come and explain to us how you still think your justice system in your fairy world works so well.

No justice system is perfect and only by taking onboard community feedback will it improve. People like you hold back society and progress and should be banished to Siberia.

Robertson said :

Linda Cox, similarly, would be alive today, had our justice system locked Justin Monfries up on account of the first three chapters in his long history of committing crimes. He was even found to have been in breach of his parole conditions not long before he killed Linda Cox, without having his parole revoked as it should have been.

On bail, and probably a good behaviour order (I can’t remember) not parole.

Nothing that he had done in the past would have resulted in a significant prison term. Not even the assaults on his girlfriend, probably, as she continued to support him.

Maybe Ms Cox would still be alive, because his offending might have been postponed by some extra prison time, but someone else would have copped it later when he was eventually released. Anyway, he served a lot of time in prison, but on remand waiting for the ACT Courts to make up their minds about whether he was guilty, and then what to do with him when they finally decided he was.

Justice delayed is justice denied – not just for the defendant but for the victims too. Also, basic psychology teaches you that punishments (and rewards) work best if applied promptly. I can’t say for sure this applies to criminal behaviour, I have never seen any research on it, but I can’t see why it would not. Certainty of punishment is another important basic psychological factor, and if you steal cars 100 times and only get caught once (because the police don’t bother responding to most reports, and their clearance rate is abominable), you’re not so likely to stop offending.

If you want to lock up ever car thief and domestic violence offender for life, you are going to have to pay a whole lot more in Rates to build and operate a whole lot more prisons.

IP

neanderthalsis said :

You don’t care about justice. You want retribution.

I care a lot about justice. Justice for the victims and their families, not just for the perpetrators.

This is the funniest one, because if you all had your way, there’s a pretty good chance he’d be more likely to reoffend, not less.

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

.

Including recidivism by the many innocent people wrongly executed, or rescued at the last moment from years or decades on Death Row.

Oh hang on, that would be cidivism not recidivism.

In the USA, they are almost always from minority ethnic groups, (Latino, African American or Native American’s to use their terminology).

IP

neanderthalsis9:43 am 11 Oct 13

You don’t care about justice. You want retribution.

I care a lot about justice. Justice for the victims and their families, not just for the perpetrators.

This is the funniest one, because if you all had your way, there’s a pretty good chance he’d be more likely to reoffend, not less.

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

.

Woody Mann-Caruso9:09 am 11 Oct 13

The evidence does clearly show that having a death penalty in place does not lower rates of crime of crime for the most serious offences. But guess what, I honestly don’t give a flying feck about the evidence.

And we finally get to the truth. You don’t care about justice. You want retribution. You want the level of retribution to be set by an angry mob. You’d fit in well in 1950s Alabama. You must feel proud.

I dare you to go for a walk every night in Charnwood and Northbourne for a month

I walked Northbourne at night for lot longer than that, but thanks for more pointless speculation!

Let’s wrap up shall we?

Number of you who know anything about the law: zero.
Evidence you have to support your claims that harsh sentencing reduces crime: zero.
Number of you who can articulate a better sentencing regime: zero.
Number of you who actually know anything about the effect of sentencing on juvenile recidivism (your ‘omg he’ll kill again’ argument): zero. (This is the funniest one, because if you all had your way, there’s a pretty good chance he’d be more likely to reoffend, not less.)

Total sum of your claims: we’re angry, we’re a mob, burn him. You can hide behind words like ‘community’ and ‘society’ all you like. You’re the antithesis of both.

Stay home and tremble. Leave the hard decisions to rational adults who do care about evidence, and justice.

neanderthalsis8:48 am 11 Oct 13

.First, I don’t have to show why the sentence was fair. The weight of evidence is on my side. You need to show why it wasn’t.

So you call for evidence, claim you have all the evidence, all that is right and the blind hand of justice on your side on your side, but care not to share it with us poor yokels? I’d expect something a little better from you WMC…

The evidence does clearly show that having a death penalty in place does not lower rates of crime of crime for the most serious offences. But guess what, I honestly don’t give a flying feck about the evidence. As I stated earlier, I do believe that we as a society need to rid ourselves of the vermin who believe that they can do as they please and not take any responsibility for their actions. If having a death penalty in place makes one person stop and think twice about killing another, then it has done its job.

Is it a fair swap to take the life of a 19 yo murderer in recompense for the death of a bright young student? I’m certain that Liang Zhao would have contributed much more to society than the un-named scum that killed him, so it is not a fair swap, not even close. But it will mean that he won’t wake up one morning again and say to a mate “let’s go kill an Asian”.

Its quite clear that WMC has never been the victim of a serious crime, and I’m guessing from his display of overwhelming compassion, that none of his closest family members have been either.
Its lovely to know that he is strolling the streets of Canberra happily. Liang Zhao will never have the chance to enjoy that feeling ever again, through no fault of his own.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Are you a racist Woody?

What’s it like living with the sort of brain that equates a respect for the opinions of learned experts – opinions that underpin our enjoyable lives in one of the world’s safest civilisations ever – with being a racist? I mean, I imagine that sort of ignorance must afford you a special sort of bliss, but then I also suppose that you wouldn’t be smart enough to notice or enjoy it.

Anyone’s life is worth more than 10 years.

Except the 17 year old who you want to be executed, presumably.

By community expectations which is what propels society forward

‘Community expectations’? What are they, pray tell? I mean, I’m a member of the community, but you’d happily ignore my views. How fortunate that we don’t have to leave important decisions up to mob rule, but instead rely on our learned elders to dispense justice in an even-handed fashion under a constitutional separation of powers. Whoops, I dun used more legal mambo jumbo, din I?

this doesn’t sound very fair

That’s why we have appeals.

doesn’t bode confidence in the ACT legal system

Look around. Are you afraid for your life? Legal system seems to be working fine and dandy to me. Do call when you’ve got actual evidence to the contrary.

I’ve always believed limp-wristed lefties

Oh, a fag joke from Mr Robertson. How very, very predictable. Would you like to see gay people shipped off to China too, my pompous friend?

like WMC secretly wish for society to collapse

Funny, I thought it was you and neanderthalis claiming that without the death penalty we’d have chaos. I don’t expect society to collapse any time soon, and certainly not because a judge used common sense when sentencing a juvenile.

If you have reasons why you think this sentence is fair, please share it with us. Please be specific and not resort to legal mambo jumbo.

First, I don’t have to show why the sentence was fair. The weight of evidence is on my side. You need to show why it wasn’t. You need to explain why you were better apprised of the evidence than the judge, and better placed to interpret it, and better placed to give sentence.

Second, if you expect people to discuss the law without ‘legal mambo jumbo’ (what is that, exactly? An elephant with a 90s dance hit?), you’re going to have a bad time.

Anyways, I’m off to wander the streets for the afternoon, safe and secure in my person, thankful that I live in an ordered society without the death penalty, and in which none of you have any power to influence or change anything whatsoever. Keep ragin’ against the machine, though! Hundreds of jobs in talkback radio and home security depend on your childish, irrational fears.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Are you a racist Woody?

What’s it like living with the sort of brain that equates a respect for the opinions of learned experts – opinions that underpin our enjoyable lives in one of the world’s safest civilisations ever – with being a racist? I mean, I imagine that sort of ignorance must afford you a special sort of bliss, but then I also suppose that you wouldn’t be smart enough to notice or enjoy it.

Anyone’s life is worth more than 10 years.

Except the 17 year old who you want to be executed, presumably.

By community expectations which is what propels society forward

‘Community expectations’? What are they, pray tell? I mean, I’m a member of the community, but you’d happily ignore my views. How fortunate that we don’t have to leave important decisions up to mob rule, but instead rely on our learned elders to dispense justice in an even-handed fashion under a constitutional separation of powers. Whoops, I dun used more legal mambo jumbo, din I?

this doesn’t sound very fair

That’s why we have appeals.

doesn’t bode confidence in the ACT legal system

Look around. Are you afraid for your life? Legal system seems to be working fine and dandy to me. Do call when you’ve got actual evidence to the contrary.

I’ve always believed limp-wristed lefties

Oh, a fag joke from Mr Robertson. How very, very predictable. Would you like to see gay people shipped off to China too, my pompous friend?

like WMC secretly wish for society to collapse

Funny, I thought it was you and neanderthalis claiming that without the death penalty we’d have chaos. I don’t expect society to collapse any time soon, and certainly not because a judge used common sense when sentencing a juvenile.

If you have reasons why you think this sentence is fair, please share it with us. Please be specific and not resort to legal mambo jumbo.

First, I don’t have to show why the sentence was fair. The weight of evidence is on my side. You need to show why it wasn’t. You need to explain why you were better apprised of the evidence than the judge, and better placed to interpret it, and better placed to give sentence.

Second, if you expect people to discuss the law without ‘legal mambo jumbo’ (what is that, exactly? An elephant with a 90s dance hit?), you’re going to have a bad time.

Anyways, I’m off to wander the streets for the afternoon, safe and secure in my person, thankful that I live in an ordered society without the death penalty, and in which none of you have any power to influence or change anything whatsoever. Keep ragin’ against the machine, though! Hundreds of jobs in talkback radio and home security depend on your childish, irrational fears.

You sound like a troll. If you don’t mean to be a troll, you still sound like one which kinds of reflects your intelligence. Not that I wish it to be the case, it’s easy enough for you to stand by and type what you are typing instead of feeling the anger and sorrow when one of your relatives or descendants gets their skull bashed in and the perpetrator only gets 17 years with a chance of getting out in 10. Stop trolling because this can happen and you will look back and feel like an idiot… It could be anyone you know, your mum? Dad? Grandparents? Think about this for a minute.

As for your comments against mine, they are just lame. Community opinion so far shows people think this sentence is a horrible one. I have sought your comment on why you think it’s just yet you say something lame like I would ignore your views. Noooo, I asked for your views yet you didn’t say anything. Kinda lame on your end. As for afraid of my life, yes I do after reading this sentencing. I feel that criminals will be boldened by this horrible sentencing and I am now more cautious than ever and so should you. I dare you to go for a walk every night in Charnwood and Northbourne for a month. Then come back and tell us how safe you feel. Haha, if your skull is still intact.

Stop trolling.

Woody Mann-Caruso5:59 pm 10 Oct 13

It does in some small way explain

What small way is that? It must be a very, very small way indeed if you can simply look at a country like the US, which has the death penalty, but has all of those omg so scary things you mention and more – much, much more.

Explain again, with evidence, how the death penalty lowers overall rates of violent crime. Hey, I’ll settle for ‘the death penalty is cheaper than life in prison’. (If you’d like the answer, it’s “you can’t, because there isn’t any such evidence”. Probably best you just hide under your doona and gibber with terror. Perhaps Robertson could join you?)

Holden Caulfield5:07 pm 10 Oct 13

obamabinladen said :

^^^ here here!

Where, where?

neanderthalsis1:39 pm 10 Oct 13

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Remove this incomprehensible agent from the world and at that very moment order gives way to chaos, thrones topple and society disappears.

So that’s why Canberra resembles Mogadishu, with gangs of machete-wielding rapists roaming the public streets, lit by flaming 44-gallon drums. It’s because we don’t have the death penalty.

I’m ever so afraid, Mummy, of everybody and everything. Why can’t we be more like countries that have the death penalty like China and the US where nobody ever hurts anybody, nobody innocent ever gets the needle, and the prisons are empty?

It does in some small way explain why a 17 year old can hack a man to death in broad daylight; or why gangs of youth can rape young girls in the suburbs and only face a few years in pokey; or why a man can rape again and again, receive lenient sentences and be let loose to do it all again. Obviously the rehabilitation system worked well for him.

I am not afraid of the bad men that lurk in the shadows, I just realise that society needs an enema to rid ourselves of the scum that people like you have encouraged to fester.

Woody Mann-Caruso1:35 pm 10 Oct 13

Are you a racist Woody?

What’s it like living with the sort of brain that equates a respect for the opinions of learned experts – opinions that underpin our enjoyable lives in one of the world’s safest civilisations ever – with being a racist? I mean, I imagine that sort of ignorance must afford you a special sort of bliss, but then I also suppose that you wouldn’t be smart enough to notice or enjoy it.

Anyone’s life is worth more than 10 years.

Except the 17 year old who you want to be executed, presumably.

By community expectations which is what propels society forward

‘Community expectations’? What are they, pray tell? I mean, I’m a member of the community, but you’d happily ignore my views. How fortunate that we don’t have to leave important decisions up to mob rule, but instead rely on our learned elders to dispense justice in an even-handed fashion under a constitutional separation of powers. Whoops, I dun used more legal mambo jumbo, din I?

this doesn’t sound very fair

That’s why we have appeals.

doesn’t bode confidence in the ACT legal system

Look around. Are you afraid for your life? Legal system seems to be working fine and dandy to me. Do call when you’ve got actual evidence to the contrary.

I’ve always believed limp-wristed lefties

Oh, a fag joke from Mr Robertson. How very, very predictable. Would you like to see gay people shipped off to China too, my pompous friend?

like WMC secretly wish for society to collapse

Funny, I thought it was you and neanderthalis claiming that without the death penalty we’d have chaos. I don’t expect society to collapse any time soon, and certainly not because a judge used common sense when sentencing a juvenile.

If you have reasons why you think this sentence is fair, please share it with us. Please be specific and not resort to legal mambo jumbo.

First, I don’t have to show why the sentence was fair. The weight of evidence is on my side. You need to show why it wasn’t. You need to explain why you were better apprised of the evidence than the judge, and better placed to interpret it, and better placed to give sentence.

Second, if you expect people to discuss the law without ‘legal mambo jumbo’ (what is that, exactly? An elephant with a 90s dance hit?), you’re going to have a bad time.

Anyways, I’m off to wander the streets for the afternoon, safe and secure in my person, thankful that I live in an ordered society without the death penalty, and in which none of you have any power to influence or change anything whatsoever. Keep ragin’ against the machine, though! Hundreds of jobs in talkback radio and home security depend on your childish, irrational fears.

johnboy said :

Hard cases make bad law.

But it seems clear Victoria is making changes to its parole laws.

I’m not clear on what you mean by “hard cases”.

The point is that habitual criminals’ crimes can be prevented if those criminals are permanently removed from society as soon as the habituality of their criminal inclinations is identified.

Linda Cox, similarly, would be alive today, had our justice system locked Justin Monfries up on account of the first three chapters in his long history of committing crimes. He was even found to have been in breach of his parole conditions not long before he killed Linda Cox, without having his parole revoked as it should have been.

obamabinladen said :

@ objective what sentence would you have handed down? If it was me I would’ve given him 30 years with a non parol period of 25 years. You take a life you deserve to lose a life!

Honestly, I know enough to know that that I can’t answer that question. Sentencing for juveniles is incredibly difficult, especially with such serious offenses. Without being in the shoes of the Judge and having analyzed the case myself, it would be foolish to throw a number out there – which is exactly what people are doing.

The person in the best position to make judgements regarding sentencing is, surprise surprise, the judge. Most qualified, most information, heard the trial, etcetc. All this nonsense and whinging about the ACT courts being unfair is generally made by people with zero legal training/experience. Ultimately they just look ignorant and foolish.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

So that’s why Canberra resembles Mogadishu, with gangs of machete-wielding rapists roaming the public streets, lit by flaming 44-gallon drums. It’s because we don’t have the death penalty.

I’ve always believed limp-wristed lefties like WMC secretly wish for society to collapse as a reult of the marxist indoctrination they receive at Uni, and here is WMC’s fantasy to support my belief.

Lookout Smithers said :

Got what he deserved. No more time in jail helps anyone …..Prison has no direct affect on crime rates or deterrence for would be offenders. 2 years or 50 doesn’t make it more or less easy to deal with and wouldn’t please everyone anyway..

OK genius, if Adrian Bayley had been thrown in gaol for ever following his first three rape convictions, would Jill Meagher be:
a) Dead
b) alive
?

For bonus points, if Bayley had not been let out on parole in 2012 after serving just 22 months of his 5-year sentence for 5 additional rapes, would Jill Meagher be:
a) alive
b) dead
?

And for extra points, if Bayley had had his parole revoked after committing a criminal assault in 2012, would Jill Meagher be,
a) Alive
b) Dead

?

Hard cases make bad law.

But it seems clear Victoria is making changes to its parole laws.

obamabinladen said :

^^^ here here!

Where?

obamabinladen said :

@ objective what sentence would you have handed down? If it was me I would’ve given him 30 years with a non parol period of 25 years. You take a life you deserve to lose a life!

In 25 years, he would be approx 43, hardly DEAD! UNless he gets shafted whilst in jail…

Lookout Smithers11:06 pm 09 Oct 13

Got what he deserved. No more time in jail helps anyone if its risky for us all when a person is released with a propensity for offending more likely due to mismanaging the risk. Lives lost to murders can’t ever be compensated or reversed. Sentencing doesn’t attempt to do ether, not specifically to any single case. Its intended to consider everyone on the whole. Its easy to get confused about this and place the time sentenced next to a real person. Prison has no direct affect on crime rates or deterrence for would be offenders. 2 years or 50 doesn’t make it more or less easy to deal with and wouldn’t please everyone anyway. The important thing is to always grant others compassion and remember that it is hurt people who hurt people. Its to easy to complain about outcomes but offer nothing else in place of it. Very insensitive to the victims I feel. Lets all get passed it and be thankful for the rarity that murders are here.

obamabinladen10:44 pm 09 Oct 13

^^^ here here!

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Sure they’ll be chuffed with Australian justice when they hear the human garbage that murdered their son will be out in a little more than 10 years.

How long should he get? How would you defend your arbitrary number to somebody who thinks it should be smaller or larger? Or do we just lock up everybody who commits a crime forever and ever?

Don’t you know that at 17 years and 10 months old, you’re an innocent snowflake that can’t be held completely responsible for your actions

Please, enlighten us about at what age you think somebody should be able to be tried as an adult. I’m sure you have some sort of amazing system that’s never occurred to legal experts anywhere, ever. I imagine it’s something with a sound grounding in child and juvenile psychiatry and that gives effect to the multitude of desirable outcomes of just sentencing, like ‘he dun sumfink rooly bad hes a grronup lok him up 4 eva becoz peeopl are sad now’.

Having spent quite a number of years working with youths who have been churned through the justice system I’d like to think that I have a working understanding of, (a) the law and (b) why it very rightly and properly treats juveniles differently.

Then why do you think he should be tried as an adult? Which part of the word ‘adult’ as a legal term is confusing you? Is it the ‘a’? Perhaps it’s the ‘d’?

purile social latitudinarianism

Did you mean ‘puerile’? Maybe put a bit more brain power into the short words, and less into ‘latitudinarianism’.

But please, bro, keep raging. I’m sure they’ll change the law, the perp will get the death penalty, the victim will come back to life, sentencing will be based on community outrage, and your years of working with youths will be the same as a law degree and decades in practice, all because of you writing stuff on the internet.

You sound like a legal purist. A life has been lost yet only 17 years given with a chance the perpetrator will get out in 10 years. By community expectations which is what propels society forward, this doesn’t sound very fair and doesn’t bode confidence in the ACT legal system. If you have reasons why you think this sentence is fair, please share it with us. Please be specific and not resort to legal mambo jumbo.

And oh one day, if and when your son (if you have one) gets his head smashed open by a junior under similar circumstances and the perpetrator gets the same sentence, I would really like to see you say what you are saying now.

Whatever the law maybe, it just doesn’t sound fair given the circumstances no matter what legal stuff you throw around and this is why people are so riled up. You seem so far removed from this situation to feel the anger and disappointment that hovers around. I really wonder why.

I hope an appeal will be put forward. This is just absurd.

This morning I listened to some very educated people on the radio arguing for the legal drinking age to be raised to 21 because the brain is still developing well into your twenties. Based on that, it would be logical to raise the age of becoming an adult for the purposes of the criminal law to 21 (like in Victoria, sort of, where under 21s are treated differently from 21 and overs). And perhaps also driving licences, voting, buying cigarettes and so on.

Personally I think some offences should carry a mandatory life sentence – not necessarily life in prison, but life supervision with the constant prospect of being recalled to prison for reoffending or engaging in behaviour putting you at high risk of reoffending (like drug use, binge drinking and so on). In that scenario I would be more comfortable with the prison term for this guy being 10 years, but the head sentence being life.

I would apply this principle to any offence that causes the loss of a life (including driving offences), and things like serious sexual offences (violent rapes, sexual abuse of young children). We would need a bigger probation (community corrections) service to manage them tightly but that’s much cheaper than prisons, and much more effective. People don’t stop offending in prison, they just have different victims – other prisoners, and prison staff – and while someone will probably say ‘well the other prisoners deserve it” it means it’s not an environment where people learn to behave better. Often the opposite. Go in as a fraudster, come out as a drug addict and bank robber?

Of course, most of this would be academic if illicit drugs were illegal. Oh hang on they are. Well that worked well then.

IP

Woody Mann-Caruso8:22 pm 09 Oct 13

Remove this incomprehensible agent from the world and at that very moment order gives way to chaos, thrones topple and society disappears.

So that’s why Canberra resembles Mogadishu, with gangs of machete-wielding rapists roaming the public streets, lit by flaming 44-gallon drums. It’s because we don’t have the death penalty.

I’m ever so afraid, Mummy, of everybody and everything. Why can’t we be more like countries that have the death penalty like China and the US where nobody ever hurts anybody, nobody innocent ever gets the needle, and the prisons are empty?

Are you a racist Woody? Anyone’s life is worth more than 10 years. I was in the Army longer than 10 years and sure I joined at 17 and the Army was teaching me how to kill people, but I am sure I knew the difference between killing someone on a battlefield and killing someone on Northbourne Avenue.

obamabinladen5:07 pm 09 Oct 13

@ objective what sentence would you have handed down? If it was me I would’ve given him 30 years with a non parol period of 25 years. You take a life you deserve to lose a life!

banco said :

Objective said :

neanderthalsis said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Why was he not tried and sentenced as an adult?

Because he was a juvenile.

He made an adult decision

Juveniles make juvenile decisions.

So you’re saying that a 17yo does not realise that beating a man to death with a baseball bat is wrong?

You know, I would wager that a juvenile could very easily intuitively understand why there is a differentiation between juvenile and adult sentencing. Perhaps you should look inwardly before making more spurious glib comments on the internet about situations and people you are completely ignorant of.

Not to shatter your bubble of faux sophistication but I would hazard a guess that your ignorance extends to the effect Liang Zhao’s murder had on his family. Sure they’ll be chuffed with Australian justice when they hear the human garbage that murdered their son will be out in a little more than 10 years.

Let’s not gloss over the details of just how we was murdered either:

“The attack was so brutal that the victim’s skull was broken and crushed, and the brain exposed. He also had multiple incised wounds to his head and arms.”

Really great decision to have this POS back on the streets in a bit over a decade.

My faux sophistication? Thanks for providing a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black.

You obviously have no understanding of legal rights and principles. Not only does the victim have a right to justice, the accused does too. Both must be protected, otherwise the legal system falls apart. This extends to all accused, including alleged sexual offenders.

You yourself have no right to be outraged. You’re projecting your sophistic personal values onto people you are far removed from. You would make a horrible judge.

Furthermore, as mentioned by a couple of people already, there is growing evidence that supports treatment as opposed to prison.

Ultimately, you’re looking for something in your day to get mad about and whinge. Saying ‘oh how unfair this world is!’ while sipping your cafe latte. Then you go home to your privileged life, feeling better about yourself because you’re so much better than the uneducated folks in the judicial system.

Get over yourself.

Feng said :

Justice has been served albeit poorly. While I am disappointed, his life is pretty much ruined and I doubt he will ever get a decent job anywhere after he has come out of jail. He will live with this record and shame forever and one day, he will get what is coming to him as well. Karma sucks.

If only that were true. He will probably wear it like a badge of honor and think he is the toughest “sick” c*n# out cause he killed someone. Vile filth.

And as for the comment about going after the parents: on a case by case basis please. Some apples drop and roll all the way to a completely different tree and you just can’t roll them back

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Like I mentioned above, the countries/jurisdictions that spring to mind when thinking about employing the death penalty are certainly not more orderly and crime-free, they are the opposite.

You’ve used correlation to get the causation the wrong way around.

Putting criminals down, or putting them in prison for long sentences prevents them from committing further crimes. Worked in New York,
In 1990, the city could claim nearly 10 percent of all U.S. murders. That year, the city’s most violent, 2,245 people were murdered. In 2012, the city reported 419 murders, just 3 percent of U.S. murders.
http://nation.time.com/2013/09/27/murders-dip-everywhere-but-nyc-in-a-league-of-its-own/

and worked in California:
http://www.threestrikes.org/fbi_crimerates_pg1.html

Funny how much comment centres on the bad guy, isn’t it?

The value society places on the victims of crime is the value it places on you. The reason you have not been a victim of crime is pure luck. There’s nothing special about you. If you’re the target, if it’s you in the wrong place at the wrong time, if someone decides you’re tonight’s party then realistically, what could you do about it? Yell out? Plead? Use logic?
Put your imaginings aside. You can’t fight, you don’t carry a weapon (you’re not allowed), you don’t have the physical and mental training and the bad guy has the advantage of surprise – you don’t even believe it can happen to you.

Look at the sentences handed down – that’s what’s you’re worth. QED.

Ghettosmurf8711:33 am 09 Oct 13

Mysteryman said :

Don’t you know that at 17 years and 10 months old, you’re an innocent snowflake that can’t be held completely responsible for your actions because you can’t possibly know for certain the difference between right and wrong, or acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

But 3 months later you can. Almost magically everything changes and immediately, on the day of your 18th birthday, you become completely aware of your actions and consequences.

Duh.

At this point in time, the line drawn to distinguish between an adult and a juvenile is 18 years of age. By all means there can be arguments made that the line should be either lower or higher, but you will always have a line, either set through legislation or formed through precedent. If you pick and choose then you are simply bending to public outrage, something that is not always particularly rational and then you end up with inequity (or more inequity) within the system.

As long as there is a line, there will be cases of people who fall JUST below said line and therefore are sentenced as juveniles when 2 or 3 months later they’d be deemed adults. Do you have a proposal to avoid this situation occuring no matter where the line is?

Robertson said :

It is high time our society stopped looking for excuses for *not* locking up criminal scum, and instead used every means possible to lock up criminal scum on any excuse that can be found. A vastly increased prison population is the best means of reducing crime (and from preventing criminals from breeding more criminals).

Is there any actual evidence to back this up? The countries that spring to mind when you talk about increased prison populations have exactly the opposite crime situation, being that they have far increased crime levels to go with the ever increasing prison population. Think USA, Brazil, etc.

neanderthalsis said :

A man much wiser than I once said:
All grandeur, all power, all subordination to authority rests on the executioner: he is the horror and the bond of human association. Remove this incomprehensible agent from the world and at that very moment order gives way to chaos, thrones topple and society disappears. (Joseph de Maistre)

Everyone sing along:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWdxezzDHKo

Randomly quoting famous people who once said something is not the basis for the making of laws to govern our society. There are plenty of other famous people out there that have probably said the opposite too.

Like I mentioned above, the countries/jurisdictions that spring to mind when thinking about employing the death penalty are certainly not more orderly and crime-free, they are the opposite.

Stevian said :

Go live in China if you love it so much

(Eerily similar to the refrain often heard by these two criminals at home as they grew up. Bravo.)

I would love it if we could pack Taylor Schmidt and his mate with the similarly bogan name off to China and outsource our criminal justice system to the Chinese.

neanderthalsis10:41 am 09 Oct 13

A man much wiser than I once said:
All grandeur, all power, all subordination to authority rests on the executioner: he is the horror and the bond of human association. Remove this incomprehensible agent from the world and at that very moment order gives way to chaos, thrones topple and society disappears. (Joseph de Maistre)

Everyone sing along:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWdxezzDHKo

Robertson said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Sure they’ll be chuffed with Australian justice when they hear the human garbage that murdered their son will be out in a little more than 10 years.

How long should he get?

In China, he would be executed. The taxpayer and the law-abiding citizen would both be better served by this approach.

Go live in China if you love it so much

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Sure they’ll be chuffed with Australian justice when they hear the human garbage that murdered their son will be out in a little more than 10 years.

How long should he get?

In China, he would be executed. The taxpayer and the law-abiding citizen would both be better served by this approach.

Woody Mann-Caruso9:33 am 09 Oct 13

Sure they’ll be chuffed with Australian justice when they hear the human garbage that murdered their son will be out in a little more than 10 years.

How long should he get? How would you defend your arbitrary number to somebody who thinks it should be smaller or larger? Or do we just lock up everybody who commits a crime forever and ever?

Don’t you know that at 17 years and 10 months old, you’re an innocent snowflake that can’t be held completely responsible for your actions

Please, enlighten us about at what age you think somebody should be able to be tried as an adult. I’m sure you have some sort of amazing system that’s never occurred to legal experts anywhere, ever. I imagine it’s something with a sound grounding in child and juvenile psychiatry and that gives effect to the multitude of desirable outcomes of just sentencing, like ‘he dun sumfink rooly bad hes a grronup lok him up 4 eva becoz peeopl are sad now’.

Having spent quite a number of years working with youths who have been churned through the justice system I’d like to think that I have a working understanding of, (a) the law and (b) why it very rightly and properly treats juveniles differently.

Then why do you think he should be tried as an adult? Which part of the word ‘adult’ as a legal term is confusing you? Is it the ‘a’? Perhaps it’s the ‘d’?

purile social latitudinarianism

Did you mean ‘puerile’? Maybe put a bit more brain power into the short words, and less into ‘latitudinarianism’.

But please, bro, keep raging. I’m sure they’ll change the law, the perp will get the death penalty, the victim will come back to life, sentencing will be based on community outrage, and your years of working with youths will be the same as a law degree and decades in practice, all because of you writing stuff on the internet.

It seems strange to me that this scumbag is not considered mature enough to be treated as an adult by the law for his crime, but is considered mature enough to be in unsupervised control of a car.

Pork Hunt said :

When was the last time the prosecution appealed against a lenient sentence?

Considering the Judge failed to consider the race-hatred aspect of the attack as a particularly vile aggravating factor, I would very much like to see the DPP appeal this sentence.

Bear in mind the Sydney gang rapists (who didn’t kill anybody) received far more serious sentences on the basis of the race-hatred aspect of their crimes.

Furthermore, our A-G needs to look into the family environment this pair grew up in, and figure out a way to prosecute parents who are accessories to this kind of crime by way of having taught their children the values that leads to it.

It is high time our society stopped looking for excuses for *not* locking up criminal scum, and instead used every means possible to lock up criminal scum on any excuse that can be found. A vastly increased prison population is the best means of reducing crime (and from preventing criminals from breeding more criminals).
(Obviously the least safe and most expensive prison in Australia – the AMC – is not the model I am imagining for locking up all this human refuse.)

neanderthalsis8:56 am 09 Oct 13

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

So you’re saying that a 17yo does not realise that beating a man to death with a baseball bat is wrong?

I’m saying you don’t understand a lot of things about (a) the law and (b) why it very rightly and properly treats juveniles differently. Perhaps you could go Google over at the AIC for a while. You might learn something about how the world really works. (A hint – the justice system is not a playground for you to act out your childish revenge fantasies because you think you know best.)

Having spent quite a number of years working with youths who have been churned through the justice system I’d like to think that I have a working understanding of, (a) the law and (b) why it very rightly and properly treats juveniles differently. Perhaps, WMC, you should step out of your own fug of self righteousness and try a spot of googling, specifically on the purposes of sentencing. One site I would particularly recommend is the NSW Judicial Commission: http://tinyurl.com/nut2udp

(A hint – the justice system is not a playground for you to act out your purile social latitudinarianism because you think you know best.)

neanderthalsis said :

Why was he not tried and sentenced as an adult? He made an adult decision to beat a man to death for the sake of a few dollars, so he should face the consequences, preferably life with no parole.

Don’t you know that at 17 years and 10 months old, you’re an innocent snowflake that can’t be held completely responsible for your actions because you can’t possibly know for certain the difference between right and wrong, or acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

But 3 months later you can. Almost magically everything changes and immediately, on the day of your 18th birthday, you become completely aware of your actions and consequences.

Duh.

What makes this sentence cringe worthy is that the poor victim Liang Zhou RIP, was a complete stranger to these psychos in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is no mitigation whatsoever when two psychos go out and murder someone in cold blood for fun, if this is not the worst category of murder, what is?

Justice has been served albeit poorly. While I am disappointed, his life is pretty much ruined and I doubt he will ever get a decent job anywhere after he has come out of jail. He will live with this record and shame forever and one day, he will get what is coming to him as well. Karma sucks.

Objective said :

neanderthalsis said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Why was he not tried and sentenced as an adult?

Because he was a juvenile.

He made an adult decision

Juveniles make juvenile decisions.

So you’re saying that a 17yo does not realise that beating a man to death with a baseball bat is wrong?

You know, I would wager that a juvenile could very easily intuitively understand why there is a differentiation between juvenile and adult sentencing. Perhaps you should look inwardly before making more spurious glib comments on the internet about situations and people you are completely ignorant of.

Not to shatter your bubble of faux sophistication but I would hazard a guess that your ignorance extends to the effect Liang Zhao’s murder had on his family. Sure they’ll be chuffed with Australian justice when they hear the human garbage that murdered their son will be out in a little more than 10 years.

Let’s not gloss over the details of just how we was murdered either:

“The attack was so brutal that the victim’s skull was broken and crushed, and the brain exposed. He also had multiple incised wounds to his head and arms.”

Really great decision to have this POS back on the streets in a bit over a decade.

When was the last time the prosecution appealed against a lenient sentence?

Woody Mann-Caruso6:47 pm 08 Oct 13

So you’re saying that a 17yo does not realise that beating a man to death with a baseball bat is wrong?

I’m saying you don’t understand a lot of things about (a) the law and (b) why it very rightly and properly treats juveniles differently. Perhaps you could go Google over at the AIC for a while. You might learn something about how the world really works. (A hint – the justice system is not a playground for you to act out your childish revenge fantasies because you think you know best.)

A murderer was sentenced in Queensland today. He got a head sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of twenty years.

I would describe that as a woefully inadequate sentence….there is no word or phrase that can describe this joke perpetrated on the public by the ACT courts.

neanderthalsis said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Why was he not tried and sentenced as an adult?

Because he was a juvenile.

He made an adult decision

Juveniles make juvenile decisions.

So you’re saying that a 17yo does not realise that beating a man to death with a baseball bat is wrong?

You know, I would wager that a juvenile could very easily intuitively understand why there is a differentiation between juvenile and adult sentencing. Perhaps you should look inwardly before making more spurious glib comments on the internet about situations and people you are completely ignorant of.

lostinbias said :

Seems kind of an appropriate sentence given he was a juvenile at the time of the murder. I know some people will disagree with me on this guy but so long as Schmidt gets locked up for a long, long time then this sentence is okay by me.

I should hope they don’t have to let Schmidt out after 10 and a half years.

I just wish they’d gone with the whole 17. There’d be some poetic justice if he spent as long in prison as he’d spent on this Earth up until the time he committed the murder. Does anyone know what law means he has to be released after 10 years? 😮

neanderthalsis3:48 pm 08 Oct 13

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Why was he not tried and sentenced as an adult?

Because he was a juvenile.

He made an adult decision

Juveniles make juvenile decisions.

So you’re saying that a 17yo does not realise that beating a man to death with a baseball bat is wrong?

neanderthalsis said :

Why was he not tried and sentenced as an adult? He made an adult decision to beat a man to death for the sake of a few dollars, so he should face the consequences, preferably life with no parole.

Based on the history of sentencing in our ACT courts, i was surpised to hear he got a minimum of 10 years.

The most i was expecting was 40 hours community service and no conviction..

Woody Mann-Caruso3:34 pm 08 Oct 13

Allways someone willing to defend the indefensible

It’s called the rule of law. When you’re an adult, you’ll understand.

Allways someone willing to defend the indefensible good riddance to the human scum for at least 10 years

Woody Mann-Caruso2:32 pm 08 Oct 13

Why was he not tried and sentenced as an adult?

Because he was a juvenile.

He made an adult decision

Juveniles make juvenile decisions.

neanderthalsis1:34 pm 08 Oct 13

Why was he not tried and sentenced as an adult? He made an adult decision to beat a man to death for the sake of a few dollars, so he should face the consequences, preferably life with no parole.

Seems kind of an appropriate sentence given he was a juvenile at the time of the murder. I know some people will disagree with me on this guy but so long as Schmidt gets locked up for a long, long time then this sentence is okay by me.

I should hope they don’t have to let Schmidt out after 10 and a half years.

incredulousandridiculous1:19 pm 08 Oct 13

Fantastic. He’ll almost certainly be out in just over a decade to be a general drain on society and oxygen thief. Refshauge leaves us in suspense for eons and then produces this magnificent toilet paper material of a judgment.

A life ended and this cretin gets the murder equivalent of a slap on the wrist. We Riot Act taxpayers will be subsidising his computer lessons, art classes and rec activities at the AMC, too. Can’t wait to hear about him bashing some paedophile who isn’t segregated into the right medication line because he feels he’s soooooooooo morally superior and upstanding.

Does Refshauge turn 70 soon? He and Higgins should be playing bingo together somewhere in the Brindabellas.

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.