mhaze,

You said courts will "relieve them of responsibility" and that there are "favoured groups under the law."

That's not me inferring something delicate. That's your description of how the system operates.

If you think courts systematically mitigate punishment because defendants tick certain identity boxes, that's a claim about bias in sentencing.

If that's not what you mean, then spell out what you do mean.

But this isn't about me being on some "you implied" bandwagon. How could it be? As I had suggested, the implication existed whether you meant it or not.

It's about whether you're asserting structural distortion in the legal system or not.

Nice try, though.
_____

diver dan,

"Proof beyond reasonable doubt" isn't a cop-out. It's the core protection of criminal law. The standard doesn't change depending on who the defendant is.

If evidence gathered in a war zone is limited or inadmissible, that's an evidentiary problem, not proof of religious protection.

Raad didn't "walk free." She pleaded guilty and was sentenced. The judge looked at her circumstances and imposed a penalty accordingly. That's how sentencing works in every category of offence, not just terrorism.

If there were some systemic religious favouritism at play, we'd expect to see a pattern across cases, not one controversial example cited over and over.

And stepping back from that, are we really saying Australia can't trust its own courts to deal with Australian citizens? Because that's the logical end point of this argument.

Those are very different arguments.

What is wrong with my suggestion of bringing them all back
to the Christmas Island facility.
Employ physiology experts to treat & examine them.
I know it cannot be perfect but any that fail or on release
get involved with radicals then there is a room on Narue Is
for them.

"You said courts will "relieve them of responsibility" and that there are "favoured groups under the law.""

That's not even close to saying its risky or rigged. You just inferred that and then demanded I answer to your inference. But I don't play that game with you any more. I just call it out.

Yes, there's a bias in sentencing. But its not rigged, its just a bias in the classes that now run our legal system.

"The standard [ beyond reasonable doubt ] doesn't change depending on who the defendant is.

George Pell, rest his soul, might have had something to say about that.

Equally... a man was charged with hate speech for saying "that the Jewish community was the “greatest enemy to this nation” and to “Western civilisation”. Now I don't like that framing but we used to have free speech here. He was sentenced to a year in gaol for that. A few days later a Muhammadian was found guilt of gay bashing (there was video so no reasonable or any doubt) leaving the victim with life altering injuries. He walked free. Yeah, our system in totally unbiased.

mhaze,

You're putting two completely different offences under two different statutes side by side and calling that proof of bias.

Sentencing isn't a moral scoreboard. It turns on the specific charge, the statutory maximum, prior history, whether there was a plea, and what the Act requires the judge to weigh up. Different offences carry different sentencing frameworks.

Regarding Pell, the High Court unanimously overturned the conviction. That's not evidence that "beyond reasonable doubt" changes depending on who you are. That's the appellate system doing exactly what it's designed to do.

You say there's a "bias" but it's not "rigged." If sentencing is predictably skewed by identity, that's systemic bias. If it isn't, then we're talking about individual cases you think were wrong.

Which one are you actually arguing?

Because pointing to two controversial sentences isn't the same thing as demonstrating structural distortion.

JD goes from there's no evidence of bias to the evidence of bias doesn't count because of reasons.

"If sentencing is predictably skewed by identity, that's systemic bias."

Yes bias but not rigged. Get it?

Pell spent 404 days in gaol despite there being ample reasonable doubt. The High Court had to impose rules of reasonable doubt on biased lower courts.

No, he doesn't, mhaze.

//JD goes from there's no evidence of bias to the evidence of bias doesn't count because of reasons.//

If bias exists but doesn't alter outcomes in a predictable way, then it's just disagreement with individual sentences.

If it does alter outcomes in a predictable way based on identity, that's systemic distortion. There isn't really a third category where bias floats around harmlessly.

As for Pell, the High Court applied established appellate principles and unanimously overturned the conviction. That's the system correcting itself. Every common law jurisdiction has cases where appellate courts reverse lower courts. That's not proof the whole structure is compromised.

Pointing to one overturned conviction and two sentences you disagree with isn't evidence of a pattern. It's evidence of contested cases.

If you're claiming structural identity-based sentencing skew in Australia, that's a serious empirical claim. It needs more than three anecdotes.