I'd suggest that the definitions of a crime should be fairly fixed. Independent of motives beliefs etc.

But... when it comes to punishment. Well I think that a judge should be able to take into account prospects for rehabilitation, mental state, intelligence, prior behaviour, culture etc.

So in this case, based on the information present (and having limited knowlege of law) I would have thought that the father is guilty of murder.

But then, based on a number of factors - it could very well be that the maximum sentence is not applicable. In a nutshell - I am happy to see cultural factors and beliefs taken into account in sentencing. I would not necessarily see the mitigating factors presented being representative of the entire cultural or religious group though. This is just an argument made to the court. Not necessarily a generalized truth.

[Is it possible that factors affecting sentencing are not tested to the same degree as guilt/innocence?]

So... there are situations where I could see a member of religions splinter groups (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, any) getting lesser sentences than the maximum. Essentially based on them being otherwise decent members of the community and/or having a moral code of sorts (if flawed) that can potentially be fixed.

While no one in Australian society ought to benefit from entertaining these depraved excuses of the disguised antics of a cultural bogeyman, I think it too much of an irony to deduce statements to i.e., Muslims don't tolerate such pathetic excuses for barbarism. Australian law shouldn't either."

This is because this statement underscores a bewailing myth that over-shadows each pathetic lie, eating at the core of the defective cultural idioms associated to terror and violence, at the heart of this type of narthex in human ethnology.

Under the lawyers, and today's judges, we are becoming more often further lost, due to the idolatry which sits between these so called cultural idioms.

It is indeed I believe, the case where as a great sage himself recently proclaimed, "We can't rely on morals when the courts are morally bankrupt" themselves.

White Wombat:

you wrote:

“But... when it comes to punishment. Well I think that a judge should be able to take into account prospects for rehabilitation, mental state, intelligence, prior behaviour, culture etc.”

Judges do take all of these factors into account. In NSW the maximum available sentence for manslaughter is 25 years. For murder it is ‘rest of life’, but most first time, ‘ordinary’ murders get about 20 years to serve. ‘Rest of Life’ is generally used for people who kill for profit, or if there are particular factors which show that both punishment and community protection are paramount, where prospects for rehabilitation are not particularly good.

For manslaughter the usual is between 3 to 10 years.

I do not know what the killer in the quoted case got, but I would imagine that the judge would have had to stick to guidelines so that the killer did not get a sentence more suitable for murder, but not be let out tomorrow either.

The test usually explained to the jury for provocation for jury deliberations, at least in NSW, refers to the actions that the common man would take in such situations: not the common Turkish man, or the common Moslem man, but the common man, as defined by normal English usage.

We do not now, and can never know, what basis the jury used in reaching their decision, and this is the way that it should be.

I would also suggest that anyone interested in this topic consider the case of Said Morgan

See

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/10-years-later-vigilante-officer-is-finally-happy/2005/01/15/1105582768095.html?from=moreStories

(It pays to do some research.)

It is important to realise that, unlike the TV show ‘Law and Order’, that, by the way I am almost addicted to; juries in Australia do not play a part in sentencing.

Judges spend a lot of time and thought on sentencing, they sometimes are 'corrected' by Courts of Ciminal appeal, but most of the time their decisions match community standards, it is only when there is massive variance that these are publicised.

Watch the news tomorrow, and check out the NSW Supreme Court website for remarks on sentencing being handed down. ("Most recent decisions")

Should be interesting reading.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/caselaw/ll_caselaw.nsf/pages/cl_sc

Sorry, I was in error, todays hearing was 'submissions on sentence' and not passing of the sentences, so we shall just have to wait. It will be interesting to read what submissions have been made.

The case, by the way, involves a group of young men, of Islamic background, but evidently not of belief, as you will see from below.

the remarks on sentencing for these young men's previous trials can be found at:

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/irl3ded/2/doc

You have written a fine, clearly stated article Waleed. You are a credit to your profession and your religion.

I would argue that it is somewhat wrong for a lawyer to argue ‘any possible defence’. A lawyer is obligated to argue only what he is instructed to argue by his client – not whatever excuse can be concocted for the courts. I am in no position to judge how this particular argument was formed and make no assertions but in my experience with the justice system, I doubt MSK had the nous to formulate the basis for the argument himself.

For God’s sake BD, you never prove or even dent a thing with your continuos ‘insightful’ quotes from a book you know nothing about and a religion you cannot begin to understand through the intractable mindset of your fundamentalist beliefs. For every quote you present, a similar quote appears in the Bible. Get over it.

Moreover, do not use the ‘its actions of Jesus’ that matter and should be compared to Mohammed (PBUH). The Old Testament is just as valid to Christians as the new and you have to take the good with the bad. Just leave the interpreting and decision-making with respect to the Qur’an to those who believe in it and I am sure you can be counted on as a source for Bible quotes and insights.

Philo, I would suggest that it is not the book that is the source of the perversion, rather the teachers in the community that pervert the book and manipulate the student to their ends. Are the teachers of religious bent in the white supremacist sects in the US not doing a similar thing to the imams who misrepresent the Qur’an to their students?

This article is about Law, not Religion. Try to stay on the subject please.