 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: What the hell has happened to our justice system ? |  |
|
Two stories (among many) in the last few weeks, the first today, the other a month or so ago:
1. Two women who assaulted an on-duty 62 year old paramedic causing him multiple fractures and leaving unable to continue working, are spared jail on appeal, because of mental health issues in one case, and a systemic difficulty in controlling her impulses in the other. Both had difficult childhoods which makes them a special case under mandatory sentencing laws.
2. The decision to let a teenager who kicked a police officer in the head at a Melbourne shopping centre walk away from court without a conviction shows there are gaping holes in the state's sentencing laws, the police union says.
The teen was on parole when he kicked the policeman in the head at Highpoint Shopping Centre on Boxing Day, causing concussion and severe bruising. He was on parole at the time for home invasion and assault.....
How do we begin to make the law again reflect the will of the people, rather than judges and human rights lawyers who live in leafy suburbs where criminals rarely roam ? How do we make the justice system a feared instrument for due punishment of responsible individuals, rather than a social work-cum-criminology experiment ?
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
 |
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: Re: What the hell has happened to our justice system ? | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | Two stories (among many) in the last few weeks, the first today, the other a month or so ago:
1. Two women who assaulted an on-duty 62 year old paramedic causing him multiple fractures and leaving unable to continue working, are spared jail on appeal, because of mental health issues in one case, and a systemic difficulty in controlling her impulses in the other. Both had difficult childhoods which makes them a special case under mandatory sentencing laws.
2. The decision to let a teenager who kicked a police officer in the head at a Melbourne shopping centre walk away from court without a conviction shows there are gaping holes in the state's sentencing laws, the police union says.
The teen was on parole when he kicked the policeman in the head at Highpoint Shopping Centre on Boxing Day, causing concussion and severe bruising. He was on parole at the time for home invasion and assault.....
How do we begin to make the law again reflect the will of the people, rather than judges and human rights lawyers who live in leafy suburbs where criminals rarely roam ? How do we make the justice system a feared instrument for due punishment of responsible individuals, rather than a social work-cum-criminology experiment ? |
And that is not just the will of the people, but surely, just what's "right" 
Your point 1... 2 women bash an on duty, 62 year old paramedic and make him unable to go to work.... DON'T go to gaol  
Point 2... a kid, on parole for violent crimes... KICKS a police officer  in the head?!?! on Boxing day.... walks away.... with NO conviction  
WHAT THE HELL HAS HAPPENED TO OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM?!
we could write a book, in a month, here inPerth.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count.
Last edited by Skids on Wed May 16, 2018 11:13 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Don't forget that old Nick's caveat that judgements usually end up looking more reasonable on close analysis 
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | Don't forget that old Nick's caveat that judgements usually end up looking more reasonable on close analysis |
That's generally true. Judge Cotterell, though, has been overturned on appeal a few times, at least, for sentences that are too lenient.
The frustrating thing about most such reporting is that it tends not to explain what decision the judge was actually asked to make. Normally, judges are guided by the lawyers appearing for the prosecution and the defence as to the appropriate range of sentences. Typically, the sentence is somewhere within the suggested range (because the judges generally know that if they go outside the suggested range, they may be overturned on appeal for a sentence that is manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive, as the case may be). We don't actually know what the prosecutions' sentencing submissions were and, in particular, we don't know how they were modified between sentencing in the Magistrates' Court and sentencing in the County Court. Here, the judge seems to have placed great weight on the efforts the two had made to turn their lives around and their associated prospects of rehabilitation. Perhaps that wasn't apparent at the original sentencing.
Often, there is a tension between expressing outrage about the nature of a particular crime and giving effect to the desire to reform offenders, where that is actually possible. I don't think we know anything much about either of these defendants' criminal histories (or whether they even had one). We do know, though, that people, on the whole, tend not to become "better people" by going to prison - they tend to learn new skills that are of limited use in civilized society. So, judges are frequently concerned to avoid making people worse by sending them to prison.
If the decision is obviously wrong, as a matter of law, the Court of Appeal will probably be asked to correct it. |
|
|
|
|
thesoretoothsayer
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'd put no.1 down to female privilege.
The law states the people who assault emergency workers on duty get automatic jail time. If a couple of drunk blokes had done it we all know they'd be holidaying in Lara. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Thats pure conjecture without knowing the specific facts of the case.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Its worse than that. It is just silly. Does anyone seriously think that a judge would ignore a mandatory sentencing obligation and that such a sentence could stand? No, of course not. The question in this case is whether the sentence was an appropriate exercise of the judges sentencing discretion. If it wasnt, well read more about that from the Court of Appeal. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ It was the Court of Appeal. Interesting that Judge Cotterell, having been admonished in the past for excessively lenient sentences, is an Appeals Court judge, no less. How does that work ?
My issue is not the facts of any one case. It is that thugs no longer have a proper fear of the state and the law because sentencing, and jail, is not an adequate deterrent. Our state is controlled by rich, padded people who do not, unlike the poor and working class paramedics, suffer the actual costs of crime. The law needs to send out the message our community would want - woe betide you if you are a violent thug, or a repeat offender, for we are far more powerful and forceful than you will ever be.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
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: | |
|
| thesoretoothsayer wrote: | I'd put no.1 down to female privilege.
The law states the people who assault emergency workers on duty get automatic jail time. If a couple of drunk blokes had done it we all know they'd be holidaying in Lara. |
Totally correct.
My brother is currently having a custody battle (7yo daughter) with his ex partner.
She has 27 convictions for various drug offences, has failed court imposed drug tests and is just a mess.
My brother, has NOT ONE conviction, has passed every drug test the court has made him have, at her request and his cost.
Anyone would think it's a clear cut case and it would be, if the shoe was on the other foot.
He has interim custody (has done for the last 9 months), but this is being reviewed in 3 months, subject to his ex completing a drug rehabilitation program. At which time, if she does it, the female (man hating) judge will take my niece off her father.
No conjecture, FACT!
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | Don't forget that old Nick's caveat that judgements usually end up looking more reasonable on close analysis |
That's generally true. Judge Cotterell, though, has been overturned on appeal a few times, at least, for sentences that are too lenient.
The frustrating thing about most such reporting is that it tends not to explain what decision the judge was actually asked to make. Normally, judges are guided by the lawyers appearing for the prosecution and the defence as to the appropriate range of sentences. Typically, the sentence is somewhere within the suggested range (because the judges generally know that if they go outside the suggested range, they may be overturned on appeal for a sentence that is manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive, as the case may be). We don't actually know what the prosecutions' sentencing submissions were and, in particular, we don't know how they were modified between sentencing in the Magistrates' Court and sentencing in the County Court. Here, the judge seems to have placed great weight on the efforts the two had made to turn their lives around and their associated prospects of rehabilitation. Perhaps that wasn't apparent at the original sentencing.
Often, there is a tension between expressing outrage about the nature of a particular crime and giving effect to the desire to reform offenders, where that is actually possible. I don't think we know anything much about either of these defendants' criminal histories (or whether they even had one). We do know, though, that people, on the whole, tend not to become "better people" by going to prison - they tend to learn new skills that are of limited use in civilized society. So, judges are frequently concerned to avoid making people worse by sending them to prison.
If the decision is obviously wrong, as a matter of law, the Court of Appeal will probably be asked to correct it. |
Maybe they should be asked to at least explain it because right now the general public have the impression you can kick a police officer in the head or attack a paramedic and get away with it.
TBH for me personally no reasoning would make it acceptable but Id at least try and understand the point of view. Right now all I see is my sister in her uniform with a target on it.
Is there any restitution? Any community service? Any deterrent at all here?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | Don't forget that old Nick's caveat that judgements usually end up looking more reasonable on close analysis |
That's generally true. Judge Cotterell, though, has been overturned on appeal a few times, at least, for sentences that are too lenient.
The frustrating thing about most such reporting is that it tends not to explain what decision the judge was actually asked to make. Normally, judges are guided by the lawyers appearing for the prosecution and the defence as to the appropriate range of sentences. Typically, the sentence is somewhere within the suggested range (because the judges generally know that if they go outside the suggested range, they may be overturned on appeal for a sentence that is manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive, as the case may be). We don't actually know what the prosecutions' sentencing submissions were and, in particular, we don't know how they were modified between sentencing in the Magistrates' Court and sentencing in the County Court. Here, the judge seems to have placed great weight on the efforts the two had made to turn their lives around and their associated prospects of rehabilitation. Perhaps that wasn't apparent at the original sentencing.
Often, there is a tension between expressing outrage about the nature of a particular crime and giving effect to the desire to reform offenders, where that is actually possible. I don't think we know anything much about either of these defendants' criminal histories (or whether they even had one). We do know, though, that people, on the whole, tend not to become "better people" by going to prison - they tend to learn new skills that are of limited use in civilized society. So, judges are frequently concerned to avoid making people worse by sending them to prison.
If the decision is obviously wrong, as a matter of law, the Court of Appeal will probably be asked to correct it. |
Maybe they should be asked to at least explain it because right now the general public have the impression you can kick a police officer in the head or attack a paramedic and get away with it.
TBH for me personally no reasoning would make it acceptable but Id at least try and understand the point of view. Right now all I see is my sister in her uniform with a target on it.
Is there any restitution? Any community service? Any deterrent at all here? |
Community service as a form of punishment was applied in this case.
_________________
âI even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didnât keep âem under long enoughâ Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Gone Down the Shit Hole because Scared of the Political Correctness People Bitch about Punishments.
No Wonder Crime has gone way up with Little to No Punishment for there Horrendous Crimes
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
These cases are always difficult for a number of reasons:
1. We don't have all of the facts;
2. The relevant judge has the facts as they are presented to them;
3. Sentencing options are not explained and the basis on which decisions are made do not fit a 1 minute news grab;
4. We have a system of law designed to be objective such that a person needs to be qualified and independent of the executive yet bound by the laws of the land. Laws as we know are made by parliament and by judges;
5. Many of us (me included) get upset, pissed off if not angry at what seems to be inadequate sentences applied to situations where we believe much more punitive penalties ought to be applied;
6. Interestingly, aspects of Sharia Law has many of the elements that those wanting to be applied to cases here would be applied in Sharia that is, impact on the victim, non independent sets of decison making etc. (I ain't advocating for Sharia Law)
In this case (assaulting paramedics) both my wife & I scoffed similtaneously at the TV report at the seemingly meagre penalties applied. The judge apparently took into account the perpetrators:
* Low IQ's
* History of abuse as children
* Being substance affected
* Ability to be rehabilitated
amongst other factors.
The intention of Parliament and the Law as I understand here was to have 6 months madatory prison for assaulting emergency workers. I can't see how the good judge did what they did.
There are just so many people with a history of sexual, emotional & physical abuse which in my view is no excuse. It is terrible and appalling that the perpetrators upbringings involved such abuse (I see it daily at work) and the vast majority of abuse is perpertrated by men (be it fathers, step fathers, friends of the family etc - this is not man hating but the reality of doing this sort of work for over 30 years).
Having said that most people most of the time know right from wrong & I don't believe that a Hx of abuse should be seen as mitigating here for the perpetrators. They should be given the mandatory sentence.
_________________
âI even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didnât keep âem under long enoughâ Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Wed May 16, 2018 7:10 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | Gone Down the Shit Hole because Scared of the Political Correctness People Bitch about Punishments.
No Wonder Crime has gone way up with Little to No Punishment for there Horrendous Crimes |
No it's gone down the shithole because:
Politicians politicise crime which disallows reasoned discussion and debate.
There is far too little public housing.
There is far too little public ameneties available
There is far too little money for poorer people to live on.
There is inadequate infrastructure to support people
That policing has been far too reactive and less proactive (see the new strategies now in dealing with Sudanese youth in the South Western Suburbs -much better follow up and follow through, active engagement has seen the types of crime reduce recently)
_________________
âI even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didnât keep âem under long enoughâ Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Wed May 16, 2018 7:08 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | ^ It was the Court of Appeal. Interesting that Judge Cotterell, having been admonished in the past for excessively lenient sentences, is an Appeals Court judge, no less. How does that work ?
My issue is not the facts of any one case. It is that thugs no longer have a proper fear of the state and the law because sentencing, and jail, is not an adequate deterrent. Our state is controlled by rich, padded people who do not, unlike the poor and working class paramedics, suffer the actual costs of crime. The law needs to send out the message our community would want - woe betide you if you are a violent thug, or a repeat offender, for we are far more powerful and forceful than you will ever be. |
Judge Cotterell is a County Court judge. She was a Magistrate until 2008 and was appointed by Hulls, originally as a temporary judge. Since that contract was for 5 years, she is probably now permanent. The appeal here is not a real appeal. In many criminal matters heard in the Magistrates Court, a defendant can appeal as of right to the County Court. That appeal is actually a de novo hearing (that is, a new trial). In this case, the defendants both pleaded guilty, so its just a new sentencing. That would be done on the new material, not whatever was in the Court below. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
