Appalled at NSW 6 year sentence for killing wife by cutting her throat in jealous rage. Manslaughter not murder because he was "provoked" emotionally. Seems to put women's rights back into the subservient slave category. If they play up beat them or kill them. Don't think ex-lawyers who make it to the bench have any particular qualifications in delivering justice. Wonder what other Aussie voters think about this. Killer was foreign visitor so question whether we deport him when he gets out or give him citizenship as an upholder of the law.

Voterland I do not value judges or magistrates.
We have spoken about this often, but most recently in a thread about Sydney gun crime.
Such a sentence is proof some are not fit to judge.
I however think only in minimums can one side or the other help the out comes.
That puts a floor in such cases, hopefully 15 years.
I also think costs of imprisoning are partly to blame for short sentencing and early releases.

Don't forget the other side of the coin Voterland. That's where women have committed premeditated murder, but by claiming domestic violence, often somewhat doubtful, they have got off scot free.

Still I do agree. I can see no reason to select barristers, who have often done much of their business with criminals, to be our judges.

Many of them are closer to their criminal customers than the general public.

Most of them have indulged in "smart" practices in order to be successful in the somewhat shonky business of trial activity, & more than a few have been found bending the truth when they thought they could get away with it.

In fact they are probably the least likely people to dispense justice. Dispense the law, but justice is not of much interest to them.

I like the idea of mandatoey sentences, & elected judges. Much better for the general public.

your forgetting that prison is a fun camp[apparently]
but who wants to know...private prison industry?

yes private prisons[paying slave wage]
its the rest of us that are wage slaves..
helping capitalist prisons reap in free labour
plus govt supply and subsidy

[heck i been under self imposed home detention for 5 years]
im over paying a govt that declared me criminal

setting criminal sentance?
first clarify what is criminal
[no victim no crime]..when are we going to jail capitalists frauds?

white collars..that stole so much...they own the system
bailout banks..by lending from banks...but the burden on the rest of us

its so easy to beat up fears
and get tough on drug users..criminalising 1 % of the population EVERY YEAR*

those who made a plant a drug
how do we correct the rape of millions[1%..in one year
25% in 25 years]..in collusion to revenue raise..by threat/fear

by govt handout
renting back to govt
so many need to be jailed
lets put the really evil/vile criminal..in jail

judges have the facts
lying under oath[missleading the court]..will go directly to jail

yeah right
its time if you shared the crime[or covering it up]

equal time!

Ii'm oppsed to elected judges.
In the US , this processs, has given rise to judges, struggling to raise money to fund reelection campaigns, if not accepting bribes, at least delivering verdicts that are favourable to the wealthy.
I would also point out research where people were asked if judges tended to sentence too leniently.
Most said yes.
Yet when those same people observed an entire case and saw ALL the evidence, they tended to suggest lower sentences than the judges eventually imposed.
This research suggests that we often end up with a distorted view of the circumstances in any given case due to a) not having access to all the facts and evidence; and b) the tendency of the media to support facts selectively and to intentionally whip up community anger because it sells copy.
Maybe a third reason is that politicians bereft of sensible policies can always count on a get-tough-on-crime strategy to garner votes.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Voterland, I feel that you have made a very firm judgement on this case without knowing anywhere near enough about it. It could well be that the judge got it right.

Or it could be that the sentence is manifestly too harsh.

<< I like the idea of mandatoey sentences, & elected judges. >>

Oh heavens no, Hasbeen!

Each case needs to be judged on its merits. Mandatory sentencing is enormously dangerous if the law is not properly constituted to prevent very minor cases or cases with strong mitigating circumstances from being subjected to a harsh mandatory penalty.

Judges need to be appointed on merit and certainly not on the basis of who has the best public persona, the most money, the richest financial contributors to an election campaign, etc, etc.

It really isn't up to us to comment on any trial (murder or otherwise) unless we have been in the courtroom throughout the proceedings. Even then, some of the evidence is not revealed at all, or only during sentencing.

In the last 18 months, I have sat on 3 juries (1 rape trial, 2 murder trials). In each instance, there were drugs and alcohol involved, affecting various people's cognition and responses.

On the rape trial, I found the female judge to be manipulative and the jury to be both heavily biased and incapable of weighing up the evidence. It seems to me that Matriarchal Law applies to sexual assaults these days, and the chance of any alleged paedophile, rapist or incest committer going home is about a snowball's hope in Hades.

In this instance, I think the judge should have banged most of the people at a party's heads together and sent them to Rehab, since they didn't behave in the best interests of themselves or their friends. Instead the man got 7 years for 1 count of rape, and another woman and I steadfastly held out against a second rape conviction. The judge decided she was going to go for him on the second charge with a fresh jury. The defendant was black and spoke only broken English.

The jury on the first murder trial I sat on was sent home after I let the Justice know that the defendant had no chance of getting a fair trial from the mottly bunch of classist, racist jurors. I also voiced concerns about action/inaction by the police. Again, the defendant was a coloured person.

On the second murder trial, a white man was convicted on the greater charge of Murder, after he tried unsuccessfully to get off on a Manslaughter Charge. I liked the way this particular case was handled by the Justice, Police and Legal Teams.

Whether or not someone can get off on a lesser charge is dependent on the degree of provocation when weighed up against the degree of damage inflicted, and also the other possible solutions or escape routes available to the alleged murderer or victim. This person got a life sentence (about 10 years in Queensland) for a very heinous murder. In Victoria, the prison term would be 20 years.

I have to wonder if Mandatory Sentencing is more about helping Serco make money, or more about getting criminals off the streets. I think it could be the former.

In any case, I think we need a wholesale crackdown on adults and teenagers who do the wrong thing. This needs to happen quite early in the piece, not after they have committed multiple crimes, possibly of increasing severity.

I think the punishment should fit the crime e.g. if teenagers beat up a disabled child, perhaps they should each have to:

1. wash his underwear and socks by hand for a month.
2. bake him a cake every week for a month.
3. give him their most prized possession.

The courts could also get graffiti artists onto a Graffiti Removal Gang for an entire weekend.

From my own experiences in the courts, I think Residential Rehab needs to be the main destination/solution for those committing many criminal offences but, if you're a major psychopath, you need to be locked away.

Great points, Lorikeet,
I enjoyed reading of your real life experiences.
I agree with your thoughts re rehab, as I do feel that some of our prisons are really crime universities.
And I do think we've become sufficiently civilised to move away from the eye for an eye model.
Anthony
Htto://www.observationpoint.com.au

I think if we started electing judges, we would end up with the same type of rich shonks we finish up with in the parliament.

In some European countries, cases are tried by a panel of judges. It's hard to know if this would be better or worse than a jury system (might depend who is influencing them).

My advice to the government would be to screen all potential jurors for both mental health status and personal biases, using a questionnaire. It is also essential that they are literate in English, and can see and hear well.

Some people believe that we have an independent judiciary here in Australia, but I know that in civil court matters involving damages claims against various levels of government, the government sometimes influences the outcome in advance.

I think if there's a big criminal court case and the general public is howling for blood, politicians might try to bring some pressure to bear on the outcome to serve their own purposes.

Minor Rape Charge

http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html

I heard a commentator speaking on Minor Rape Charges on TV recently. It seems that people who have consented to sex but didn't like the sex that they got can now bring a charge against the other person.

I also agree with the person who said that the media engage in misreporting of cases before the courts. Sometimes they get 2 cases that are being heard at the same time confused together. Sometimes they engage in sensationalist journalism just to attract viewers.

In 2 out of the 3 cases I sat on, some of the facts were misrepresented in newspapers, not necessarily deliberately.

Another issue lies with a defendant's financial status. The person who can afford the best lawyer is more likely to get off altogether or be convicted of a lesser charge. He/she is also more likely to get back out on Appeal.

The very poor only have access to Legal Aid lawyers who seem to be less competent. If convicted, they have a good chance of getting back out on Appeal, because they don't have to pay to have a Legal Aid lawyer to represent them.

As for the average Aussie, once a person is thrown into the slammer, they are much more likely to have to stay there, as they are not eligible for Legal Aid and may not be able to afford a lawyer to conduct an Appeal.

Lots of poverty stricken coloured people get thrown into jail by biased jurors, but quickly get back out again on Appeal.

Having people of various races on juries may help to prevent overt racist attitudes coming to the fore in the Jury Room, but they don't prevent people from voting according to their personal biases during deliberations.

The main advantage of Mandatory Sentencing could be that the crime rate would reduce once a trip to prison became a dead certainty.

About 20 years ago, I had a friend who worked with street kids who sold drugs and stole cars. Once they hit the age of 18, their antisocial behaviour ceased due to the strong likelihood of a trip to prison.

Then after the law went soft on young adults, my friend quickly noticed that their bad behaviour continued. So I would see Mandatory Sentencing as a possible deterrent to at least some types of crime.

"It seems that people who have consented to sex but didn't like the sex that they got can now bring a charge against the other person"

Good grief. And glad you found somewhere to vent ... about everything.

This is useful information. Why belittle another person's input by labelling it venting?

You haven't added a single piece of positive input, so why bother?

I'd like to know the rationalé of letting a 15 year old go without any punishment after damaging Government property $6000, smashing up a Policeman's private vehicle, throwing a brick through the windscreen of a Police car while the Police where in it, breaking into private residences & stealing computers, breaking into Pubs (on security video) smashing doors & windows & defecating behind the bar in full view of the security camera (knowingly) etc etc.
This peace of crap cost me over $30,000 and grins at me every day he sees me because our dumb as dog $hit magistrates let him off every time.

I am opposed to an American like system where its thought democratic to elect everyone, be it judges or the local dog catcher, all you end up with is a politician acting as a judge or dog catcher.
The present system in Australia has its faults, not the least the complexity and the cost, a very costly system indeed. I support the jury system, although there are many within the legal profession who see juries as an unwarranted intrusion into their domain, 12 amateurs sticking their noses in when it don't belong.
I support the doctrine of the 'separation of powers' which divides the institutions of government into legislative, executive and judicial. With the legislature making the law; the executive putting the law into operation; and the judiciary interpreting the law. It is important to have each arm independent of the others always keeping the powers and functions of each arm separate.
Of course we could replace all the above with trial by media,as we often do. Where after a 30 second grab on the 6 o'clock news we could have viewers 'push red on their remote if they think the 'guilty party' should get 20 years up the river' push green if you want to let him go.'
Then Larry Emdur could bounce on in with "Hi there viewers, If you didn't tune in last night, you don't know what you missed. Karl the car thief from Kooyong got 15 years and a BMW. Cheryl the shop lifer was most unlucky to only land a 10 stretch. So stay tuned tonight because Bob the Basher will be playing for a life sentience! that's right, we could see Bob spending the rest of his natural life in a secluded hide-a-way, witch includes 1 star accommodation in the prison of his choice. stay tuned for that one, Now, Earnie the Embezzler, COME ON DOWN!"

Yes Paul, your comments put me in mind of the Chamberlains, whose marriage and reputation were destroyed by the media casting suspicion upon them because they were Christians.

Sorry about your bad luck, Individual. I have been to the police about teenagers behaving like garbage on a bus, and was backed by 2 bus drivers. The police went into the bus station and the schools. This seemed to improve matters out of sight.

I also went to the police about a schoolyard bully, but they couldn't bring a charge against the boy because he was 11 years old and labelled with ADHD. Despite this, he had been given a bit of a scare, and my trip to the police station was rewarded over the next couple of years, as the boy's attitude gradually improved.

Every time he saw me, no matter where it was, he would call out a greeting with a very great degree of respect. When I went to baseball with the class, he sat next to me and ate his lunch, read to me from his book and showed me his homework. Teachers couldn't believe their eyes.

When people get away with doing terrible things, it lowers their self-esteem further because a boundary line has not been drawn, and they are likely to ramp up their bad behaviour in order to find one eventually.

Maybe Individual could ask this kid why he does all this damage. I think I know the solution to this particular problem, but I couldn't post it here.

Lori,
You are absolutely correct, when it came to the Chamberlains. Some sections of the media went on a feeding frenzy particularly taking aim at Lindy Chamberlain. These irresponsible journalists, and I use the term journalist loosely, these grubs were not interested in justice, they used sensationalism based on half truths and down right lies to sell newspapers or win viewers.
I think the Chamberlains religious convictions was used to pump up the story, add the odd sensational angle, as well as Lindy's personality which played into the hands of the media. There were also a few politicians and police, who saw the Chamberlain case as a way of enhancing their careers.

ask this kid why he does all this damage.
Lorikeet,
I spoke with all the Police & one of the Magistrates involved. Also one of the community elders. The former told me that this kid is plainly devoid of any emotion, plainly malicious & getting bolder by the day because he tells that he can get away with it & once he reaches prosecution age he'll be sent to Prison which is what he wants because it is an initiation rite in his circles. The elder told me that the kid doesn't like school but when he wags school he doesn't get his school attendence money & when he doesn't get that money he breaks in & steals. His mate who is now of prosecution age is now training 8 -10 year olds how to break in. I have watched them watching us & they hang around the car park to see who is not at home & then they hang around & mobile phone contact to report when all's clear & then go ahead with breaking in.

I sympathise with you, Individual.

The DLP supports sending 15 year olds to TAFE where appropriate, whereas the Labor system supports educating everyone in the same overcrowded high school facilities. This leads to truancy and the problems you mention. High school students are also given too much free time to spend ANYWHERE but at school. This is something I would be eager to change, in order to improve educational standards and minimise costly vandalism, drug abuse etc.

This young guy is hopefully not beyond redemption. I would like to sit with him and see what he has to say.

The modern education system doesn't support any real sense of responsibility or discipline either.

The Greens among us would be aware that their party supports a "softly, softly" approach to pretty much everything, while the DLP supports a more holistic approach involving rewards, punishments, supervision, appropriate vocational training and rehab.

Lorikeet,
I have observed the goings on for a long time & the indisputable fact is that academic experts interfered with normal peoples' everyday life & in that process killed off common sense. This lack of understanding by academic social experts has gradually formed the idiotic society we are now.
You can not turn a criminal mind into a benevolent one if no punishment is dished out. Any village idiot can tell you that. If only we could swap the academics for village idiots we'd be a better society in no time.

On the husband who cut his wife's throat because he was jealous - it is interesting to learn how many people believe it is okay to murder their wife by cutting her throat like an animal in an abbatoir; that it is okay to go and get high on drugs and then murder someone; it is okay to kill someone if you get blind drunk first. A bit tough for the victims given that nobody forces a person to get drunk on alcohol or high on drugs. It does seem amazing that people believe a murderer who says "I didn't mean to kill her", "I am really sorry for my crime", I was drunk at the time", "I was on drugs when I killed her" or "I thought (wrongly as it turns out) that she was in love with someone other than me, which is really hard to understand, given what a great bloke I am" would believe any of it. As if any half smart lawyer would not tell his client how well it would work on a judge or jury if they said that.Surely cases should be judged on evidentiary facts, not excuses crimninals drag out of their heads to get off. Did he or did he not kill her by cutting her throat while she was conscious? Yes or no. If yes, prescribed penalty.

The benefit of democracy is that we all have a right to our views. The pity is that judges and politicians so often ignore them.