Eurydice Dixon

[HAL]

Does that remind you of it? ?

[think positive]

[David]

The alleged killer is in court atm:

https://www.news.com.au/national/victor ... 1bd6678edb

The court heard Todd was attracted to Ms Dixon and followed her with the purpose of sexually assaulting her after she left her boyfriend following a night at a comedy show.

“Ms Dixon’s appearance … was of a sexual interest to him,” his lawyer conceded.

“On any measure, this is an extremely serious … brazen and brutal attack,” he said.

“There was no justification for his conduct.”

Todd’s lawyer tried to make a case that murder was an afterthought and that he did not entertain the idea of killing Ms Dixon until she walked into the empty park.

But Supreme Court Judge Stephen Kaye said Todd was at the very least entertaining the idea of murder as part of a sexual fantasy driven, in part, by his interest in so-called “snuff films”.

[stui magpie]

That's a hard read. I think he's heading for a long time in gaol, it's a shame her family has to go through this

[think positive]

Jail isn’t enough.
Shouldn’t be a many about it, it was planned start to finish. Chuck away the key

[shawthing]

Defence counsel Tim Marsh urged the judge not to impose a life sentence, arguing that there was no evidence his client had intended to kill Ms Dixon when he followed her into Princes Park.

Mr Marsh said it was entirely possible that Todd killed out of panic to escape detection, not out of murderous intent.

Can you believe that? What world do these defence lawyers live in?

He killed her, end of story. The fact that he might have killed Eurydice Dixon to escape detection surely only makes matters worse!

I'm sick to death of these do-gooder lawyers getting people off on lighter sentences when for the most of human history people lived by one rule: "An eye for an eye!"

Besides how could we ever be sure that this guy wouldn't kill again if he's described as a "sexual sadist"?

[Wokko]

It's the defence lawyers job to defend his client, not pass moral judgement on the crime or defendant. It's an adversarial system, he has to do everything possible to either get his client off or minimise the sentence, the prosecutor does the opposite. No reason to hate the guy for doing his job.

[David]

Not only that, it may conceivably be a legitimate argument. Obviously matters like premeditation and intent matter in sentencing, for they inform us about matters such as prospects of rehabilitation, likelihood of re-offence, deterrence and so on. One-size-fits-all sentencing will only ever end up being much too harsh in some cases and much too lenient in others.

[stui magpie]

Forget about rehab, any custodial sentence will be a life sentence.

[David]

I think you’re probably right, though that’s likely at least in part because the judge finds that there was premeditation.

[Woods Of Ypres]

hang the grub

[stui magpie]

I think you’re probably right, though that’s likely at least in part because the judge finds that there was premeditation.

More likely in my view that he'll die inside

[shawthing]

Not only that, it may conceivably be a legitimate argument. Obviously matters like premeditation and intent matter in sentencing, for they inform us about matters such as prospects of rehabilitation, likelihood of re-offence, deterrence and so on. One-size-fits-all sentencing will only ever end up being much too harsh in some cases and much too lenient in others.

And yet he denied Eurydice Dixon her right to life! By what convoluted logic do we then argue that he should have the right not only to live himself, but that he might be allowed back out onto the streets?

Can you possibly rehabilitate a "sexual sadist"? And if you can is it worth it? I suspect the reason why you hold these views is because it is really a religious argument about the human person in disguise. The idea that humans are all born good and turned bad by society is just as loopy as believing that all humans are born bad at birth. It's nature and nurture for sure, but in the end it's mostly in our genes. I'm not sure a psychopath can help himself!

[stui magpie]

Life with a minimum of 35 years.

Apparently he has a "sexual sadism" disorder, and sounds like he was playing out a "snuff film" by strangling her while he raped her.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-02/ ... d/11469328

Sick phuc.

This part is a tad confusing.

In addition to life imprisonment, Todd was sentenced to 11 years' jail for rape, seven years for attempted rape and two years for sexual assault.

Todd will serve those sentences concurrently with the life sentence.

I'm not sure how that works, I thought under Victorian law we tended to only charge and convict on the most serious offence, not throw a bunch of stocking stuffers in which serve no purpose if the sentences are served concurrently anyway.

[David]