…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.