The New South Wales Government says it will introduce legislation into Parliament this week making life sentences compulsory for people who murder police officers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/22/3223632.htm?site=sydney

When I heard this yesterday, I thought: O’Farrell, you’ve got to be kidding!

EVERYONE deserves their day in court, where it can be determined just what happened, what mitigating circumstances there might be and what the appropriate penalty should be…. for ANY crime, including killing a police officer.

Police are NOT special! They are NOT a cut above the rest of us!

We can’t have a situation where, in the middle of a highly charged situation, a very desperate person, who turns out to be innocent, inadvertently kills a police officer, but is then locked away for life because of a legal mandatory requirement in law.

All sorts of circumstances are possible. This sort of mandatory law that just completely overrides all circumstances and immediately condemns a killer as the worst of the worst is to be deplored in the strongest possible manner.

Since there is already a mandatory sentence of 25 years for this offence, this proposal is effectively saying that the mandatory sentencing isn't working.

If the current law is working or having the desired effect, why propose the change?

So, logically we are left with two options:
-The current law is working, in which case this is just a political grandstand.
-The current law is not working, which implies that mandatory sentencing doesn't change much and that this change will not work, in which case this is just a political grandstand.

Ludwig I couldn't disagree with you more.

Over recent years we have seen more & more ratbag, bleeding heart judges who have got too close to the criminal & too far removed from the expectations of the public, their employer.

I can find very few of them who's judgement I can accept as reasonable. I have to wonder if their sentences are not more to do with shortage of prison space than justice.

They show little interest in the welfare of the public they are employed to serve. It is time for a much greater level of prescription in the sentences they must hand down, as too many of them have proved themselves incapable of full filling their obligations to the community.

to whome MUCH IS GIVEN
much MORE is to be expected

so sure lets let cop killers get life mandated
BUT also DOUBLE LIFE FOR A COP WHO DOES THE SAME THING

look at who is servant
and who or what is being served

is a cop worth more than a nurse
or docter?

just because the police union gets you off
dont mean you didnt exced your policing authority

to wit
NO victim
no crime..[no right to act]
to kill..where you never even held the authority to act

yes lets give them life
but only if they wernt acting under lawfull authority

Exactly Bugsy. As if a mandatory life sentence would act as a greater deterrent! Of course it wouldn’t. So what’s the point?

This proposal is one big black mark against O’Farrell and his government as far as I’m concerned.

----

Hasbeen, I agree with your criticism of judges. But this doesn’t in any way support a no-judgement-just-lock-em-up-forever system, does it?

We’ve got judges that do the wrong thing by us, and we’ve got police who do the same. For as long as we have a high degree of ‘imperfection’ in our whole legal and law-enforcement arena, the LAST thing we need is to make it worse by legislating anti-democratic and anti-rule-of-law laws such as mandatory penalties that operate completely regardless of circumstances or proper judgement… or ANY judgement!

In fact, I would argue that laws that impose mandatory penalties that take away person’s right to fight his/her case are ILLEGAL! Not the New South Wales government nor any Australian government should be able to legislate this sort of thing.

In my view, no-one deserves to be murdered, therefore all those convicted of murder should be treated the same.
I choose to work in the human services industry, if someone murders me while I am doing my job what is the difference between that and a police officer who is doing their job?

Ludwig,

Firstly innocent people are not jailed.

Secondly the mandatory sentence is for murder, not manslaughter. The requirements for murder are that there was a deliberate intent to kill or harm the person.

Please get your facts straight before posting.

Judges Magistrates, can be and more often than not are out of touch with the rest of us.
We all know of criminals going free who should be in side.
NSW has had one who openly sides with those abusing police.
But with a 25 year minimum already in place this is nothing but populism in action.
In 25 years from now, it may be some one leading Big Barry's party who wants to let a prisoner free who has committed this crime.
Our Police are not to be targeted but lets be honest this will not save one life.
I suspect more would support it if it was proved it would stop one death.
If NSW wants to toughen up lets see very much longer prison terms for this states growing Celebrity drug dealers.
And Equally star like Celebrity Criminals, free to shoot up each other and our suburbs.

Dear oh dear Shadow Minister!

Innocent people DO get jailed, given life sentences and death sentences! This has been shown to be the case time and time again in the USA and elsewhere, by way of DNA evidence.

Please live up to your own expectations and get your facts straight before posting.

Secondly, it often takes a detailed examination of all the evidence to determine whether a death was the result of murder or manslaughter.

But where it concerns the death of a police officer, there would be a strong propensity to think the worst of the offender, or accused. Rather than it being a case of innocent until proven guilty, it would very much be the other way around.

If anything, an unintelligent mandatory life term law is only going to make this worse.

Dear Ludwig,

I totally agree with you. Passing legislation that would entail mandatory life terms for killing police officers goes against the assumption that currently stands - that we're all equal under the law.
Each case needs to be looked at - individually - depending on the circumstances involved. As we've seen in past cases there have been many incidents where the action of police officers themselves - needed to be scrutinised. Where their lack of training resulted in
tragic outcomes that should/could have been avoided. Police officers
should not be above the law - they should also be held accoutable for their actions like the rest of society - and putting laws like these
into place - is almost like giving them a blank cheque - no accountability for their behaviour.

Me too Ludwig.
We all know law and order is a tool often used in politics.
This is such a tool.
My state needs and end to very many awful people walking away free from our courts, because they are Celebrity's.
Or seen to be from under privileged back grounds.
I value police very highly, we can never bring back brave young men and women.
But doing this, with out freedom to change our minds is not law and order.
The very right in this NSW government has too much control.
I a Labor member am not yet willing to kick Barry, but he is starting to fray so very early on some issues.
Who would have thought it, but the shamed ALP is assured of making big inroads in the next election.
A good number Barry have become one termer's just based on two early actions, this is one and solar, not the reason, but for the promise broken, is worth ten seats.

As a retired Det Sgt. I applaud any proposal to toughen sentencing for killers of police.

Why make it exclusively for violent crimes against police per se. ?
What about other victims of capital crime.

All life is precious, and in my view unless there's significant mitigation, all capital crime should attract mandatory life.

Someone herein referred to weak Justices dispensing even weaker penalties in serious crimes of violence - well, like it or lump it, that's what happens when you have a Labour Govt. in power. They appoint 'socially correct' members of the judiciary, and the rest is history.

You might need to look up the term "murder" by legal definition, Ludwig. You can't accidentally murder someone.

Dear o sung wu,

Talking about history...

Let's also remember that as David Marr writes in an essay called,
"His Master's Voice: The Corruption of Public Debate under Howard," that:

"John Howard had the loudest voice in Australia. He cowed his critics, muffled the press, intimidated the ABC; gagged scientists, silenced NGOs, censored the arts, prosecuted leakers, criminalised protest, and curtailed parliamentary scrutiny...More than any law, any failure of the Opposition or individual act of bastardry over the last decade, what's done most to gag democracy in this country is the sense that debating John Howard gets us nowhere..."

As you say, the rest is history indeed. The Liberal Party, supposedly the bastion of smaller government and less intervention is still full of people who are ardently in favour of regulating who we sleep with, who we marry, what we do with our bodies, who can have children and how... Plus we should all be unhappy that in a country where state and church are separate a political party leader would let himself be led by his responsibilities to his church first and his constituents second. We should all be concerned that if elected as PM the integrity of his role would be compromised by his religious position.

Guess I should elaborate...

Murder: The UNLAWFUL killing of one human by another, especially with PREMEDITATED malice. (capitalized by me)

They would be found guilty of murder, THEN the sentence would be life because they murdered (premeditated and unlawful) a copper. So they should. Setting out with the intention to kill a police officer should be life. About time they started increasing sentences across the board.

Whilst I understand the distinction you make Stg, police are excellent manipulators of the legal system already. Try and convict a police officer of UNLAWFUL killing and you will find they will close ranks.

In the case of the Palm Island case we may have legal resolution, but still have no real resolution, and with certain multiple tazering incidents where the victim was killed, the police legal position seems to defy logic.

If we are to introduce mandatory sentences at all, for any reason, the notion of the right to a fair trial (if there is such a thing), is redundant, because the discretion of a judge in sentencing cannot be exercised in any, or particular case.

Without the discretion of a judge and/or jury etc, the legal notion of fairness is out the window , police or not police. Full stop.

...David Carthy was an off duty policeman drinking at a hotel in Fairfield, Sydney, when confronted by his assailants at the rear of the hotel. Not the cut and dried murder of a policeman in the line of duty; and I don’t think the incident is the correct one to demonstrate the necessity for a need for change to current laws.

...Also it appears, the retired director of the DPP, Nicholas Cowdery, disagrees with the decision on the grounds that the change removes flexibility of the judiciary to judge on the given circumstances of an event such as this.

...So as tragic as the death of David Carthy was, the circumstances of this attack lacks the status of “special merit”, and should not warrant changes to the existing law applicable to police killers on the strength of these particular circumstances

Once apon a time murder was a life sentence no matter the status of the victim. Whatever happened to life sentences. They are rarer than hen's teeth.

Murder in any form is heinous and attracts a long sentence, which is typically subject to parole after a period.

Killing a policeman is not generally an isolated crime. Killing a policeman deliberately is usually to avoid arrest for another serious crime such as murder, drugs etc, and the killing of the policeman is a calculated attempt to avoid a long jail sentence by risking a longer one.

If the consequence of murdering a policeman is life without parole, the risk the crook is taking is much greater, and the incentive to kill to escape is reduced, and the life of the policeman, whose duty is to protect the rest of us is a little safer.

While I am not a particular advocate of mandatory life sentences, I do believe in strong deterrents for killing policemen that cannot be waived by a soft judge.

The Murder of that police man was an act by evil men.
I would have supported the death penalty with out pain.
But it seems we are getting two different concerns mixed up.
First very poor Judges/Magistrates exist under every form of government.
I suspect also both forms actually drive softness in courts.
To keep prisons manageable.
Both no measure of law and order.
But we should not forget no plan to give life sentencing to child Murderers, exists.
A problem with a public that believes solidly court rulings are wrong will not be fixed by mandatory sentencing for one crime.

<< You might need to look up the term "murder" by legal definition, Ludwig. You can't accidentally murder someone. >>

I wouldn’t be so sure about that, StG.

You are right in the theoretical sense, but in the real world if the cops want someone to go down for murdering a police officer, then they’ll probably go down, even if it was accidental.

Thinker 2 makes a very good point:

<< …police are excellent manipulators of the legal system…>>

So in a practical sense, you can indeed accidentally murder someone.

...The killing of David Carthy was a particularly vicious event. He was confronted by a gang of youths at the rear of the hotel; early in the mallei he was stabbed in the heart, but did not die instantly. While lying on the ground, he had his nose and one ear cut off, and an attempt was made to scalp him.( A transverse cut was made around his scalp).

... While dying on the ground from loss of blood, the gang continued to bash and kick him to death, with the assistance of additional friends recruited from the bar inside the hotel.

...He was wearing partial uniform at the time, and was off duty and drinking with colleagues after work and late at night

Yes diver Dan, why are any of those sill alive?
Having once had a few beers there it was not always the place of evil it was that night.
Never forget them never forgive either.

Since my retirement I must admit I'm well out of touch with crime, even crimes of violence perpetrated against police.

It would seem prima facie the facts surrounding the death of CARTHY (an off-duty copper) sound heinous indeed.

From what I've heard from some of my former colleagues, violence occasioned against the person seems to be worsening.

Why, I believe it's because of the apparent leniency metered out by many of those 'soft souls' on the bench ?

It would appear also, there's been many more instances of (serious) cruelty against animals - and we've been informed by thoses who know, there's a direct causal link of cruelty, to that of violence against people.

It would seem our western society is simply breaking down. Irretrievably me thinks ?

Thinker 2 and Ludwig,

Meh, you're both living in conspiracy theorist lala-land. Can't be bothered with that.

<< All life is precious, and in my view unless there's significant mitigation, all capital crime should attract mandatory life. >>

Fair enough o sung wu.

The important thing is that it should be uniform across society and NOT different and harsher where it concerns the police.

<< Meh, you're both living in conspiracy theorist lala-land. Can't be bothered with that. >>

No StG, we are living in the real world. You can’t dismiss us that easily.

The police are no angels. While I presume most are good, there are real problems, not just with some individuals but with some aspects of the police ‘culture’. We only need to look at Palm Island to see that, or the problems with the police that we’ve seen in the media, in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria… over recent years.

I agree there Ludwig, the punishment should be the same for the same crime. More importantly, those who commit these crimes should be kept out of society, until they are too damn old to be dangerous.

Yes o sung wu, our society does appear to be in terminal decline. I believe only a major catastrophe, which brought us back to doing real work to survive will fix that. I find it ridiculous that you see couples struggling under the cost of a huge mcmansion, & a couple of prestige cars, when a simple cottage will keep you just as warm & dry, & small cars are just as likely to start when you need them.

It reminds me of that overcrowding experiment with lab rats. In a large cage they supplied everything the rats could require, but kept increasing the number in the cage. At a certain level of rats they started attacking, & killing each other, although they had everything they needed in abundance. This effect was repeatable.

Tends to match what we see in our larger cities today, & add a few strings to Ludwig's bow.

A side light on that experiment was the nutrition experiment they conducted simultaneously.

They fed 2 propriety breakfast cereals to 2 groups of rats,& a control group were fed on the packets the cereals came in. Would it surprise anyone to know that the control group thrived, but those on the cereals died of malnutrition

o sung wu I am far from a crawler.
Have head butted some in your former roll.
But every horrible detail of that young mans death is in my memory always.
He was from a police intergenerational family.
A constable out there hurting no one his murder was as bad as any I ever heard of.
You touch on the real problem.
How many of us doubt, very real foolishness passes for judgment in our legal system.
In my state,not one but two who hand down judgments are under investigation,for being mentally unfit to continue working!
I ask why we can not restructure punishment for all crime,set minimum and maximums that have room for variations.
And answer my own question, concerns at the costs of imprisonment is weighing down court rulings here and in the western world,see California's orders to reduce prisoner numbers.
We ,every one of us,should take the time to read about the savage inhuman death of this young man and ask why is or law and order in need of help.
Criminals with money should pay for their own prison terms.

Belly:

…Society is regulated on a code of morals. The code of morals is attended to by the justice system, and must be kept robust and independent of common emotional events such as this. Young Carthys brutal death is sadly all too common in society generally. Often this type of brutality is exercised on women in situations of domestic violence for example: In recent times we have become aware, through news bulletins, the brutal murders of women and children; one child thrown to its death from a bridge in Melbourne by her Father.

…The emotional responses to these events are to be resisted, and not allowed to become a compounding legacy of the violence through “draconianism”. Just as all Fathers are generally not prone to infanticide, neither is society generally prone to killing police. The opposite is in fact the truth, and thankfully, since the vast majority of people in our society are born with a healthy and innate sense of morality, a morality built on the tenant of compassion, a key human emotion, we should trust the system to be “fair and even in its judgements”, that I believe was the point being made by the retired director of the DPP, Nicholas Cowdery.

…You mentioned the necessity, due to austerity measures, the Californians now find themselves confronted with; a need to empty jails. My view is, the situation for them has developed by succumbing to the emotional over-response to high profile events, which are thankfully rare.

diver Dan while understanding what you are say I can not agree.
I think our system of law and order is and always will be flawed.
California, has a population much bigger than us.
Its prisons, not unlike ours have larger numbers of some profiles because they commit more crimes,and can not afford slick lawyers.
Now lets sit in our minds haveing a beer that night in that pub, I have a few times.
Young cop had spoken to a , sorry in my view ego driven trouble maker with no respect for anyone.
But not on that night.
He was having a beer with a work mate.
I do not want to revisit his death,the brutality hate gutlessness.
Just think, if he was your son.
Brother
Father
Forgive me,I live within bounds, never king hit, never start a fight, bit I know what happened that night and in the courts.
I do not think life should always be life.
But guilty should not go free only because or courts have idiots on the bench, and they do.

I might be able to agree with you diver dan, but only when we get to elect our judges, & they are only elected for 3 years. With the present system it is always the worst who stay for too long, right into their dotage.

Having to ask for our vote should get a little much needed humility into their heads, & cause them to pay some attention to the public's wishes.

Hi Belly...

Unfortunately the judiciary believe that we the general public are NOT in a position to fairly determine the most appropriate punishment that a convicted individual should receive.

Further, they claim (rightly in my opinion) that we the public, are not in possession of all the facts, in order that we may establish the TRUE culpability of the convicted person.

By that, I mean matters associated with issues of mitigation, criminal responsibility and capacity, criminal antecedents, demography matters and other considerations that are generally within the exclusive purview or aegis of the bench.

Issues of 'emotion' rarely if ever influence the judiciary in determining (severity in) punishment. If they did, the appellate protocols would necessarily, be in overdrive !

O sung wo:

...On the influence of emotion on judicious outcomes to sentencing, o sung wo, our paths converge. It is a misconception to which the public, due to ignorance of the role of the judge in his day to day duty, often labour under: To believe the Judiciary should fall into line with public hysteria in regulating outcomes to heinous crimes. But public opinion is, none the less, certainly a sensitive issue to the Judiciary: One which is considered.

...Unfortunately, “Hasbeen” demonstrates the need for the public to be excluded from the debate on crime and punishment. Howards political incursion into calamitous changes to gun laws following the Port Arthur massacre, adds the highlight to draconian changes to the law by politicians pandering to the public sentiment for political gain. One could argue, the American reluctance to change laws relating to gun ownership, is equally politically motivated, giving a reverse outcome to our own.

...Belly, sorry old mate, but your approach to lynching as retribution for such crimes as these, would land you in front of the judge for the same reason as the perpetrator of the crime in question. At that point you would be arguing before the judge the justification of your act, and why you felt emotionally motivated to take the law into your own hands. Jails are half full of people that took the law into their own hands. There would be little mercy for you, however much you expected it.

Mandatory life term for cop killers......well IMO, its a No-brainier. Why is this even a point of discussion?

By definitional understandings for the absolute point of order with-in front line solders, this takes the capital stance of what ( we all well know ) that should be.

Discussions on human-nature are well documented, not the time or the place.......or, are ideas planted by our discussions? Law is here for one reason, and for one reason only.

There is no such thing as police corruption.

LEA

Sorry diver Dan, get yourself back on track.
Not only are you putting words in my mouth you are being inventive.
NEVER said I wanted to Lynch anyone, never thought it said it ok?
Do you know about the public butchering of that young man?
Do you know about the sentences handed down.
Can you see my posts clearly say no life sentencing.
If no police walked our streets would you.
Is being a cop reason to be MURDERED.
Dan, mate, if he was your son, well Lynch was used in a silly way and you need to think about it.

This is an unfair approach. Murder a Police Officer or anyone for that matter & it should be life. Kill a cop or some other low life & a different approach is needed. Sadly, there are more cops than Police Officers nowadays.

Well:) what a question. As I see, the good are sometimes the bad...and the bad are doing more good, than truth will allow. This human nature thing is really confusing me.

Question! What would you do with a diseased limb?

I think Monday will be a fresh new day:)

Who knows, maybe bigger things will transpire.

Australia!

Thank goodness its an island.

LEAP

Belly:

...True, you did not actually say that. I was reading between the lines of your posts and drawing my own literal conclusions. But here we go again, A Policeman shot at point blank range and in the face during a robbery on the gold coast last night. Mandatory sentencing will not deter this type of spontaneous crime: Twenty five year jail terms are sufficient I believe

Diver Dan,
25 years sufficient for a life ? What about the victim's family ? They get life too but theirs is a lot longer than 25 years in many cases. Killing a mongrel human should be exonerated not punished. Murdering is a totally different scenario because it is plain malice. Killing can be accidental, self-defence or due to psychological torture. Most killings are brought on by the nasty mentality of the aggressor not the victim of the aggression.
The real problem here is that in order not to understand you need to be highly educated.

Individual:

…Or is it the fact that the highly educated have control of the outcomes. But I agree. And that exactly is the case in question. The Judiciary have the role to judge the situation; the reason why mandatory sentencing is draconian. What mandatory sentencing does is reduces the role of a judge to that of a rubber stamp.

…It is also a truism which has been attested to me on numerous occasions by lawyers, Jails are half full with the innocent. That is another way to highlight the point you make. Judges, by and large, are not stupid. They are very capable at seeing the truth of a situation, and must be allowed to judge accordingly

Diver Dan,
I'm not suggesting that Judges are stupid although some of their decisions make them look that way. I also don't mean to say that an uneducated person is stupid ether. What I am saying is that many highly educated people are so way out of touch that they make stupid decisions, again judges & magistrates are serious offenders in decision making. I had a personal experience where the decision of a magistrate was so blatantly wrong that, had it been more serious I could very well have been tempted to do something which would have made me a criminal. Imagine becoming a criminal because of a stupid magistrate. I'm sure there are many people out there who fall into this category. What the authorities need to wake up to is that people are reaching saturation stage with incompetent public servants & listening to some victims it is clear that these authorities are creating time bombs.

Indy.

Add this:)

If humans search of all, you will find religion at every end of human environmental understandings.

This thread says.....an eye for an eye.

Any banana's any one? Look! The world as one! If you dont want the world as one.........then go to a zoo and see who you are.

Now I give up.

If you and the world can see what your doing...........there is knowings, and only life can see.

LEA

Oh and I meant to add....my condolences to the family of the latest fallen police officer........may this kind of people "never be released."

Eye for a eye....life for a life.

Thanks to all that put their life on the line for all of us, we appropriately stand for one minutes silence.

LEA

Hi quantumleap...

Indeed, I totally agree with you. It is so very sad to see another copper murdered in the line of duty.

What sort of punishment fits such a crime ? I really don't know. Even though I'm now retired from the job, I still do not agree with capital punishment under any circumstances.

I do beileve however, long Gaol terms, without any early parole, may be the answer ? NOT exclusively for the murder of police per se, (as I stated earlier on in this thread), for ALL Capital crime where there's not a skerrick of mitigation disclosed.

But that's not going to happen is it !

What is the point of a sentence when there is a parole period ? The fact is that simple stealing doesn't attract the attention of magistrates & so, the culprit steps up & on it goes. By the time the culprit has developed a mentality devoid of compassion & responsibility it is too late as by then he's learnt how to manipulate a magistrate's warped mentality. I would like to see the Law reform Commission to wake up & do what they get paid huge monies for.

o sung wu...yes, capital punishment I too disagree with, and early prole is defiantly out of the question. If people are not made for society, then life in prison can only help as a deterrent for likes of these jail want-to-be,s and to me life means life. Although in the US, the death penalty works as a great persuader for the lawless, just the notion of lethal injection is enough to run chills through the spine.

I don't know, in some cases like the Anita Colby killers, life seems a fitting sentence, however if the crime is sickening to the stomach, I think it would fair to put these animals out of there misery. See it depends after its happened to you, most change there tune.

No-one has the right to take a life and we all believe that, but some situations cry's out for the eye for an eye and even the bible has passages to that effect. So if God calls for it, how can anyone who believes say No.

The cost alone per in-mate is just staggering, and a heaver reality would for most I think, make them think again before they take a life.

LEA

o sung wu. Hi

I know your a retired officer of the law, and I was just wondering if you yourself have been shot at? I hope you don't mind. I think most people would understand the dangers of your profession and unfortunately the bravery that it takes, has little understanding.


"Mandatory life term for cop killers and all killers alike" I'd add.

Enjoy your time of peace.

LEA

Good evening to you Quantumleap...

In answer to your question - yes, with a shotgun. It occurred on Monday, 29 November, 1993. The assailant (sadly) later turned the gun on himself. One doesn't so easily forget such an incident in a hurry.

Such an encounter certainly brings things into a sharp perspective as it unfolded. It just happened, and it was over with, in a matter of a few short minutes. Though the memory of those events, stayes with you for a very long time I suspect ? It will me.

In point of fact, I actually served in South Vietnam before joining the coppers. Of the 'contacts' and ambushes in which I was manifestly involved, I can honestly say, was very differant indeed, to the events of 29 November, 1993.

It was the first and only time I was ever actually 'fired upon' in the job - and I was totally unprepared, both emotionally and physically for such an event.

So much for my former military training !

Goodnight Quantumleap, I hope this answers your question.