The 'Law is an ass' thread

[think positive]

AH on ice needs no additions!!

same with anything irish/coffee flavoured, um, oh yeah and that green stuff,

[stui magpie]

AH on ice needs no additions!!

same with anything irish/coffee flavoured, um, oh yeah and that green stuff,

Some of this stuff? It does remarkable things to you

[Tannin]

Hey! That reminds me - there is the best part of a bottle of lovely Irish back at Belinda's place just waiting for a chair, a glass and maybe, given the weather, just a tiny bit of ice. It was given to me by a very nice man who will remain anonymous, but I'll drink his health with pleasure one night soon.

[David]

[think positive]

Well with a heart attack or falling asleep, usually your not going to plant the foot on the accelerator like that moron did to get through the intersection. And yes it happens, they are called accidents with some blame attributed.

Getting skunked however, may not be illegal but getting behind the steering wheel while skunked is. You don't even have to have the key in the ignition, if your in that seat your breaking the law.

This guy was high and feeling invincible. He made those choices, he pays the price, no excuses.

[1061]

I wonder if we can extend that logic further: would someone who drives tired and kills a pedestrian be liable for the same penalty as a drink-driver because they went to bed late the night before?

Yes Yes Yes, if you are so tired you feel you are falling asleep at the wheel you must pull over and have a "powernap", being tired is no excuse.

What about someone who, with a history of heart problems due to an unhealthy diet, gets behind the wheel and causes a car accident?

Having a History would suggest they are under a Doctors care, the Doctor has a Duty Of Care to report people with certain conditions to the roads authorities. So many people would be in lots of big big trouble if such a person had a car accident and his condition was known and not reported.

[Pies4shaw]

For those who are interested, the High Court recently handed down an important decision concerning sentencing in criminal cases. It concerns the practice of the prosecution making submissions on sentencing. Although the decision concerned an appeal from Victoria in relation to a Commonwealth offence (and thus turns, to some extent, on the terms of applicable statutes), it will probably have national ramifications.

The key passage is in the majority reasons, at paras [6] and [7], as follows:

"6. The applicants' arguments depend on two flawed premises. The first is that the prosecution is permitted (or required) to submit to a sentencing judge its view of what are the bounds of the range of sentences which may be imposed on an offender. That premise, in turn, depends on the premise that such a submission is a submission of law. For the reasons which follow, each premise is wrong.
7. The prosecution's statement of what are the bounds of the available range of sentences is a statement of opinion. Its expression advances no proposition of law or fact which a sentencing judge may properly take into account in finding the relevant facts, deciding the applicable principles of law or applying those principles to the facts to yield the sentence to be imposed. That being so, the prosecution is not required, and should not be permitted, to make such a statement of bounds to a sentencing judge."

Paragraphs [29] to [41] also set out, reasonably succinctly, the High Court's view of the role of the prosecution and the judge and the manner in which the sentencing task should proceed.

A link to the Court's reasons follows, for those who may wish to read more:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/2.html

[David]

Very interesting, P4S. To summarise, a judge isn't necessarily bound by the maximum penalty argued for by the prosecution?

[Pies4shaw]

^^^ Well, yes and no.

[think positive]

Brett Peter Cowan

this bastard has had enough chances, throw away the key

im thinking a concrete bunker, no windows, no heat, somewhere in syberia, no pjs, just some awful hair undies

**** him, let him rot

[sixpoints]

Brett Peter Cowan

this bastard has had enough chances, throw away the key

im thinking a concrete bunker, no windows, no heat, somewhere in syberia, no pjs, just some awful hair undies

**** him, let him rot

Bruce and Denise Morcombe are amazing people.

[3.14159]

Hey! That reminds me - there is the best part of a bottle of lovely Irish back at Belinda's place just waiting for a chair, a glass and maybe, given the weather, just a tiny bit of ice. It was given to me by a very nice man who will remain anonymous, but I'll drink his health with pleasure one night soon.

If that very nice man doesn't turn up I volunteer to help you put a dent in the bottle.

[ronrat]

Brett Peter Cowan

this bastard has had enough chances, throw away the key

im thinking a concrete bunker, no windows, no heat, somewhere in syberia, no pjs, just some awful hair undies

**** him, let him rot

Bruce and Denise Morcombe are amazing people.

I dare say he will be in protective custody for a long time. His prospects of rehabilitation are virtually nil. Give him the chance to off himself.

[HAL]

I don't have him the chance to off himself to give.

[think positive]

Brett Peter Cowan

this bastard has had enough chances, throw away the key

im thinking a concrete bunker, no windows, no heat, somewhere in syberia, no pjs, just some awful hair undies

**** him, let him rot

Bruce and Denise Morcombe are amazing people.

I dare say he will be in protective custody for a long time. His prospects of rehabilitation are virtually nil. Give him the chance to off himself.

I'm guessing a few watched 60 minutes last night. With his history, who could argue against the death penalty here? Would you want to risk this thing getting out?

Bag America all you want, but the 3 strikes law in this case, and Daniel is still alive.

Stuff protective custody, I hope the bastard is raped daily, and then his throat cut and he goes slowly and painfully. May he Rot in Hell

RIP Daniel