the headlines screams : "Life jail terms for 'vicious' murder of David Liam Johnson in Swanbourne"

mind you... these are convicted murdurers most foul and vicious

and the murder was caught on security camera

so... no chance of miscarriage of justice

minimum of 24 and 14 years in jail for taking a life of an innocent man

somehow i cannot understand this twisted form of justice
has justice been given to the dead man's family?

i know many in this forum will continue to support jail sentence and rehabilitation for such cold blooded murdurers

i hope they will maintain their stand when their sons..husbands...daughters...wives are the victims

i for one do not think we are on the right path when we abolished the death penalty
we are not being civilised... we are just plain soft

let us bring back the death penalty

The problem with your solution of the death penalty is, as where it is used in America it has been proven with the passage of time a lot of innocent people were put to death.

Lately there have been numerous cases of forensic laboratories fixing and lying about evidence.

Also how many cases of police lying to get convictions have we had in the past, lots.

So my question to you is how many innocent people are you willing to accept being sentenced to death to satisfy your right to a satisfactory outcome to a verdict of guilty.

@philip

this is about the weakest argument against the death penalty

"let us allow hundreds to be murdered because we may..we might...we could put one poor innocent man to death"

you mean to tell me the murderers in the sydney cafe and paris shooting should be kept in jail for life (even when we know they are guilty without a shadow of doubt) ?

come come, give me a stronger argument like sanctity of life

let us look from the perspective of the victim's families
the poor wife
the poor mother
the poor children

what if you are one of them.... careful... often we have to take the medicine we prescribed for others to endure

no wonder we have shootings all over
lives lost because the punishment does not meet the gravity of the crime
we australians are so averse to punishment... is it really as the foreigners say, we are descendants of criminals and that is why we hate punishment so much?

Hi there PLATYPUS1900...

I agree with everything you've said concerning these killers. We here in Oz, are soft when it comes to punishment of our most serious offenders, compared to many other first world nations. Particularly when considering and 'weighing-up' the facts as disclosed in the NOKs 'VIS' ? The presiding judicial member tends to take more careful notice of any potential appellant's motion, that may 'blot' his judicial reputation.

And that's a sad state of affairs when you think of it ? Instead of boldly applying an appropriate sentence that's completely consistent with the seriousness of that crime. In my humble view, if it were up to me, I'd no longer give a 'head' sentence eg, 10 years, with a 5 years NPP., and with normal remission, he serves a minimum of 3 years, 6 months ? 3 1/2 years gaol, with 10 years on top ? Patently absurd in my view. Give him an unalterable 10 with a 'head sentence' of 15 years, otherwise it makes a complete mockery of incarceration per se ?

And for the record PLATYPUS1900, I totally oppose Capital Punishment for many reasons, more then I could possible enumerate I should think ?

**Where are you, A.J. PHILIPPS when your 'criminology' expertise is needed please ?**

o sung wu,

I’m not sure if you’re being snide by asking where I am, when I’m “needed”. If you’re not, then I apologise for being so suspicious.

When I read the two comments here from Platyus1900 after everything we’d discussed on that other thread recently, all I could do was let out a groaning sigh. Though there is far more I could add to what I said in that other discussion, I’m not sure I feel like having this discussion again just yet. But I was tempted to leave Platypus1900 a link to it, so here it is anyway …

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17092&page=0

@osw and philips

hmmm... many reasons not to have capital punishment?
i only have one reason to support it and that is all that matters... sanctity of life

just see the number of shootings and murders that happens in our country and ... i rest my case

thks

@osw

in just one line...what is your stand on abortion?

thks

A.J.PHILIPS...

No, I was not attempting to be derisive nor deprecating - I was merely seeking from you, a succinct précis of a more practical and effective sentencing paradigm ?

Rather than the tired, convoluted mess we're confronted with daily in our criminal courts, where there appears to be no standards nor criterion in which the judiciary should be able to follow ? Despite their claims to the contrary.

You hear these mutterings in the dim corridor's of our courthouses, as various counsel peer hopefully at the days listings '...hope to get old Judge 'Bloggs' for my client's sentencing, he's a timid old fart...' ? Or visa versa. Inconsistency proliferates and abounds throughout our criminal justice system, which certainly doesn't serve the interests of justice. For anyone, litigant or otherwise I would've thought ?

Hi (again) PLATYPUSS1900...

Mate, that's a tough call to answer your question (without qualification) in one simple short sentence ? There's a certain stage during the progress of pregnancy, where I believe the woman 'owns' her own body, and the embryo she carries within her.

Up until a certain time (precisely what, I think the 12 week?) the foetus may be aborted by a properly qualified Doctor. Or in other circumstances, where the life of the woman is in peril.

My single sentence answer to you; - Yes and no ? But depending who reads this, I'm either right or wrong, morally. Alternatively, I'm right or wrong depending on a number of circumstances - legally speaking ? I'm buggered whichever way I jump eh ?

@osw

let me help you
i said earlier, truth is always simple
dont complicate it
your knickers get tied in knots when you are not living in truth and you end up with lengthy poirotic justifications

life starts at conception
respect that
child bearing women has all the say on their bodies..sure
but when a child is conceived...her choice and say ends (only exception is when the fetus is life threatening)
while she has all the say on her body, she owe it to her baby all the care to make sure she doesnt get pregnant

the reason why i ask that question is not to go off track

my point is we have very serious discussion here in this forum on the rights of a convicted murderer but we are so careless over the life of the innocent unborn human baby .. whose only wrong is to be the child of its careless parents...who will rather choose to kill it (murder as it is premeditated) for economic and lifestyle convenience

those who argues so strongly for the convicted murderers not to be hanged or shot, and in the same breath say it is ok for mothers to terminate the life of thier unborn.... think again.

Platypus1900, don't you think you are being a bit hypocritical carrying on about the 'sanctity of life' in your stance against abortion, but yet quite happy to allow our criminal law system to kill people as a punishment for them killing others?

Yet, here we are in Australia where legal, safe abortion is available, but not capital punishment.
Doesn't this fact tell you where the majority of Australians stand on these issues, and if we are living in a democratic country then that is how it is?

Sheesh, o sung wu, that’s a mighty big topic!

I think the current sentencing rationales and principles are a pretty good foundation to work with. They took us centuries to develop (with the Enlightenment being a big step forward). However, many of the aims and principles are contradictory, and there are two main ‘schools of thought’, and models of ethics, that individual judges will favour - depending on their worldview - in order to deal with the inherent contradictions. There is the justice model (retribution) versus the welfare model (rehabilitation); then, to complicate things further, there’s ethical formalism and utilitarianism.

The level of discretion that allows judges to lean one way more than the other inevitably leads to injustices; but then, removing all discretion from judges would lead to even more injustices (just imagine how unfair you would have been in your duties as a police officer if you couldn’t have exercised any discretion).

Unfortunately, judges who take more of a welfare/utilitarian approach to sentencing are wrongly accused of looking out for the offender’s welfare to the detriment of the victims’ needs. I’ve gone over the reasons as to why this is misguided a few times on OLO. What I will add now, however, is that it is largely just assumed that more punitive sentencing will fulfil the needs of victims. What seems provide more restitution to victims is providing them with a sense of power again by handing them some ownership and control over their own conflicts, rather than having the state snatch it from them only to professionalise the whole process with little to no input from the victim.

Though still in their infancy, restorative justice measures (when properly prepared and done in the right circumstances) have been met with some overwhelmingly positive results for both victims and offenders. A mix of qualitative and quantitative research techniques with conference-only and conference-court studies here suggest that, generally speaking, three main things seem to provide victims with the greatest sense of restitution and enable them to move on. Surprisingly, a sincere apology comes at a distance third.

Continued…

…Continued

From what most victims report, the highest sense of restitution comes from the opportunity victims get to explain how what the offender had done affected them. At a close second is hearing an assurance from victim that they will try to mend their ways. This is because it gives the victim the sense that what happened to them was at least not in vain. Comparatively, punitive punishments seem to leave victims feeling relatively empty. But they’re still necessary, of course. While there’ll always be a place for punitiveness and imprisonment, we don’t realise how trapped in this paradigm our thinking is.

Anyway, a “practical and effective sentencing paradigm" is still going to appear to have inconsistencies and some of those “inconsistencies” will be warranted because of the sentencing principal of ‘individualised justice’ (which then makes it debateable as to whether or not there really was an inconsistency given that each individual’s circumstances are going to be different). In my opinion, all we can do is continue to refine what we’ve got and take a more evidence-based approach, while avoiding the trap of restricting our thinking to the current paradigm. It’s always going to be a work in progress as society’s values are continually changing. Despite the general public’s over-simplistic view that ‘more punitive’ = ‘better’, it’s actually a delicate balancing act. Even if it did make victims feel much better, there’s no point in putting relatively minor offenders behind bars only to be releasing them as violent offenders (as was happening in the Grafton Correctional Centre in the ‘70s).

Where inconsistencies are concerned, I think more alarming are the inconsistencies seen in sentencing between different races/ethnicities and socioeconomic demographics. There’s more we can do about that in the immediate future and it’s less subject to one’s personal preferences or worldview.

Hi (again) PLATYPUS1900...

I'm sorry I don't agree with your views on either abortion or capital punishment. Concerning abortion, it's my own compelling belief it's the potential mother who should be allowed to make a decision as to whether or not to terminate her pregnancy or carry on 'til full term ? After all it's her body, thus her risk, should anything unfortunate occur ?

My only caveat to the above statement , if the pregnancy is so far advanced toward 'full term', and beyond that which the law provides (I think it's the 24th week of the pregnancy), unless the mother's life is in medical peril, any termination at that late stage, is then perceived a crime ? I regret my knowledge of this particular statute is somewhat rusty.

Another vague thought I have, I recall something about; 'if it can be proved that the child was capable of being born alive, the charge of murder (infanticide) may apply' if a termination has taken place ? As I said my memory is very inadequate in these matters.

Look my friend PLATYPUS1900, I do understand your reasoning on these two in Bali, and the fact there's every possibility they will be executed. I should think you're not alone in this belief, they both deserve the strongest possible punishment available. It's just not my personal belief they should be executed. Believe me, I'm no 'wilting flower' in these matters.

A J PHILIPS...

Your 'brief' sentencing model was interesting to read, where you pulled all the theories together in an attempt to tease out the rationale some members of the judiciary employed to dispense justice in an equitable, impartial, and unbiased way.

All those of silk, who aspire elevation to the bench, to pursue a lifetime of judicial service, must first be made aware by their brother justices of the perilous nature their judicial reasoning may take ? If for no other reason then to ensure their judgements are as least tendentious as possible. And by not running the risk of their judicatory determinations being relentlessly appealed, by higher courts ? It's my belief many Judges tend to err on the side of legitimate leniency, rather then run the risk of bringing their judicial reputation under adverse notice, by more oppressive sentencing.

Furthermore I and many of my former colleagues believe fiscal considerations have a part to play ? It's common knowledge that incarceration of an individual is far more costly ? Then one who's been bailed, or had their punishment wholly suspended ? So the common belief amongst many detectives, there's a fiscal imperative, at the sentencing stage as well ?

A J PHILIPS your thread was comprehensive and articulate, for which you should be congratulated. Notwithstanding - It's my continued belief, greater weight should be placed on the substance contained in the VIS's ? The knowledge contained therein, should be well known to the presiding member. Otherwise the emotional, material, and family hurt, can never be accurately assessed ? And the weight of that VIS should be directly commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, and the custodial sentence proposed. Is it, I guess we'll never know ?

I am a firm believer in capital punishment but, only in cases where the offender was caught in the act. Not for anyone who has been convicted on evidence only.

@rehctub

some developed and enlightened minds will Not agree with you

taking a murderer's life is barbaric
taking an innocent person's life is not barbaric... just misguided and needs serious poirotic rehabilitation

:)

ps... pardon my repetitive use of punctuation marks... i am 115 years old after all :)

Morally and financially it's a no-brainer: murderers deserve to be put down and it saves a lot of money. The shadow of the hang-rope would concentrate would-be murderers' minds. So OK, let's have capital punishment.

But wait a minute, executing a person who is NOT a murderer would be a despicable crime. Who would want to share responsibility for such a crime? Not me for one. In WA it's practically the national sport to frame non-murderers, gaol them, and later find they had been fitted up by (in my view corrupt) prosecutors and idiot juries. Outside WA, in the notorious railroading of Lindy Chamberlain a bunch of NT redneck jurors didn't have the wit to reject forensic evidence blindingly obvious to be fake as part of a prosecution narrative full of equally obvious (to anyone with two or more neurons) lies.

In a hanging legal regime, the spectre of the hang-rope might concentrate minds on not murdering non-murderers. The Attorney General should have the power to give, or withhold, the nod for execution. If it later turned out the defendant had been railroaded, the person who gave the nod to the execution should be hanged immediately - no trial, no lawyer-fests, no ifs, no buts. Automatic. Along with the prosecutor who had persuaded a jury beyond reasonable doubt that a non-murderer was a murderer. Such a provision would add balance to any capital punishment regime. My prediction: there would be no hangings.

@emperor

you are ok with death sentence where the murderer is
convicted with irrefutable forensic evidence, security camera recordings and self confessions from a non repentant criminal ?

Platypus: Fine, just so long as the Attorney General and the prosecution team were to be strung up if it turned out the hanged defendant hadn't committed murder. What would there be to fear in accepting such a law?