My reaction the sentencing in this case wasn't fuelled by emotion so much as disbelief. Firstly the offender was on a "good behaviour bond" for violence when the offence occurred. He had announced his intention to bash someone on the night. The victim was not the only one that night, he assualted another four people in his drunken spree.

I am left wondering what sentence the learned judge would have passed if the death were as a result of the offender driving a car whilst intoxicated?

Good article Joel.

However I feel that you have perhaps picked the wrong case to use as a vehicle for expressing your views.

Loveridge had gone out looking for trouble. He was seeking out people to punch, yes?

Extremely serious premeditated behaviour.

While of not being privy to all the details and considerations that the judge had to deal with, I can’t see how his sentence isn’t manifestly too light.

< In most western democracies attitudes to crime have in fact moved away from punitive models of justice to recognise the varied role the law must play in facilitating rehabilitation, the restoration of harm and deterrence. >

Yes, maybe. But that doesn’t mean that the punishment shouldn’t fit the crime and be seen to do so by the majority of people who do know enough about all the details to hold a reasonable opinion on what the sentence should be… or by wider society, just as long as they get an accurate depiction of all the factors presented in the media so that they can form reasonably unbiased views.

Humans are unable to do justice - so they should not even try.

The role of the law is to protect citizens, so if someone breaks the law, then the only 'punishment' as such should be to remove that protection from the offender.

Thus, the court of law should be able to declare that the offender's life, limb and/or property are fair game, either forever or for a certain period of time, during which the state will not protect them.

While the state has no moral authority to injure others, supposedly in my name as well despite the fact that I haven't authorised this, the victims and their families could then mete out their own eye-for-an-eye if they are so inclined - and the offender may need to flee far away from their rage, effectively exiled.

There should still be fines or community-service, but these are for the purpose of compensating both the victims and the state, not as punishment per-se.

Jails should be reserved for those offenders who are likely to re-offend, as a measure of protecting the community rather than as a punishment. When there is no such risk (unlike the specific case at hand), there should be no imprisonment for punishment-sake. Those who feel offended by a crime, should then be able to privately punish the offenders, but not the state in my name. All the state needs to do is allow it.

There is so much wrong with Joel Platte's article that I hardly know where to start.

Joel claims that judges do not reflect the will of the community, they reflect the will of parliament.

BS Joel. We have seen recently in Queensland where judges have taken exception to the Queensland government's demand that judges comply with community expectations.

Joel argues that judges perform "consistency" in sentencing. That is BS also Joel. There have been many instances of offenders guilty of trivial offences receiving harsh punishments while very serious offenders have received very light ones. One (thankfully) retired judge in NSW was famous for her anti police attitudes and the trivial sentences she gave aboriginal offenders.

In addition, there have been instances where two offenders have been tried separately for the same offence, both found guilty, with the result that one receives a heavy sentence and the other a very light one. it was this total inconsistency in sentencing that prompted politicians to introduce mandatory sentences.

Finally, there is Joel's belief that today, the modern way of thinking is that people can be reformed. No Joel, that is a very old way of thinking. It comes from our Christian heritage which believed that no one is beyond redemption. But like so many old Christian ideals, that one needed a bit of work.

Modern criminologists know that nature and nurture play an important role in criminality. Some people are literally born criminals and no amount of training, pleading, or singing hozannas is going to change that. The USA is leading the world here with it's 'Three strikes and your out" rule, which condemns career criminals to a life term. This term may be commuted if prison psychiatrists are of the opinion that the offender is mellowing out (which usually happens to criminals after age 40) The yanks realise that criminal behaviour is a form of mental illness and that some people will always offend if left to roam our streets.

Dear LEGO,

<<Modern criminologists know that nature and nurture play an important role in criminality.>>

True, both nature and nurture come into this.

Fortunately, our true nature is pure goodness - although it may be covered up by other impressions. As for nurture, I thought you may be interested in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1_DVac9kkI

What utter garbage. It is this attitude that leads to dozens of innocent people being maimed or killed by garbage that should not exist.

Not even rednecks like me are interested in revenge, just protection. With bleeding heart judges that is about the last thing we get.

Time for mandatory death sentences, getting these idiot judges & bleeding hearts out of the picture, for any one who causes serious injury or death due to a malicious act. Forget manslaughter, if the act was malicious automatic death penalty.

This is the only way we are going to protect the public from the slime every society manages to produce, no matter how they try not to. We know any other sentence will have the offender back out repeating their killing in a heartbeat, if these fools controlling our legal system have their way. Could it be they see ongoing work with this rubbish?.

It just might be time for university courses to have their course notes perused & approved or otherwise by a cross section of the taxpayers who fund these courses, if this is the sort of antisocial garbage being promoted.