The 'Law is an ass' thread

[Bucks5]

From time to time the penalties and decisions from the court system seem to create some healthy debate amongst us Nicksters. This thread is the place to vent about stupidity, injustices or inequities from the legal system.


I will start with this story....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/stabber-can-be-paroled/story-e6frf7kx-1225923056284

[Peter Griffin]

Hmm I wonder how many years his family would get for a retaliation murder? And they wonder why people take the law into their own hands. What about that animal that bashed that poor little boy to death 18 years ago and is now looking to released? If it were up to me he would have been dead at least 17 years ago, or castrated an without hands.. See if he tries to create or bash a defenseless child ever again.

[pietillidie]

I'm happy to declare the law is an ass if the judge's ruling demonstrates that to be the case. Nine out of ten times the judge's ruling is rational and the foaming talk back callers simply haven't thought all of the variables through or are unaware of the technical details and legal implications of decisions.

[Dr Pie]

[David]

I think the problem with this thread (as well as a lot of responses to cases like these) is the way the law is viewed.

It's not about taking revenge against 'evil' people. The principles have to be based around a) protecting the rest of society; b) providing an appropriate deterrent; and c) rehabilitating offenders.

If there is still a reasonable chance of re-offence or the seriousness of the crimes are not reflected by the punishment, then the sentence is probably too short. I suppose we have to trust that these factors are always taken into account by judges.

Having said that, I do wonder if judges sometimes make the same basic error that I described above, except in reverse.

If this is ever the case, it might explain why some really poor judicial decisions can be made from time to time. People are neither good nor evil; all of our actions are a direct result of factors outside of our control. Thus, however sympathetic we might feel towards, say, Ms. Wills for the abuse she experienced as a child and her current drug problems, they really are irrelevant details unless they help us to confidently assert that a) she won't offend again and b) that 22 months in jail is an appropriate punishment for the act of stabbing a vulnerable member of the public without provocation.

Of course, as pietillidie wrote (and Frank Stone was often fond of repeating), it's hard for us to comment on these decisions without knowing all the variables, and there is a tendency for newspapers like the Herald Sun to sensationalise these stories. I almost didn't click on the link because honestly, I have come to expect that newspaper to distort the facts and leave out vital information. Even so, I do wonder sometimes if some judges, in an attempt to act within some sort of moral plane, can dole out sentences that are either too harsh or too lenient. But I doubt such questions hold any interest for the team at News Corp, whose bread and butter is calling for villians to be strung up and stirring up righteous indignation.

[Nick - Pie Man]

everything i was going to say, but better. the law is not about revenge or appeasing bogan outrage.

[Bucks5]

I still see this crime as basically attempted murder.

Apart from what was mentioned in the article, what possible facts could make you say that 3 years is excessive, or would excuse her for doing this crime?

Rehabilitation (and remorse) is one thing, but even if someone did do a crime that was completely out of character and they would never re-offend, should they then not be punished?

[David]

Yes. Rehabilitation and remorse are just one aspect of the judicial process, although I think they need to be taken into account. Admittedly, the concept of remorse does puzzle me, as I wonder how many 'remorseful' criminals are simply better actors.

[Black_White]

Throw the key away;
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/year-8-torquay-students-kill-kangaroo-on-school-camp/story-e6frf7l6-1225925312989

[Peter Griffin]

So what are the thoughts on Daniel Valerio's killer? Let me guess. He had a rough upbringing and we should make concessions? What POSSIBLE excuses could justify it's early release ("It" is not human). Good behaviour? I think bashing a toddler to death probably did away with any chance at "good behaviour" that that satanic monster ever had.

[5150]

[pietillidie]

The fundamentalist religious view of human behaviour is fine for the ascientific, but those who accept a scientific view of the world are pretty sure that the brain is a physical organ in a physical universe subject to physical damage, and as such can often be corrected like any other damaged physical organ.

Of course I don't know if it has been corrected in this particular case - it may not have been and I haven't looked into it - but in forming an opinion I would certainly prefer to rely on scientific evidence rather than someone else's Inner Jesus.

[Nick - Pie Man]

Fine in theory. In practice, the human brain is far too complex to ever be understood by itself.

[pietillidie]

[Peter Griffin]

Well said, pietillidie. Religion and science constantly try to deny the other but the thing about the answers provided by science is that they are real and replicable.