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.

While I agree with much of this article, I think perhaps it goes too far in supporting what many people think are lenient sentences. Certainly, revenge is not the role of the law. But punishment is, and if punishment is not seen to be in some way fair and proportionate to the crime (allowing for extenuating circumstances), then the law is not doing all that it should.

Simone Weil includes “punishment” as one of her 14 “needs of the soul”. This strikes most readers at first as an odd inclusion, but in fact I think it reflects great wisdom. Punishment is what allows the wrongdoer to gain readmission to society and make a fresh start – the phrase “he’s done his time” sums up the sentiment that, once punishment is completed, a person is not made to suffer indefinitely for what they have done, but can rejoin civilised society. It’s necessary for the victim, to feel that justice has been served even if the effects of some crimes can never be fully compensated. It’s also necessary for the wrongdoer themselves, to acknowledge and atone for what they’ve done, and hopefully make a fresh beginning.

Yes, well said Rhian.

>>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.<<

Yeah, who needs the law when there are enough fit and able-bodied men to form a decent lynch mob? The only problem I can see with this idea is that the people who seem to be keenest on lynch mobs are old men who were raised on classic Westerns; younger folk have been raised on police procedural dramas like 'The Bill', 'Law & Order' and 'CSI'.

We like justice to be done, and to be seen to be done. But mob violence, an eye for an eye and the hang 'em high mentality are considered distasteful and a throwback to a more primitive era. We only like vigilantism in the form of fantasy like Batman, and we recognise it as a fantasy: it makes for great entertainment but we wouldn't want society to be run that way any more than we'd like to be pawns in the Game of Thrones.

I think the verdict of manslaughter was sound but the sentence far too lenient. I hope it will be appealed, and the sentence extended. But I'd be saddened if the Parliament made hasty and ill-thought changes to the law just because the pack is baying for blood. The law is sound but judges are human and they make errors. I think the judge has erred in this case. That doesn't seem a good enough reason to introduce capital punishment. Capital punishment is completely smegging smegged - and indicator of a barbaric society. Are we barbarians or Aussies?

Cheers,

Tony

I think the Law is actually flawed in
this case because it assumes that a fist is not a lethal weapon.

I think the fist should be regarded as a lethal weapon especially
when used with premeditation and no provocation. It has the same
chance of killing or causing brain damage as an axe or a knife
or even a gun.

The fist should be recognised as a lethal weapon when it has
a very high chance of knocking someone to the ground thus causing
head injury or brain damage. The bloke in this case must know
that, or what planet has he been living on, he simply didn't care
what damage he might cause to his victims,showing a callous disregard
for their safety and life.
The charge should have been an assault with a deadly weapon with the
possibility of causing death. How many people have to die before
the justice system and politicians get this right.

Blokes like this don't change and when he gets out you can bet someone
else will be hurt or maimed by him,
I read somewhere recently where well over a dozen people have been
killed in recent years by blokes let back out on the streets when
they should be kept away from the public. Put the safety of the public first not the rights of these blokes.

He's shown his spots and leopards like this don't change.

Hey Tony Lavis, you are suggesting that the entertainment media affects people's values, attitudes and behaviour. And of course, you are right.

That is why it is important to force our entertainment media to act responsibly and to stop producing movies where criminals are romantic role model heroes, and where on screen role models like Leonardo Di Caprio kids walk into class shooting their teachers and fellow students.(Basketball Diaries.) Then wonder why some kids walk into class and emulate him.

If our jails are getting full and getting fuller, and if there are wide discrepancies in criminal behaviour in different periods of history, it is pertinent to ask why.

Our entertainment media including the visual arts and audio arts now promote illegal drug use, violence as a first resort to solving problem, and outright misogyny. Then we wonder why our kids adopt these values as normal. Television was once hailed as the "greatest educational tool ever invented." It is, but we had better be a lot more careful about what values this media is educating into our kids minds.

If you came home from work and found a man in your house encouraging your kids to take drugs, be criminals, and have a sneering disrespect for females, while at the same time trying to sell your kids products, you would grab the slime bag by the collar and throw him right out of your house. But you come home, the TV is on, the kids are listening to rap music, and you don't think any more about it.

'He fails to understand it is not the job of the judiciary to mirror community interest but that of parliament.'

Surely parliamentarians and parliament should mirror the interests of the people that voted them in?

'If the law does not also recognise a rehabilitative function inherent to our justice system then we as a society are effectively saying that we believe ourselves incapable of change for the good.'

Are you not contradicting yourself? Does the law mirror Parliament or society?

This article really is a load of unadulterated twaddle!

You have a good writing style Joel, but I’m afraid our knowledge doesn’t seem to extend much further than what your law professors want you to believe.
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
“the varied role the law must play in facilitating rehabilitation, the restoration of harm and deterrence.”
Check most state’s sentencing act and it will declare goals as : rehabilitation, deterrence, warehousing (protection of community), and recognition of severity of crime, amongst others. Rehab is about 25% of role of sentencing. When you give a paltry sentence for premeditated killing by a repeat offender you are making it instead about 75%.
Also please give evidence of rehabilitation working. And some offenders not re offending is not necessarily evidence as some see the light going through the system without any special treatment by “trained psychologists”.

“they must also account for the fact that those who commit crimes are in part a product of their circumstances.”
Yeah right, society is to blame. No child of wealthy well balanced parents who gave junior a good home and education, has ever committed a crime? Everyone who suffered through the Great Depression became abusive drunks, killers or thieves?

“He fails to understand it is not the job of the judiciary to mirror community interest but that of parliament”
Hello Joel, we live in a democracy. It very much is the job of the judiciary. If and when there is any difference between the viewpoints of the people and parliament, it is obviously the parliament that is out of kilter. When was the last time a polly ran for office declaring he will not give the public the law and order it wants because he knows better