Stiff Do Do. Your extreme example knows now right from wrong. Do the crime, do the time. No sympathy. I think some of these Judges are on the "Take" with their lenient sentencing especially when it comes to Corporate Crime & Drugs.

The author betrays his ignorance of the subculture he seeks to defend here with his ridiculous scenario. Bikie gangs are nothing if not consistent and no gang would allow any newbie to wear the colors in the manner suggested here. Nor would it be at all likely that they would be robbing a Liquor store. Criminal activity dealing in drugs I would believe but the scenario here is just stupid.

There is a very simple reason that legislators have turned to mandatory sentencing and that is way that so many Judges have been too lenient, in particular to repeat offenders. Part of this has to be down to pressure from the bureaucracy to constrain the costs of the Justice system but part of it has to be willful gullibility form the Judiciary, they want to believe the sob stories because it makes giving into the cost pressures easier.

John Spender writes:

< The effect of mandatory sentencing is to replace a judge's decision, given in full knowledge of the facts, with an absolute rule that excludes any knowledge of the particular facts of cases to which the rule applies. If the offence is X, the sentence is Y. End of story. You don't need a judge; the computer can do it for you. >

Yes. Mandatory sentencing is abhorrent… unless the mandatory penalty is right at the most lenient end of the spectrum, and a judge or jury is free to impose much harsher penalties if deemed appropriate.

As flawed as our legal system is, harsh mandatory sentences would not help at all. They’d only make it considerably worse.

< Bikie gangs are a menace to our society. There are ways to deal with them without the rampant degradation of our judicial system. Guilt by association, mandatory sentences, throwing judicial processes onto the junk pile, is tick-a-box justice of the worst type, brought about by political posturing and opportunism that has no place in a democratic society. >

Absolutely!

Sentencing should fit the crime, so it is hard to see that, left to judges, so many suspended sentences are handed down for what most rational people regard as serious crimes. Like politicians, judges live in a world of their own and, like politicians, cannot be trusted to do the jobs required of them.

Mr. Spender certainly cannot “(say) the system (he favours) is perfect”; more and more people are wondering if there is any justice available to victims the way many, if not most, judges carry on these days.

Judges let society down time and time again. Nobody wants mandatory sentencing for a mentally deficient shop lifter and the like; but, for crimes of violence, involving victims who suffer into the future, or who are mentally and physically damaged by a criminal (and there a countless other areas) – mandatory sentencing is a must. Death by dangerous/drunken driving is a growing example of these instances.

Iain is onto the naivety of judges in real world situations, and many of us wonder whether it is fear for themselves that stops judges from handing down realistic sentences; perhaps judges should no longer be appointed by equally useless politicians, but should be grilled like any other job applicants to see if they have what it takes to do a job requiring no fear or favour.

Rather than judges getting it right most of the time, they in fact rarely get it right in the communities eyes.

If judges were getting it right, there would be no push for mandatory sentences.

When the penalty applied for traveling a few Ks over the speed limit is greater than that for holding up the local service station, with a handgun, it is time to lock up the judges, [who must be insane, or crooked], along with the criminals.

We the public just want the crims out of our lives. Most of us don't care much whether this is achieved by a caning, Singapore style, to belt some sense into them, or by locking up repeat offenders for the rest of their lives. Why is this so hard for someone with a law degree to understand?

John, go do good somewhere else. You've got this one totally wrong. If judges can't bring themselves to do the right thing by the community, it is time to order them to do so with mandatory sentences.

Good article. Not surprised to read the comments declaring judges hardly ever get it right or that "crims" should be locked away for the rest of their lives. Good to see such simplistic thinking is alive and well in Australia. I reckon they might change their tune though if it were one of their own family members given a massive mandatory sentence that did not reflect the severity of the crime committed.
A shame to seeing us heading down the same path as the USA with ever more draconian sentences resulting in ever increasing numbers of prisoners who lose any opportunity to turn their lives around. Why do we have to emulate the worst characteristics of such countries