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!