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.