 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Why do you say it's a joke? |
Because, if you read through some of the convictions for; assault (12 months), armed robbery (3 years), rape (18 months), possession of child porn (12 months) and then see these criminals released EARLY on parole, I don't know what other word describes it 
Have a good read through them P4S... one like this...
The prisoner is serving a two year term of imprisonment for four counts of indecently deals with a child over thirteen and under sixteen and one count of incites a child over thirteen and under sixteen to engage in sexual behaviour.
2 yr term and then released early on parole???? FMD 
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
 |
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Culprit wrote: | http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/driver-in-horror-crash-in-attwood--a-flight-risk-but-granted-bail-20160607-gpd5l8.html
Puneet Puneet MK II |
Give him his passport back and let him go to Lebanon and cancel his visa forever. no appeal. his "partner '( and we are probably talking arranged marriage) can go there or stay here and have her own life. Keep the 40 grand and charge his uncle for the number plate switch etc and charge him with being an accessory and send a very strong message.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You need to have a look at each of these cases in detail to know whether or not those sentences are manifestly inadequate. Sentencing should never be lenient, but in many cases ongoing imprisonment is simply not the most effective means of rehabilitating criminals. I suspect your issue here is that you don't think these people are suffering enough; but for a modern criminal justice system, that ought not to be the primary consideration (beyond how it informs rehabilitation, protection of the public and general deterrence).
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Agree it's hard to judge with so little info, but the pediphile certainly seems to be getting off early., is that long enough for a sex offender program?
What do you think of the USA case of rape I posted that's all over social media? Yes taking into consideration their wacky system.
And the speeding killer, surely as a flight risk, $40,000 is not enough, or maybe they want him gone?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | Agree it's hard to judge with so little info, but the pediphile certainly seems to be getting off early., is that long enough for a sex offender program?
What do you think of the USA case of rape I posted that's all over social media? Yes taking into consideration their wacky system.
And the speeding killer, surely as a flight risk, $40,000 is not enough, or maybe they want him gone? |
It's obviously $20000 per deceased woman. 
The public should be allowed to sack and appoint judges. |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Culprit wrote: | | think positive wrote: | Agree it's hard to judge with so little info, but the pediphile certainly seems to be getting off early., is that long enough for a sex offender program?
What do you think of the USA case of rape I posted that's all over social media? Yes taking into consideration their wacky system.
And the speeding killer, surely as a flight risk, $40,000 is not enough, or maybe they want him gone? |
It's obviously $20000 per deceased woman.
The public should be allowed to sack and appoint judges. |
1. The decision was by a Magistrate, not a Judge.
2. Reading the report in The Age, the decision looks to have been correct on the law passed by the Victorian Parliament in relation to bail. Have a look at section 4 of the Bail Act 1977. Here it is: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/ltobjst9.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/2582DB20AEC63032CA257FA4001E5E44/$FILE/77-9008aa130%20authorised.pdf
You start with section 4(1) - it presumes an entitlement to bail in all cases, for all offences and then proceeds to whittle back that general presumption in particular cases. The section, in substance, contemplates, amongst other things, that - except in respect of certain specified offences where there will be a presumption against the granting of bail (of which culpable driving causing death does not appear to me to be one) - bail is to be granted unless there is an "unacceptable risk" of one of a list of things occurring (see section 4(2)(d)). There is, of course, always a "risk" of flight - the question is whether there is anything to demonstrate that the risk is "unacceptable" in the circumstances. It appears that the prosecuting DSC merely pointed to some alleged risks but entirely failed to persuade the Court that the risk was "unacceptable". As to what is an unacceptable risk, the Magistrate is required to look at the things specified in section 4(3). Just to be plain, the question is not whether it would be "unacceptable" for this accused to flee the jurisdiction - plainly it would be - the question is whether the risk of flight in this case is an unacceptable risk. There are other "unacceptable risks" listed in section 4(2) that might lead to a refusal of bail but it does not appear from the media report that the prosecution was able to rely upon any of the other available grounds.
If you don't like the decision, look at the quality of the evidence that was led by the prosecution - the relevant obligation under the Act was for the prosecution to persuade the Court that bail should not be granted. In other, quite different circumstances (eg, charges of murder or treason), the obligation falls on the accused to show that there are "exceptional circumstances" that would justify a grant of bail.
By all means, criticise the law and agitate, if you wish, for your local Member of Parliament to get the Bail Act changed but, in this case, it looks like all the Magistrate did was apply the law as was required.
It is, of course, entirely inapt to treat the $40,000 surety as "$20,000 per woman" - it's a surety for bail (amongst a bunch of other restrictive conditions that appear to have been imposed) of a person who has been neither tried nor convicted of any offence. If and when the accused is convicted, punishment will be given.
If you want to see what it looks like when a Judge really acts without power in a bail matter, have a look at the following (bearing in mind that the County Court Judge concerned is still on the Bench, 6 years later): http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2010/142.html
In that case, the Judge concerned revoked bail, even though she had no power to do so (that is, her Honour's revocation of bail was actually illegal) and was excluded from taking any further part in the proceeding for ostensible bias against the accused.
As for the listing of "parole" decisions, the discussion really concerns two quite separate issues. One of which is whether punishment for particular sentences is sufficiently harsh (and, frankly, who knows - as David rightly points out - without looking at the sentencing reasons, rather than a parole decision taken at a later time on an entirely different basis and for an entirely different purpose). The other of which is whether you agree with the underlying rationale of parole (roughly put, that you release people into the community in circumstances where you can impose conditions upon where they go and what they do, with a view to trying to get them on the "straight and narrow" so they are less likely to reoffend), or whether you prefer that people simply serve the entirety of their sentence and then get released into the community with (in most cases - some special offences do impose reporting requirements for ever, at least in some States) no ability to control where they go, what they do or how (or if) they reintegrate into society. I don't know much at all about the operation of the parole system in WA but it looks to me like the decisions Skids doesn't like (because they look, as it were, too relaxed) are decisions taken because the relevant authorities making the parole decisions think it preferable to use parole as a means of supervising people, rather than keeping people in gaol and then not being able to manage them at all when they get out.
It is certainly correct that people who have committed crimes are, generally speaking, (at least a little) more likely to do so again than other members of the community are to commit a first crime - but you might be very surprised to read about quite how low the recidivism rates are for the offences that you probably abhor the most. Eg, the rates of recidivism by persons convicted of sexual offences seem to be much, much lower than you might expect, given the common understanding. Since the reports are typically funded by governments or the prosecuting authorities (and never the defences), I expect those are reasonably reliable and form a fair basis for deciding whether it is preferable to try to rehabilitate people, or not.
There are a range of other violent offences (eg, serious assaults, manslaughter, murder) where the rates of recidivism are very low, provided appropriate programs are put in place. Of course, there is always the odd sicko/serial killer who gets missed (eg, Bayley) but those misses probably say more about the need to examine particular cases carefully than they do about the appropriateness of the system per se. |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So many crimes that wouldn't of happened if our justice system was fair dinkum....
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/we-profile-several-killers-who-were-on-parole/story-e6frg6n6-1226558400521
JOHN LESLIE COOMBES
1985 - murder
1989 - theft/escape from legal custody
1998 - murder
2011 - murder
ONE of my defences is gonna be is the fact that you [the prison system] let me out, and all the reports and everything that goes with it, John Leslie Coombes told his partner in 2009 after his third murder.
Coombes knew the system well.
DAVID PATRICK CLIFFORD
2005 drug trafficking
2007 harass witness, breach intervention order
2008 assaults, false imprisonment
2009 resist police, unlawfully enter place
2010 - murder
EVERY time violent drug user David Clifford was given a second chance, he reoffended.
LEIGH ROBINSON
1968 murder
1994 rape, indecent assaults
2008 - murder
The crimes of Leigh Robinson
In 1968 a psychiatrist described Leigh Robinson as "an aggressive psychopath" with little remorse.
WILLIAM JOHN WATKINS
1985 - being unlawfully on premises, criminal damage
1987- unlawfully on premises
1988 - vehicle theft
1989 - driving unlicensed
1993- assault police, resist police, criminal damage and drunk in public place.
1997- refuse breath test, driving unlicensed, possess cannabis
1998 - unlawfully on premises, drunk in public place
1999 - drunk in public place and intentionally causing injury
1999- drink-drive while disqualified, refuse to allow blood sample, assault police, fail to give way, fail to stop after accident, property damag
2000- rape, aggravated burglary and theft, fail to answer bail, refuse breath test, drive disqualified, possess cannabis, intentionally causing serious injury
2006- rape and murder of Colleen and Laura Irwin
A HABITUAL criminal Watkins first offence was in 1985 and he continued to rack up offences for being unlawfully on premises and intentionally causing injury.
In 1998 Watkins broke into the Yarraville bungalow of a legally blind invalid pensioner.
KEVIN ANTHONY BYRNE
1978 indecent assault
1988 abduction, aggravated rape x 2, intentionally causing injury, attempted rape
1990 possess imitation pistol
1992 murder within 24 hours of being paroled
BYRNE was a loner whose first conviction was in 1978 when he stopped his car and jumped out so he could grope a womans breast as she walked down the street.
In 1988 he abducted a woman at knifepoint, repeatedly raped her and viciously assaulted her. He was jailed for six years those offences, but just a year later he escaped while working at a prison farm and was given six more months.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count.
Last edited by Skids on Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You need to look at the underlying studies upon which these media reports rely. It is fair to say that these reports are entirely out of kilter with the studies I have read. |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| No, it's not farcical. For the reasons I outlined above, the decision seems to have been correct. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well that should not happen, obviously there needs to be more controls in the remand centre.
However, and you know how much I respect your views, especial on legal stuff, I'm more inclined to say for the sake of the victims, (or family when the victim is deceased) lock them up. (Isn't the risk part of the decision anyway) They shouldn't have to risk running into him, and in this guys case, what's the Chances of him skipping bail? 40 grand ain't much if your looking at 15 years in prison.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | Well that should not happen, obviously there needs to be more controls in the remand centre.
However, and you know how much I respect your views, especial on legal stuff, I'm more inclined to say for the sake of the victims, (or family when the victim is deceased) lock them up. (Isn't the risk part of the decision anyway) They shouldn't have to risk running into him, and in this guys case, what's the Chances of him skipping bail? 40 grand ain't much if your looking at 15 years in prison. |
TP, I'm not meaning to get into a normative argument about how the Bail Act should work. All I was intending to do was to make the point that the Magistrate doesn't seem to have been at fault in this case. Perhaps the law is "wrong" - but the Parliament decided what's in the Bail Act, not the Magistrate. Thus, one could sack all the Magistrates (or Judges) one liked and the result - under this legislation - would likely have to be the same in this case. As to why the legislation is in its present form, that's a political - rather than a "black letter" legal - question - but the marginal notes to the legislation show that the Parliament has altered the form of section 4 of the Bail Act frequently since 1977 (maybe a dozen or so times - I haven't bothered to track it through exactly), so it isn't like they haven't been giving it their careful legislative attention. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Cheers, fair enough
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
