Ok Crackcup, I'll bite.

What are the current sentencing guidelines for someone convicted of involvement in...

"the backpacker who just died in hospital after being "bashed" in Sydney",

and...

"Victorian Policeman who was set-upon by four men at Lilydale... and left bleeding on the ground when the four "heroes" finished with him and drove off!"

So, how does your proposal compare with the current position? Or are you simply dog-whistling?

Just to clarify, Crackcup, your argument is, "based on two anecdotal incidents that could have occurred at any time since federation, and no other evidence, I declare that the statistics are false and violent crime is increasing". Is that correct?

The Irish backpacker only copped one punch didn't he? Pretty unlucky for all concerned. One guy is a murderer for lashing out (yes I still reckon boys will be boys), and a guy is dead for getting into an argument with the wrong person.

My impression is the 'rules' have changed, but the violence is actually less although reported more. When I first started high school, it was taboo to bring a knife to a fight (they were often organised after school) as it showed you needed a weapon and that you were a wuss. Ditto for bringing a gang. Also once a guy was down, if he stayed down the fight was over, no kicking, losing was humiliation enough.

By the time I finished school, I don't think those rules applied any more. These days if you attempt to pull a loud mouth 15yo into line you might get stabbed, possibly even by his mate waiting behind you. The code has been broken and discarded.

Women are becoming more violent for sure. I read the other day about a woman glassing a bloke, and some young girls bashing a taxi driver. I'm not sure you'd have seen that 20 years ago.

Crackup, while I also think that Australia is a more violent place on the streets nowadays, I don't believe we should go down the path of having a blanket sentence for 'putting the boot in'.

Surely every case should be dealt with by the courts on it's own merit?

There are many previously non-violent young people out there who, fueled by too much alcohol or drugs, may hit someone once in a drunken rage.
These people should not be treated the same as other people who have been violent before and are re offenders.

I realize that victims are hurt just as much by either category of criminals, but surely it should all be left up to the court system to decide?

Crackup,
I seem to remember a line from 'the sentimental bloke' written in the early 1900's where the protagonist yells 'put in the boot'.

My late adopted dad talked about cutthroats (razors) pailings,iron bars etc. He also had 'Blamey's Bashers'(Victoria) sanctioned police who drove around after 9.30pm looking for groups of young men then 'give them a hiding to go on with'.

In my time it was bike chains, cycle boots with safety razor blades between the toe and the soul, Belts with studs to wrap around knuckles. Big buckles to swing around.

Yep, violence is a new phenomenon. Increasing ? per head per capita it's about the same.

Old saying "be thankful for the news, if it's on the news is sensational (unusual enough)to be worth mentioning. Who cares if my a dog bites me in public (not many) but if it bites some one important... front page. Think about it.

As for the 7 years no parole...deterrents don't work. My experience is that most who do this do it as either a thrill or in the spur of the moment either way they aren't going to think about the consequences.

Do I have an answer? I wish.