So here we go again, another death at the hands of a thug on parole.

A 46yo father dead, his son with serious injuries, and once again, all due to another 'thug' who has been granted parole.

I think it's time we put our judicial system on trial. What's your thoughts?

Not only the parole board we better put Brandis on trial also.

I am getting more and more angry that the appalling behaviour of these thugs is putting our cherished aims of freedom in jeopardy. The incidents are nearly all caused and excused by adherence to one particular religion. In Australia I would believe that the majority, if they believe in any religion at all, would support the idea that all religions should only be a personal affair for each individual to decide for themselves. What anyone believes is entirely their own business and prositelization in any form should be made a serious offence. Anyone therefore convicted of radicalization would have committed an offence and deported on those grounds alone.

The judiciary seems to like 'thugs' more than it likes victims. Judges and magistrates in Australia are a bloody disgrace.

Judges and magistrates can only work with in the law. If they go beyond they end up with appeals.
What we need is your political party to get their act together and strengthen the slack laws and parole laws.

Butch,
Yes, it is high time the judiciary and their employer, the State, were put on trial for not doing what the public expect.

A couple of years ago a refugee walked free from court
, with no conviction, in the ACT after the rape of an underage girl.

He was here for 2 years and yet claimed ignorance.

In Surfers another refugee got off free after sexually assaulting 9-10 women and girls in the surf. Few cases of underage marriage reach court and then only get token sentences

In two cases of FGM in NSW the parents received token sentences, with one getting some 'home detention' and the other 12 mts jail SUSPENDED, and this was for the most serious of type3 FGM of a 9mts old baby. I am currently waiting on the outcome of an FGM case where two girls were taken to Africa for FGM and I am willing to bet there is only token penalties or none.

Everyday we see instances of light sentences, and bail being granted where the offender commits more crimes while on bail.

When I complained to my state MP about the light sentence given to the father of the FGM baby, I received a reply from a government bureaucrat saying the Judiciary was separate from the government and the gov had no control over them. That's BS, the government employ them and they work to gov guidelines. Mps should be accountable also.

well we have seen the atrocious performace of the head of the HRC. Appointments by lefties have stuffed what was once a safe nation.

Yes I believe it is time & most necessary that Parole boards & judges were "ATTACHED" to their decisions.

If they stupidly let out on the street, dangerous people who then commit offences, they should have to pay the price of that stupidity. They in their action have caused the offence to be committed, so should be found guilty of that offence, along with the perpetrator, & have to suffer the penalty for that crime.

While they can do their bleeding heart thing, of pretending to rehabilitate the thugs at no cost to themselves, that is what we are going to get. It will only be when they suffer a penalty for this, like the public they are supposed to serve, that they will start to put the safety of the public first, ahead of thee criminals.

It should never be forgotten that judges are lawyers first. They have been serving the criminals they represent for many years before they are appointed to the bench, & it appears to be a hard habit to break. Perhaps we need to elect our judges, as many are in the US, so we get judges thinking about who they serve.

Well finally the public see what the coppers have had to put up with for years. A very 'weak' insipid judiciary who are never held to account for their decisions other than the normal appeal process.

Police put it hundreds of hours to prepare a decent brief, only to have some feeble magistrate cut the offender loose, on some mere speculative point in law, allowing him/her a valid reason to do so. Our judiciary work for and on behalf of criminals, most definitely NOT for the public they ostensibly serve?

o sung wu,
I can only agree with you having been "in the boat" myself.
As a police prosecutor the daily frustrations in opposing bail for some crim with
a record dating back to the cot and having a 'beak' grant bail because
'he had to look after his sick mum' or 'bring the washing in' or had bent coppers
supporting his bail application really made the job defeating.
As long s we have the 'Law Society' running the show the cast will be weak, self serving
and completely ineffective.
You will recall "Straw Bail" no doubt, well at least with that form of corruption the arresting
detectives had control of the crim.

Hi there CHRISGAFF1000...

'Straw Bail' mate that's going back a piece eh! Technically corrupt, at least it often kept the public safe, from some marauding maggot going out and doing it again!

In NSW they're going to permit coppers to 'shoot to kill' in terrorists operations eh? Somehow I can see a real can-full of Coronial worms? How will the Courts define; a 'Terrorists Incident'? More often than not, there's a time lag before governments declare something as; 'Terrorist related'? Meanwhile you've dispatched some peanut, and a wise public servant, resplendent in his dusty little office, determines it's NOT terrorist related, merely an ordinary everyday crime. So then you're up the creek on your Pat Malone, probably even shunned by the Association?

I again repeat, I'm so glad I've retired. Stay well ol' mate.

Why is the Law fraternity exempt from Prosecution for their bad decisions? We have a number of Law people on here. Please explain.

Turnbull is not my government, he is a useless liberal 'wet' and as close as any conservative can come to being labor.

The real disapointment in my opinion is Abbott, for not showing some balls and standing up to these fools who are handing the primeinistership to Bill Shorten on a plate, although I do suspect Albo will be there sooner rather than later, which may then spark a reaction from Abbott. We can only hope.

It's sad to think that while I myslef, along with my parents brought children into such a wonderful place, my children no longer have the same oportunities, much of which can be blamed on our judicial system.

There was some woman on the Morning Show the other morning waffling on about why some very suspect people were given parole. I've no idea who she was as it was on the telly at the dentists so missed the lead up.

She said that if the crim had been good in jail then parole was a given, never mind that he'd still 5 years to go of a 20 year sentence for the killing of his mother or whoever. I was pretty stunned at her reasons as ..ok I guess you can muck up in jail but seriously there's not much to do but eat, sleep and read is there? I understand there are gyms but the freedom isn't really there to rob banks or beat up old ladies in the street so the options to muck up surely are pretty limited!

The other thing that stuns me in the first place is if you're young when you murder or rob..say 20..and you cop a 20yr sentence you are still only 40 when you get out. The person you killed is still dead..forever!

What judicial system. The only justice for murder is the hangman's noose. For all other brutal crimes, { the jewelry shop sudanese gang thieves down Melbourne spring to mind, they're so violent!} should be a minimum of 20 years and no parole ever.

@ rehctub....Abbott's hands are tied, he's not even on the front bench, so I'm not sure what you expect him to do? he has no power the poor sod. He took the Libs to a massive 30 seat majority and was backstabbed by the pathetic snake Turnbull and his cronies..Turnbull made the Libs a laughing stock and continues to do so, he lost the Libs huge lead and has been a useless piece of crap ever since.

Sadly, I think Labor will win the next elections and the Libs only have themselves to blame. The thought of Shorten being the PM makes me reach for the vomit bucket.
I'm going Pauline as I did last elections..and I'm a long time Lib voter. She's not my ideal choice but she's closer than the other muppets

I have to agree moonshine. In an ideal world I would not chose to vote for Hanson, but this is the only world we have.

Nothing would make me vote Labor with their ridiculous green lite policies, & I will never again vote Liberal while they continue to have people like Turnbull even in the ministry, let alone as PM. While their membership is so contaminated with ratbags, that they can elect a slime like Turnbull leader, I have very little confidence in the lot of them.

We therefore have little choice than Hansen, who may at least keep the left out, if not gain government.

It would be poetic justice for the current Liberal to have to court Pauline for votes to stay in power. That at least would stop their worst stupidity, such as the low emissions target.

Hi there JAYB...

'...Why is the law fraternity exempt from prosecution for their bad decisions...' you ask? The simple answer, you can't prosecute someone for being stupid or ignorant or making 'bad decisions'. The only way a member of the judiciary could be brought to book, would be for some criminal act arising out of his duty or roll eg, perverting the course of justice.

The Judiciary generally remains aloof, completely separated from government. Although the Attorney General and Minister for Justice (both politicians), can and do advise 'judicial members', of any amendments to, or variations of, government policy in matters of law, though not jurisprudence. However, when it comes to adjudicating on any matter, whether in civil or criminal jurisdiction, the Judicial member hearing the matter, is completely independent of any interference from either government or any individual politicians in toto.

If either the Crown or Defence are unhappy with either; (i)the actual proceedings itself eg rulings given, voire dire's etc; (ii) interpretation of various sections of law; Or in the case of a Trial; (iii)Instructions given to juries, from the Bench; or (iv) severity of sentence; then either side have access to a mechanism of appeal. This is one method, albeit a somewhat roundabout procedure, of correcting 'bad' decisions, by 'BOTH' sides, made by the 'Legal' fraternity.

JAYB this is but a very rudimentary appraisal of the Australian Legal process.

Thank you OSW, but what I was eluding to was the granting of Bail or Parole to the Accused/Convicted. Ignoring Legal People (Police/Prosecutor) who begged the Judge for the Accused/Convicted to be held. The Accused/Convicted then go on to carry out more Crimes.

I, for one, feel that the Judge should be held accountable for their decision & should/could be sued in a Civil Action. Especially in the case of murder.

I know the Legal Fraternity would find the Judge "Not Guilty" as a matter of course, but that's beside the point. (Corruption in High Places) They look after their own.

Jayb,
Obviously you do not understand the the "Law Fraternity" as you put it are APART
from the general community rather that A PART OF the community.
As such they are the law and we, the common man, have yet to 'come down from
the trees' as it were.

Chrisgaff: we, the common man, have yet to 'come down from
the trees' as it were.

Oh yes, I get that. Especially when a new Judge has to have his own Gold Plated Shower & toilet installed for a half million because he didn't want to use the toilet the of the Judge you replaced. I mean, how disgusting to use the same toilet the previous Judge used.

Jayb,

Your question is a pretty easy one to answer, and it’s one which shouldn’t require a member of the legal fraternity to answer. If judges, lawyers, forensic psychologists, etc. could be held to account for poor decisions made, then:

1. no-one would do the jobs, and;
2. we would see disproportionately harsh sentences meted out, and parole would never be granted.

Which would mean that we’d have to then punish those working for the courts for overly-harsh sentences and disallowing parole in cases where it can be shown that it should have been granted.

It’d be a lawyer’s dream, and I know you’d love that!

Do you ever spare a thought for those who are denied parole but would never have re-offended had they been granted it? Do you think judges and forensic psychologists should be punished in those instances too? And if not, why not?

AJ: Do you ever spare a thought for those who are denied parole but would never have re-offended had they been granted it?

No. If the person convicted gets twenty years, that means they serve twenty years. Time off for good behaviour is crap, it's to reduce Prisons Costs, that's all..

AJ: 1. no-one would do the jobs,

BS, they love the easy money.

AJ: 2. we would see disproportionately harsh sentences meted out

I doubt that very much, but it guilty might get sentences that fit their crime. Unlike they get now. Especially if they are among Societies elite. I mean the SE always seem to be suddenly to ill to face Court. Strange that.

AJ: and parole would never be granted.

& that would be a good thing, eh.

AJ: forensic psychologists

You realize that psychologists are all mad themselves, that's why they get into that Profession. & Can they be trusted? Like the one who evaluated Monis during the Siege, "Just wait him out, he'll cave in. Trust me I'm a Psychologist." Yeah right.

I've seen a few, (PTSD) "& how you feeeeel about that." They are a joke.

I recon that a lot of the Lawyers & Psychologists that evaluate Asylum Seekers & get them into Australia need to be charged because they are governed by their Socialist Lefty ideals rather than what's real.

Jayb,

<<No. If the person convicted gets twenty years, that means they serve twenty years.>>

But then there’s less incentive for them to behave themselves while in prison, making the prison staff’s time harder and giving the prisoners less practice at behaving themselves for when they’re released. But, yes, at $90,000 per year per prisoner, reduced costs aren’t a bad reason either.

<<BS, they love the easy money.>>

No, not BS. Who in their right minds would work for the courts if they could be held accountable for bad decisions, no matter how easy the money was?

<<I doubt that very much, but it guilty might get sentences that fit their crime.>>

This is a myth. Multiple studies have been done on sentencing, and every time subjects are given the facts (mitigating and aggravating circumstances) of real-life cases (without even being told they’re real-life cases), they always estimate sentences the same or less than what was handed down in real life. You’ve been watching too much A Current Affair. The media enjoy riling up their readers/viewers by only mentioning the aggravating circumstances.

<<& [parole not being granted] would be a good thing, eh.>>

No, it wouldn’t.

<<You realize that psychologists are all mad themselves …>>

And this is where we depart. I was hoping for an interesting and reasonable discussion, but I can see that’s not going to happen here. Have fun being bitter and agreeing with everyone else here.

P.S. That stereotype is with regards to psychiatrists, not psychologists. But if you are unaware of the difference between the two, then that's even less reason for me to hang around.

AJ: And this is where we depart. I was hoping for an interesting and reasonable discussion, but I can see that’s not going to happen here. Have fun being bitter and agreeing with everyone else here.

Ahhh... the Penny drops when a raw nerve is hit. Wern't you responsible for getting some of those supposed Asylum Seekers into Australia. I remember something, many Moons ago, about you being an Advocate for them. The money must have been good. Buggar it's fairly well dried up, eh.

AJ: But then there’s less incentive for them to behave themselves while in prison,

Well I guess spending more time in Solitary until they do.

AJ: Who in their right minds would work for the courts if they could be held accountable for bad decisions.

Everybody in the World has to be accountable for their Bad Decisions, one way or another. Are the Law Fraternity "too up 'em selves" to think they shouldn't be held accountable. I guess so.

I've often wondered, if the Law Fraternity, especially Judges, aren't some of the "Big Crime Bosses" judging by some of the lenient Sentences that are given out. Other people I've spoken too have wondered the same thing. Strange that. Well there have been a couple that ran Pedo Rings (Dolly), weren't there, so if one extrapolates.... You see what I'm getting at.

No, Jayb, the asylum seekers bit was something you made up in your own mind. I still have no idea where you got it from, but I've corrected you a couple of times now.

You see? This is what I mean about not being able to discuss anything with you.

In ten years on OLO, I have still never so much as commented on a thread that had anything to do with asylum seekers. I don't see the point when no-one here understands the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant.

But it's interesting to see that you are opportunistic enough to take advantage of my announced departure to give that bizarre 'asylum seeker' bit another crack. If you happen to find the discussion you're referring to, be sure to link me to it, won't you?

Hi there JAYB...

CHRISGAFF1000 is far better placed and eminently qualified to answer your inquiries apropos the various machinations of the judiciary. He was a NSW Police Prosecutor, and spent much of his day in the Magistrates Court, representing the Crown vide the Police in criminal matters.

I would rather see a system that rewards good behaviour by allowing the crim out once their term is served, be it 5, 10, 20 years, then apply extentions for bad behaviour.

This way, a 20 year sentance is just that, 20 years, provided the crim his/ her attitude and behaviour display what is require to be released back into general society. The word 'parole' should be found in history books but never used again in real life. At least then there may be some deterant for offenders, especially re-offenders for which there appear to be many.

Wouldn't a panel of 3 judges be better than 1.

I read an article after the Jill Meagher murder, that Said over a dozen people had been killed by people on parole.
I know a few cases where that has happened myself.

And there have been 3 or 4 people killed by parolies since Jill Meagher already.
every time the government professes to be looking in to it. But nothing changes.

I may have you confused with the other Lawyer on here, If so, sorry AJ. You know, the one that threatens to sue everybody. I can't think of his moniker at the moment. Didn't you have a run-in with him too just recently?

However; http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/vic/2017/06/09/teen-deserves-more-jail-for-bomb-plan--court.html

Worth a look. Another Judge shirking his duty. Maybe he's getting a kick back from the mohommadeans, it seems they get bail real easy. Is it because they don't want to upset the Socialist Lefties? Who knows?

Now the mahommedeans want a Safe Place where they can rant against the West & plan their next Jihadi attack.

NSW seems to be taking a step in the right direction by building a separate Jail for the mahommedeans so they don't contaminate the ordinary Australian Crims. At least they'll be easy to control. Pig skin whips should stop their revolts & get them back in their cells fast.

Dear o sung wu,

I gather from a police perspective parole can seem a little perverse but from this study by the AIC it does appear to noticeably reduce recidivism rates and delay re-offending.

http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/481-500/tandi485.html

On the subject of offenders I am enjoying Mark Twains short stories. Verbosity delivered with such alacrity made me think of you.

From: The McWilliamses And The Burglar Alarm

Quote

Then one night we smelled smoke, and I was advised to get up and see what the matter was. I lit a candle, and started toward the stairs, and met a burglar coming out of a room with a basket of tinware, which he had mistaken for solid silver in the dark. He was smoking a pipe. I said, 'My friend, we do not allow smoking in this room.' He said he was a stranger, and could not be expected to know the rules of the house: said he had been in many houses just as good as this one, and it had never been objected to before. He added that as far as his experience went, such rules had never been considered to apply to burglars, anyway.
"I said: 'Smoke along, then, if it is the custom, though I think that the conceding of a privilege to a burglar which is denied to a bishop is a conspicuous sign of the looseness of the times. But waiving all that, what business have you to be entering this house in this furtive and clandestine way, without ringing the burglar alarm?'
"He looked confused and ashamed, and said, with embarrassment: 'I beg a thousand pardons. I did not know you had a burglar alarm, else I would have rung it. I beg you will not mention it where my parents may hear of it, for they are old and feeble, and such a seemingly wanton breach of the hallowed conventionalities of our Christian civilization might all too rudely sunder the frail bridge which hangs darkling between the pale and evanescent present and the solemn great deeps of the eternities. May I trouble you for a match?'

o sung wu,
Perhaps you will remember "THE KEY" The Habitual Criminal Act.
An extra 5 to 7 years on top of your sentence for the originating crime with no remission.
That was an effective means of controlling the career criminals.
Personally I Believe that a sentence should be just that and no regard whatsoever for so
called extenuating circumstances. The crime is committed with deliberate intent and malice
aforethought and the sentence should reflect just that and nothing else.
At the conclusion of the sentence, with real hard labor, the prisoner should be released
on a parallel parole with a guaranteed return to prison for a repeat of the original sentence
if further criminal behavior is recorded.
It would be sort of "Snakes and Ladders" thing.
Of course there is always the US styled "Three time Losers" approach to repeat offenders.
If there is no room in prison then build more preferably out in the scrub where hard labor
would mean just that.

Hi there CHRISGAFF1000...

I do remember 'the key' quite well in fact. The crim would be whinging and whining in the Court cells, prior to his imminent appearance before a certain presiding Jurist, often for the same or similar offence. Whereupon he was on his final warning from his last conviction; and should he be convicted again on this occasion, he would assuredly cop 'the key', pursuant to the Habitual Criminal Act.

From memory, a declared habitual criminal, received very restrictive remission, therefore should his original lagging be 10 years, meant he'd do almost the entire 10 years in the 'go slow'? Moreover they served their entire sentence in a maximum security boob, which wouldn't be too appealing to them I wouldn't have thought? It's was my understanding, that most Habitual Criminals were placed in either Maitland, Parramatta, or Bathurst Gaols, back in the sixties thru to the mid eighties, would you know Chris?

I really can't see their logic, in repealing such a useful piece of legislation. Similarly the Commissioner's decision, to disbanded the highly practical Consorting Squad? Both initiatives kept gently stirring-up the crooks, and not allowing them the opportunity of keeping company with each other or socializing and openly fraternizing with one another, thus enabling them to consolidate and get up to more mischief. Not unlike the relatively new Bikie's legislation, that's currently in force in the State of Queensland.

Why our politicians can't simply leave alone laws that've proven to be of benefit to the people of this State of NSW, I'll never know. For some inextricable reason they seek to fiddle around, and bugger-up really good laws, that have worked since time in memorial. It beats me it really does.