1 We need decent legal aid resources and funding. Any indigent person facing a criminal court must not be refused legal aid under any circumstances;
2 To reduce the workload on our Courts and promote an evidence-based approach to an issue, to end liability for possession of any personal use quantity of any currently illicit drug;
3 Convert other minor criminal offenses into matters which may be dealt with by penalty/infringement notice rather than by putting them in Court in the first instance;
4 Increased scrutiny of prosecutors, particularly with regard to their launching of weak cases. Ideally the police will cease to hold this function, and smaller criminal matters dealt in Court will be handled by their state DPP Offices, such Offices actions should be predicated on the balanced interests of the accused and community, rather than just winning at any costs--even with innocent defendants or oppressive outcomes against guilty defendants;
5 A serious examination of our priorities in regard to victimless crimes, or "crimes" against "victims" which Corporations usually are victims rather than natural persons;
6 Get rid of this just desserts idea. Revenge does not equal justice, and notions of specific deterrence seem useless too. It is important that our judiciary in a free society makes balanced decisions, not simply does the bidding of the Executive [or media].

Do you suggest we start with Howard, Bush, Blair, Berlussconni et. al. Plerdsus?

Their violent domestic and foreign policies have probably contributed to most of the otherwise avoidable deaths that have orccured on the planet in recent times.

I appreciate the Mirko’s call for a fairer system. But I share Carkeys’ concerns;

How on earth do you make it proportional without eliminating or severely eroding the notions of mitigating circumstances, severity, genuine remorse, etc? What sort of a system would we have if these things aren’t considered? A system of mandatory sentences without consideration of individual circumstances would be no less fair.

Perhaps we need a fair judges commission, which judges the judges. Perhaps judges should be required to put a judgement in context and comparison with other judgements on similar matters, and be able to vigorously defend their judgements under intensive cross-examination by a judges commission.

Whatever the case, making judges more accountable sounds like a necessary part of the solution.

And let’s be careful about notions such as a ten-fold payback (“thieves would receive a fine equivalent to ten times the value of the goods”). This is certainly not in keeping with proportionality or fairness.

What a great idea. We can do away with courts altogether and have the case heard by twelve good men and true in a local park the day after the arrest. As the sentence is pre determined,only the proof of guilt need be established. Of course this system is loosely based on what I've seen in the far more brutal Middle Eastern justice system. I note that the Middle Eastern system,for all its brutality has failed to stem the tide of crime, either. Maybe there is too many breakable laws these days.

All we need to do is put value back into existing provisions. The term "suspended sentence" should mean suspended from a large oaken beam, by a strong hempen rope.

Another idea would be to bring back the lash. The sight of one of our corporate cowboys getting a Botany Bay dozen in the middle of martin Place, would make headlines around the world. If you sold the TV rights and spectator seats, you might make enough money to pay back some of their fraud.

Remember Henry Bolte's comment in 1966: "If you want to win an election, put on a hanging".

I was interested in the suggestion that Howard etc. should be executed. I would be interested to know what Australian laws they are supposed to have broken. Please don't waffle on about supposed international law, we know that is a joke, just like the UN.

People who trash the general performance of our judiciary are being taken in by media hype. The press, for obvious commercial reasons, looks to report controversy and usually present (and omit) facts in a way which inflames. Injustices do occur, but newspaper reports are very often exaggerated and misleading. When I bother to read the court judgements, I usually find the journalism to be shoddy and the judgements reasonable.

While most people have their own notions of fairness (eg, ‘an eye for an eye’), defining fairness in a way applicable to every situation is extremely complicated, as any law student soon realises. By way of example, one difficult issue is whether punishment ought to reflect consequences or intentions – consider the following cases:

Person A shoots at another person, but due to poor aim, misses.

Speeding driver (B) accidentally kills a pedestrian.

Should person A receive a lesser sentence because he has poor aim?

Should the speeding driver be treated harshly because he's unluckier than those who speed without incident?

In answering this question a judge will consider numerous issues including the wickedness of the offence, the effect on the victim, the need for deterrence, the prospects of rehabilitation, the need to protect the community. I think this is a reasonable approach and delivers consistently just results.

A ‘grid system’ on the other hand, as with all variations on mandatory sentencing, is not flexible enough to deal with each case on its merits.

Which is our priority - consistent sentencing or consistent justice?