Very commendable Mirko, the first thing to do is to take control of the legal and justice system away from the legal profession. When you have vested interests, working purely for money, as well as dispensing justice, only one result can be obtained, our present system.

Whilst we have a system only catering for the economic elite, you can't have truth in sentencing, justice or even proper equal representation. Economic elitism is behind our legal system, so it will always fail.

The legal profession exasperates the problems a million fold, by their exorbitant charges and economic discrimination, disregarding the need for proper justice. When you look at the facts, it's not hard to see who is causing the collapse of our legal system and denying justice to the vast majority of citizens.

We have lawyers defending and prosecuting people getting paid huge amounts, (conflict of interest). Lawyers as judges, magistrates, getting paid huge amounts, (conflict of interest). Drawing up of legislation, criminal and civil laws by lawyers, getting paid huge amounts, (another conflict of interest). The law reform commission, (lawyers being paid huge amounts) advising on what and how laws should be changed. Add politicians, mostly lawyers, getting paid huge amounts who decide legislation (another conflict of interest) and you can see the problem.

Until this glaring deceitful disengaging of the populaces right to being fairly treated is removed, nothing will change. What we need is courts free from costs, investigations designed for the truth not convictions nor legal technicality outcomes. Get rid of legalese and its accompaning useless jargon. And stop the legal profession dressing up like clowns or bad cross dressers, from the draconian past.

I tend to agree - the British legal system is founded on one key tenet - better to let ten guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man.

The problem is, that the system does not necessarily protect the innocent. It protects those who can afford to pay the exorbitant lawyers fees. Judges have effectively been reduced to umpires in a match between two lawyers. And the judges are all ex-lawyers anyway, so they're not going to push for reform.

The Australian model is founded upon the British model, but what is so wrong with, say, the German or Japanese models?

Ask any lawyer and they will tell you the adversarial system is not about establishing the truth, rather, it is about two opposing sides. It is for this reason, there is never an 'innocent' verdict, rather 'not guilty'.

The inquisitorial system utilised overseas is effective. Take a look at Japan's crime rate, or that of Germany. You'll find they let off a lot less blatantly guilty people, and imprison fewer innocent ones.

The solution is not alterations to sentencing, rather, adopting a less profit-oriented legal system entirely, that has been proven to work.

Though watch the lawyers kick and scream if you even suggest it... and yet I'm sure they'd have the gall to pretend they aren't biased.

I would like to ask what exactly is 'proportionality' and how do you plan to measure it?

On the matter of fines, fining a poor person $100 for stealing an item, which they need the cash for because their Centrelink payment has been canceled for eight weeks under the new welfare scheme is going to have a vastly disproportionate impact to giving the same fine to a wealthy person who stole it for fun.

So, once again, I would like to know how 'proportionality' will be measured under such a mandatory sentencing scheme, and what exactly is the goal you're trying to achieve?

I agree that it is unfair and possibly scary that some people get away with violent crimes, but I don't think retributive justice is the answer.

I think that this is a crazy idea. Every state election we have two sides trying to out do each other, "We're tougher on crime than you lot". Jail sentences are actually increasing as are the number of people in jails.

We need decent legal aid, victim impact statements and rehabilitation for prisoners not grids. Mirko under your grid the HIH criminals would walk free (while they earn $5 billion to repay society). Our system is not perfect but yours would be worse.

What will the do-gooders say to Mirko Bagaric’s claim that: “The empirical evidence shows that rehabilitation doesn’t work.” The usual suspects routinely rubbish any run of the mill poster on OLO for saying this, but here is a lawyer saying the same thing. Will he be called ignorant and uninformed by the usual know-alls who regularly display more care for criminals than they do for victims?

“It is false that we should rely on judges to achieve proper sentencing outcomes. Judges are not trained in sentencing. They do not have some sort of mystical fairness antenna. Their hunches are not superior to those of other people in the community. Let’s take all hunches out of the system and ensure that all offenders get their just deserts”, writes the author.
How many times have laymen said that and been howled down by smart alecks and an arrogant judiciary? When state governments such as in SA listen to the electorate and try to do something about the ridiculous sentences handed down by judges, the Chief Justice complains that the government is ‘undermining’ the public’s faith in the Courts.
The public lost faith in the Courts long ago!

Mirko Bagaric brings to our attention not only the fact that we already know - the Court system is a joke – but also the fact that the whole unsatisfactory mess can be improved with little fuss.

Serious offenders should hang. Just a few of the worst each year, to encourage the others.