The 'Law is an ass' thread

[Bucks5]

From time to time the penalties and decisions from the court system seem to create some healthy debate amongst us Nicksters. This thread is the place to vent about stupidity, injustices or inequities from the legal system.


I will start with this story....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... 5923056284

Stabber can be paroled

* Norrie Ross
* From: Herald Sun
* September 15, 2010 12:00AM

A THREE-year jail term imposed on a female drug addict who plunged a knife into a 60-year-old man at a railway station was too harsh, two appeal judges ruled yesterday.

The Court of Appeal said victim Leslie Bennett endured huge physical and psychological injuries and would probably never work again, but his attacker's rehabilitation was more important.

In November 2008, Wills along with a female and male co-offenders approached Mr Bennett at Boronia station and started to harass him.

A co-offender spat in his face, another knocked him to the ground and kicked him until an off-duty policeman intervened.

Wills approached Mr Bennett who was still on the ground and pulled out a knife and with the victim pleading to be left alone she plunged it into his stomach, then stabbed him in the shoulder.

"An eyewitness said that on the second thrust she looked like she lifted her leg to use her body weight behind the blade," the original sentencing judge said.

Mr Bennett lost part of his bowel and has since been unable to find work and suffered continuing trauma.

But the Court of Appeal said that Wills, a single mother, had been subjected to sexual abuse as a child, was a bystander to murder and deaths and had descended into alcohol and drug abuse.

So we have a female drug addict who stabs a 60-year-old man twice without any provocation whatsoever, and the judges think that 3 years is 'manifestly excessive'.

Are you kidding me?? I think 3 years is way too lenient? The scariest aspect of this case is that the law holds the rights of the perpetrator above those of the victim.

By the way, did I mention that she also had a prior conviction for a similar offence......

[Peter Griffin]

Hmm I wonder how many years his family would get for a retaliation murder? And they wonder why people take the law into their own hands. What about that animal that bashed that poor little boy to death 18 years ago and is now looking to released? If it were up to me he would have been dead at least 17 years ago, or castrated an without hands.. See if he tries to create or bash a defenseless child ever again.

[pietillidie]

I'm happy to declare the law is an ass if the judge's ruling demonstrates that to be the case. Nine out of ten times the judge's ruling is rational and the foaming talk back callers simply haven't thought all of the variables through or are unaware of the technical details and legal implications of decisions.

[Dr Pie]

From time to time the penalties and decisions from the court system seem to create some healthy debate amongst us Nicksters. This thread is the place to vent about stupidity, injustices or inequities from the legal system.


I will start with this story....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... 5923056284

Stabber can be paroled

* Norrie Ross
* From: Herald Sun
* September 15, 2010 12:00AM

A THREE-year jail term imposed on a female drug addict who plunged a knife into a 60-year-old man at a railway station was too harsh, two appeal judges ruled yesterday.

The Court of Appeal said victim Leslie Bennett endured huge physical and psychological injuries and would probably never work again, but his attacker's rehabilitation was more important.

In November 2008, Wills along with a female and male co-offenders approached Mr Bennett at Boronia station and started to harass him.

A co-offender spat in his face, another knocked him to the ground and kicked him until an off-duty policeman intervened.

Wills approached Mr Bennett who was still on the ground and pulled out a knife and with the victim pleading to be left alone she plunged it into his stomach, then stabbed him in the shoulder.

"An eyewitness said that on the second thrust she looked like she lifted her leg to use her body weight behind the blade," the original sentencing judge said.

Mr Bennett lost part of his bowel and has since been unable to find work and suffered continuing trauma.

But the Court of Appeal said that Wills, a single mother, had been subjected to sexual abuse as a child, was a bystander to murder and deaths and had descended into alcohol and drug abuse.

So we have a female drug addict who stabs a 60-year-old man twice without any provocation whatsoever, and the judges think that 3 years is 'manifestly excessive'.

Are you kidding me?? I think 3 years is way too lenient? The scariest aspect of this case is that the law holds the rights of the perpetrator above those of the victim.

By the way, did I mention that she also had a prior conviction for a similar offence......

On the face of it it would seem that the appeal judges decision is unreasonable. On the other hand Herald-Sun court reports tend to be written by reporters who have only turned up for the verdict and sentence, haven't heard the evidence in detail, haven't heard or read the psychiatric reports about the perpertrator or any other relevant details and then only print the aspects of the judges' decision that will seem unjust, unreasonable and generally get the 'hangings too good for them" brigade stirred up.

On the basis of the Herald-Sun's report Jolly Good's reaction seems perfectly appropriate, but on the whole I'd be inclined to think that judges are wiser than Herald-sun court reporters and possibly know more about the case and the miscreant.

[David]

I think the problem with this thread (as well as a lot of responses to cases like these) is the way the law is viewed.

It's not about taking revenge against 'evil' people. The principles have to be based around a) protecting the rest of society; b) providing an appropriate deterrent; and c) rehabilitating offenders.

If there is still a reasonable chance of re-offence or the seriousness of the crimes are not reflected by the punishment, then the sentence is probably too short. I suppose we have to trust that these factors are always taken into account by judges.

Having said that, I do wonder if judges sometimes make the same basic error that I described above, except in reverse.

If this is ever the case, it might explain why some really poor judicial decisions can be made from time to time. People are neither good nor evil; all of our actions are a direct result of factors outside of our control. Thus, however sympathetic we might feel towards, say, Ms. Wills for the abuse she experienced as a child and her current drug problems, they really are irrelevant details unless they help us to confidently assert that a) she won't offend again and b) that 22 months in jail is an appropriate punishment for the act of stabbing a vulnerable member of the public without provocation.

Of course, as pietillidie wrote (and Frank Stone was often fond of repeating), it's hard for us to comment on these decisions without knowing all the variables, and there is a tendency for newspapers like the Herald Sun to sensationalise these stories. I almost didn't click on the link because honestly, I have come to expect that newspaper to distort the facts and leave out vital information. Even so, I do wonder sometimes if some judges, in an attempt to act within some sort of moral plane, can dole out sentences that are either too harsh or too lenient. But I doubt such questions hold any interest for the team at News Corp, whose bread and butter is calling for villians to be strung up and stirring up righteous indignation.

[Nick - Pie Man]

everything i was going to say, but better. the law is not about revenge or appeasing bogan outrage.

[Bucks5]

I still see this crime as basically attempted murder.

Apart from what was mentioned in the article, what possible facts could make you say that 3 years is excessive, or would excuse her for doing this crime?

Rehabilitation (and remorse) is one thing, but even if someone did do a crime that was completely out of character and they would never re-offend, should they then not be punished?

[David]

Yes. Rehabilitation and remorse are just one aspect of the judicial process, although I think they need to be taken into account. Admittedly, the concept of remorse does puzzle me, as I wonder how many 'remorseful' criminals are simply better actors.

[Black_White]

Throw the key away;
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nation ... 5925312989

[Peter Griffin]

So what are the thoughts on Daniel Valerio's killer? Let me guess. He had a rough upbringing and we should make concessions? What POSSIBLE excuses could justify it's early release ("It" is not human). Good behaviour? I think bashing a toddler to death probably did away with any chance at "good behaviour" that that satanic monster ever had.

[5150]

So what are the thoughts on Daniel Valerio's killer? Let me guess. He had a rough upbringing and we should make concessions? What POSSIBLE excuses could justify it's early release ("It" is not human). Good behaviour? I think bashing a toddler to death probably did away with any chance at "good behaviour" that that satanic monster ever had.

I think there are a lot of people hoping he gets out...

[pietillidie]

The fundamentalist religious view of human behaviour is fine for the ascientific, but those who accept a scientific view of the world are pretty sure that the brain is a physical organ in a physical universe subject to physical damage, and as such can often be corrected like any other damaged physical organ.

Of course I don't know if it has been corrected in this particular case - it may not have been and I haven't looked into it - but in forming an opinion I would certainly prefer to rely on scientific evidence rather than someone else's Inner Jesus.

[Nick - Pie Man]

Fine in theory. In practice, the human brain is far too complex to ever be understood by itself.

[pietillidie]

Fine in theory. In practice, the human brain is far too complex to ever be understood by itself.

Ironically, NPM, what you have just put forward is far more misleading than any claims made by science. We only need to look at the success of say treatment for schizophrenia, the blocking of many types of pain, rehabilitation from various sorts of brain injury, and the effectiveness of advertising and other forms of persuasion to demonstrate that much about the brain can in fact be known.

You are confusing difficulty and absolute understanding with effective knowledge; science has never ever required perfect understanding. In fact, given its focus on falsifying rather than proving, science is explicitly concerned with better explanations, not perfect explanations. Moreover, there is a list a mile long of complex things we never thought we would understand but now we at least understand well enough to enable us to engineer good outcomes. And needless to say understanding is progressing at a rapid rate.

[Peter Griffin]

Well said, pietillidie. Religion and science constantly try to deny the other but the thing about the answers provided by science is that they are real and replicable.