Hi Trumpster,

"Finally, if (a) criminal that a judge allows out on parole or bail, commits a crime whole (sic) on bail, the judge can be sued by the victims."

YOU come up with some dumb ideas at times, but that's one of your best. Why are you extremists so fond of locking people up? On that bit of nonsense, firstly YOU want a judge to assume a person (calling them a criminal) is guilty without hearing the evidence. Why don't YOU just give a judge a crystal ball, so they can look into the future.

Hi AC,

I understand community anger and frustration with crime, the idea that police are tasked with opposing bail, is a good one.

"make them think twice about going ahead with it the second time" I don't believe they think in the first place, let alone a second time. The Northern Territory has the highest incarceration rate in Australia, five times the national average, it also has the highest per capita crime rate in Australia. Proof as if we needed it, that simply locking people up doesn't reduce the crime rate. Punitive action after the event, is very expensive it costs around $150k per jail inmate in Australia. People who have been incarcerated previous have a 45% instance of returning to prison within two years of release. The possibility of a person who has never been in prison, being incarcerated within the next two years is less than one percent. So much for jail being a deterrent.

"YOU come up with some dumb ideas at times, but that's one of your best. "

Well Paul, if you think its dumb, that just proves I'm on the money.

You're assuming that suing is the same as proving. If a judge releases someone who commits an offence and can show that i was reasonable to think they wouldn't offend, then the judge will have no problem with the lawsuit.

The problem at the moment is that judges and psychologists and various do-gooder organisation get the warm inner-glow of releasing people back into the community without the slightest concern for the consequences if the decision to release ends up costing others.

Hi Trumpster,

What can I say about such clap trap.

"If a judge releases someone who commits an offence and can show that i was reasonable to think they wouldn't offend, then the judge will have no problem with the lawsuit." (But I think he has a problem with YOU).

Why are YOU involved? What, YOU decide what is reasonable! This is ridiculous! YOU are suffering from Trump delusional syndrome, YOU are definitely delusional. Please get off the sauce before its too late!

I do not see strong 'sentences' as punishment.
Being harsh does not guarantee a useful result.
When the guilt of a person has been established, it is often necessary to separate that person from the rest of society.
Both to protect society, and with a view to changing or rehabilitating that person.
These are both expensive undertakings, and rarely successful.
The last time I looked at the costs involved, I was horrified.
Can we continue to incarcerate those guilty of crimes which are not of violence?
Does the monetary cost of doing so far outweigh any benefit?
What we really need is a far more efficient way of dealing with those unable to adhere to community standards and the law.
One that doesn't cost us the earth.
We cannot just send them 'down under' anymore.
'down under' has two meanings here.
But I doubt we will find a way.
I suppose 'lenient' judges are mindful of the cost of incarceration, and lean toward alternatives?

I omitted to emphasise that no one should be 'punished' for being the way they are.
And no amount of 'harshness' will change them.
But we do need to separate some law-breakers from mainstream society.
Largely to protect society.

Hi Ipso Fatso,

I agree, there is no simple solution to the problem of crime. Taking a lock em' up and throw away the key approach doesn't work. That has been tried the world over, without success. Australia was founded on such a system, the problem was systemic within British society, and not simply thousands of mostly poor people, turning to crime for no reason.

BTW, Judges don't have a free hand in imposing sentences, the penalties are set by law makers. The cost to keep a person in jail for a year is about $150K in Australia. One worrying aspect is the fact that about 45% of people going to jail, return to jail within two years, reform in prison is not of a great success rate.

"I suppose 'lenient' judges are mindful of the cost of incarceration, and lean toward alternatives?" One problem is some people draw their conclusion about guilt or innocence, sentences etc, based on a thirty second news grab at 6pm, while being totally ignorant of the complex facts of the matter, as are judges.

Just recently I was dealing with a young bloke, who was arrested about a year ago, at a logistics warehouse, on a Sunday morning. The police brief was concerning the importation of drugs. This bloke was a forklift driver, about six people were arrested at the time, everyone working the shift. His family had to find $50K for bail, he lost his job, was sick with worry. It turned out the police finally admitted he was not involved, and they had simply arrested everyone there on suspicion, they dropped the charges against the young bloke, and several others. This incident has played havoc with the life of a completely innocent person. He couldn't find a job, due to suspicion created, he was sick with worry etc. Thankfully with help from a good organisation he has now found a job, with a lot less pay than before. and is now trying to get back to normal.