"Since Justice Einfeld was given no free choice to elect to pay a fine or go to jail, he has not been sentenced according to law."

He did more than just not elect to pay the fine, he perjured himself as well after taking an oath as a Judge. He effectively brought his profession into disrepute as well as making the public more jaundiced about justice meted out by the law.

Now contrast that with a English commoner a few centuries ago, say, who illegally hunted on the Lord's estate in order to feed himself and his family, got caught and was then summarily thrown into jail. What's Einfeld done that's any different? Why shouldn't Einfeld be treated exactly the same?

Dear Belly,

In answer to your question - Why do people
defend a person like Marcus Einfeld?

Basically because the only people he's let
down is himself and his family.

Yes, it is disappointing
that he chose to lie about his traffic
violations. Why he did it - I don't know.
However - as I mentioned in another thread
I was raised with the ethos, "It's not who
we meet along life's highway that matters;
it is how we treat them..."

To the best of my knowledge Marcus Einfeld did
not treat anyone else shabbily.

The reasons for his actions remain a mystery
to me. We all can simply speculate - but the
real reasons - we'll never know. It simply
does not add up - why a person of his integrity,
would behave in the manner he did - over such
small fines, unless he was having a mental
breakdown of some sort.

Oh Foxy, you're such a sweetie!
I swear, you'd forgive Pol Pot, or find a reason not to blame him at least.
The way I see it, Einfeld has let the whole country down. He was given many privileges and kudos as a very senior justice of the court, and traded on that to advance whatever pet projects he adopted. He was remunerated handsomely, with a generous pension for life on top, all for his position as an upholder of our Laws and Ethos.
What he did was not just cop a ticket, he attempted (and conspired with others) to corrupt the entire system he was sworn to uphold and defend, and clearly has done so successfully before. He perverted everything he had stood for, been lauded for, paid for, and in the process brought it all into disrepute. In extremis, one might even see this as a form of sedition, or treason. Although, obviously, that's an exaggeration, it's in the same vein.
Bless you for your kind heart Foxy, but the man is a stain on our judicial system, and at the very least should have lost his pension. A proven corrupt police officer loses his pension. A soldier dismissed for not performing his duty loses his too. Why should Einfeld keep his? All those are "servants of the Crown", and not ordinary employees.

Foxy is a good person, kind and open hearted too.
but my freind here we differ, see I think with the evidence Marcus lied so easily and so often, was he always honest in his court rulings?
That question must be addressed, he lied without shame, often,
yes I hurt at the thought of 2 years at his age, even as I know Maximilian's post describes how much better he will do his time, and how much less than 2 years it will be.
I read the SMH story, I visit that page every day, others often too, but have zero respect for its authors opinion , consider the crime.
it was not telling one lie, it was far worse than that.

Maximillion,
"The way I see it, Einfeld has let the whole country down."

I just did a street survey. The first person I asked, "Has Marcus Einfeld let you down?", replied, "What team does he play for?" The next one said, "Dunno mate, was he the taxi driver who didn't show up last night?" They must live in another country.

Protagoras,
"I derive my information from the same source as you do – the media." Where did you derive the information that that's where I derive my information?

"Einfeld is entitled to no more and no less than any other prisoner." I agree.

Antiseptic,
"Why do you find the thought of being Jewish "foul"?" It might be a bit subtle for you, but what I actually said in response to your question: "Why are you so keen to see anti-semitism? Are you Jewish?" was this: "Two foul questions for the price of one."

You have deliberately distorted my response because you showed you were capable of getting it right in an earlier post when you wrote: "Why would you regard it as "foul" to be asked if you're Jewish? " That's quite different to being asked: ""Why do you find the thought of being Jewish "foul"?" (which of course I don't - and never would).

Isn't lying one of the offences you reviled so much in Marcus Einfeld?

"Given that his primary claim to fame is his legal career, not his Judaism, what is the point of making so much of it?" Forgive me if I'm wrong, hon, but weren't you person who introduced this issue on this thread?

Ummmm, forgive me Spikey, but I have to ask, were you trying to make a point there, or express an opinion? I'm confused by your post, it is rational, and to the point too, but it does confuse me, I just can't make out what you're saying?
Street polls are obviously meaningless in any real sense, it depends on who you happen to bump into, and where you are, and how many you ask, other factors too, and how you phrase your questions, so what were you saying?
The same would seem to apply to the rest of your responses.
No offence, but please elucidate, enlighten me?