Wild Bill bangs law and order drum on murder

My issue is arguments like this I guess

“But what is gained by coming down with the same ton of bricks on someone who will most likely not reoffend after they have served their punishment and an incorrigible serial offender?”

Can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

Mandatory sentencing doesnt fit all crimes I’ll vouch that, but someone who is convicted of murder should be serving a healthy stint. Excessive judicial scope (with a lot pf personal views thrown in there by the judiciary) sees manifestly unsatisfactory sentencing.

A small example. A few years ago it was decided that the amount of people who received special licences after drink driving convictions was way too much. The law was tightened and people had to display highly special circumstances to get special licence, simply saying you needed the car to get to work wasnt enough. It worked for about 2-3 months. Now seemingly everyone can display these special circumstances once again and we are back where we started i.e. no real deterrent to drink driving.

The ACT Courts are pathetically weak, excessively left leaning, and in no way a representative of the community they supposedly are there for.

Suffice to say some have personal issues that should get them off the bench straight away. Thankfully I dont have to go to Court so much anymore. Many times I had to bite my tongue from screaming. A doctor told a Court that, besides a gun shot would to the face, one of my victims had the worst broken jaw he’d ever seen. The clown that deliberately inflicted this was not even fined, and given a suspended sentence despite the fact that there was scope to sentence this person to at least some form a jail time, and up to at least a couple of years.

The guy never even saw the inside of a remand centre……pathetic

VG – I’m aware that my law is pretty shaky – I’m a cook, ferchrissakes…

My illustration was more to do with my opposition to manadatory sentancing. I don’t think you can place an arbitrary penalty on every crime. I think judges need room to move when sentencing to take the circumstances of each case into account.

How the judges excercise said “room to move” is a matter for another debate. I agree that the ACT courts allow people to develop a diminished sense of personal responsibiliy and that the Singh and Collins sentences were manifestly inadequate – but that’s not what I’m arguing.

For the record, I think the balance between punishment and rehabilitation depends on the situation too. Yes, the law must punish. But what is gained by coming down with the same ton of bricks on someone who will most likely not reoffend after they have served their punishment and an incorrigible serial offender?

I’m sure we both agree that people can be rehabilitated. How often, and how sucessfully is where we differ, I take it. I don’t see the logic in applying the same ironclad rule to different circumstances.

Shab. Learn some law. ‘Battered wife syndrome’ is a defence to a charge of murder.

The first principle of justice within a court is punishment. This is long held and originated from the community or individuals need for revenge in ye olde days. Having said that, its still the #1 principle in the administration of justice for its (a) restorative and (b) deterent effects.

Rehabilitation is a long 2nd. All the Courts in the ACT do is abrogate personal responsibilty (i.e. its not my fault, the cat ate my homework) and look for excuses for blame rather than allowing someone to take personal responsibility. Look at the sentences that people like Singh and Collins got for killing someone when their paper thin defences were destroyed. About 3 years each maximum.

It is black and white when you know what you’re talking about. Spend a week in an ACT Court and see if your opinion is the same

Bravo Ralph. Very sensible. Why not kill ’em all, and let God sort ’em out.

Yeah – sentances are up in the US – and so is the incarceration rate. Wouldn’t it be nice to have 1 in every 176 people in this country is prison. What a fabulous outcome that would be. Screw rehabilitation – just cram these nasty people in a cupboard so they won’t ugly up our city.

Yup – judges get it wrong. But arbitrarily banging someone up with no consideration for the background to their crime is a profoundly bad idea.

I’m sure everyone will start ranting about people getting reduced sentances for “having a bad upbringing” and telling me I’m a softhead (has anyone heard from Bonfire recently?)

I’m referring more to a situation where a battered wife snaps and kills her husband with a shotgun after said husband sexually abuses one of the kids vs Ivan Milat. Both are murder. Are they morally equivalent? Under mandatory sentancing they are.

Not quite so black and white now, eh.

Judges need room to move in sentancing. I think some of them are failing to live up to community expectations of punishment; but the community’s desire for blood doesn’t always weigh up with the reality of the situation.

Two words to sort these bullshit courts in the ACT out: mandatory sentencing. From murder to shoplifting. Everything has a mandatory sentence.

Also consider making judges publicly accountable by having them elected. Works well in parts of the United States that have this. Sentences up, crime rates down. But given the number of left wing twits in this town I doubt this would make any difference to the current bench.

Woe betide any person who uses a mobile phone while murdering someone…

All the vision I saw was of him walking in and out of the City Station front office. Thats where any sort of fines get sorted

really? I thought he did a photo op nearby?

Excuse all the typos, very tired

I dare say what Bill is referring to is the alrming rate of charges that the Courts either prefer down to manslaughter, or the willingess of the DPP to plead a charge down because actually trying something is all too hard for them. case in point the young chap who killed his mum in Melba about 3 years or so ago…..he will be paroled very shortly. All his ‘defences’ were discredited in a Court but one of our ‘elearned’ judges decided that 3 1/2 was enough in the clink. Pathetically out of touch with not only the people they represent, but reality.

BTW, Bill would have gone nowhere near the Watch-House the other day