Dear Rainier,

Your contribution has been noted!

Thanks Rainier - I intended it as a serious discussion because I believe the issue does have serious implications for the future of our society. I am sorry it degenerated into something else.

Hopefully that guy went down for manslaughter...

With the idea of different courts for different people, Aboriginal and Sharia etc... It's who/what is financing and running the country that has that right.

Rainer,
Obviously you said very little to inform us from your great intellect, experience and knowledge. Please post an intelligent contribution so we will gladly learn.

To operate as one unified society we must enforce the same laws and justice. If we want a tribal society we have peculiar tribal laws and justice. If we want tribal society and its territorial wars as operated in tribal pre-European Australia or currently in the Middle East we end up with tribal wars and tribal punishments and superstitions. Because we are currently allowing a development of tribal / gang identity we are descending into the abiss of a fractured society, where we feel injustice is allowed.

Dear Communicat,

My apologies, I misunderstood the thread.
I had assumed that because what happened
was as a result of the victim hitting his
head on the ground - that the crime here
was definitely not murder, but manslaughter.
I thought the fact that the defendant was an
aboriginal, had no bearing on the case.
Obviously, I was wrong, having re-read your
first post.

However, as you indicated -
you were not interested in discussing the
"rights" or "wrongs" of the case - but
whether certain groups (such as Aboriginals,
in this case) should get "special treatment,"
or should the law apply evenly to all?

Of course the law should apply evenly to all.
But in reality it often does. That's a fact of
the way things are.

People with money, have an advantage,
can often obtain the very best legal advice,
and get much more lenient sentences, or
simply be assigned to do "community-service" work.

People without money - have to take the lawyers
that the courts assign, and end up with much
tougher sentences.

Celebrity status, also, often plays a part in
the kind of sentences that are prescribed. Take
cases like OJ Simpson's, Michael Jackson's, Russell
Crowe's, to name a few. If you're famous - things
could work against you in some instances, - but usually they don't.
So as a group - their chances of getting conficted
as slim.

Then there's the gender issues in court cases.
Depending on the judge, men tend to get tougher
sentences than women. I don't have the statistics,
but I know that if a woman kills her child, the
judge will be far more understanding, than if
her male partner did it.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is - the law
is the law and it should be adequately applied even-
handedly. But, human nature being what it is - it
all depends on the judge and jury and who they
believe...or are influenced by.

cont'd

Also, as far as other groups are concerned...

The law is definitely not applied even-handedly.
How often are police-officers called to account
for their actions, or are even charged?

The same goes for members of the Medical Association.
How many charges are successfully brought against
doctors?

Or priests?

The lists go on and on ...