The 'Law is an ass' thread

[Nick - Pie Man]

Which plane would you rather catch: Plane A, which has a 9% chance of crashing, or Plane B, which has a 19% chance of crashing?

Are they both going to the same place? Is the trip going to take the same amount of time on both planes? What are the departure times? Who's the carrier? Where am I going?

I'd rather drive anyway, terrorists can't hijack my car.

[stui magpie]

Which plane would you rather catch: Plane A, which has a 9% chance of crashing, or Plane B, which has a 19% chance of crashing?

Are they both going to the same place? Is the trip going to take the same amount of time on both planes? What are the departure times? Who's the carrier? Where am I going?

I'd rather drive anyway, terrorists can't hijack my car.

Drive through central LA and you may want to reconsider that.

[Tannin]

The fantasy is all yours because you haven't put forward an assessment of the legal system and its current output, and the implications of any changes you want to make. Now that's an enormous task but without doing so your complaint is meaningless. You're simply a more sophisticated version of the Herald Sun reader

Reality time, Pietilidie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYAPc94wEOE

I dare you to watch this savage, utterly ruthless bashing. Note that the three guilty men made no attempt to find excuses for their crime, or to claim that it was provoked in any way.

Watch it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYAPc94wEOE

Now, what would you say a sensible sentence might be? I'd say five years each would be about right for these scum. It was an unprovoked bashing, remember, and among other injuries, it inflicted a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain. Five years for those scum to sit in jail meditating on their crimes and figuring out what they are going to do to reform their worthless lives when they get out seems about right to me, with a bit more for the ringleader.

You know what our frucking useless courts gave them?

One got a minimum of 12 months, and the other two got a few hours of community work.

It's an absolute farrkin joke, and that judge ought to be sacked, because no judge should ever be that far outside decent community standards.

Watch it. I dare you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYAPc94wEOE Then tell me the system isn't broken

[pietillidie]

^I know what you mean, but without researching it that's probably an artifact of legal ramifications elsewhere. The systemic legal implications are the hidden reality here. You might get what you want in this instance, but make a hash of things elsewhere. This why I referred to "net effects". Indeed, every time I bother researching it that's the type of thing I find.

[HAL]

You got that right.

[Pies4shaw]

The fantasy is all yours because you haven't put forward an assessment of the legal system and its current output, and the implications of any changes you want to make. Now that's an enormous task but without doing so your complaint is meaningless. You're simply a more sophisticated version of the Herald Sun reader

Reality time, Pietilidie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYAPc94wEOE

I dare you to watch this savage, utterly ruthless bashing. Note that the three guilty men made no attempt to find excuses for their crime, or to claim that it was provoked in any way.

Watch it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYAPc94wEOE

Now, what would you say a sensible sentence might be? I'd say five years each would be about right for these scum. It was an unprovoked bashing, remember, and among other injuries, it inflicted a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain. Five years for those scum to sit in jail meditating on their crimes and figuring out what they are going to do to reform their worthless lives when they get out seems about right to me, with a bit more for the ringleader.

You know what our frucking useless courts gave them?

One got a minimum of 12 months, and the other two got a few hours of community work.

It's an absolute farrkin joke, and that judge ought to be sacked, because no judge should ever be that far outside decent community standards.
Watch it. I dare you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYAPc94wEOE Then tell me the system isn't broken

Tannin, do you know what they were charged with? Were there any plea bargains? Do you know what the prosecution's submissions on sentencing were (ie, did the DPP think it was worth 5 years - or just you)? Do you know what the sentencing statistics for the particular charge show to be the acceptable range of sentences for that crime (for overstepping which, the sentence would be liable to over-turned on appeal for "manifestly excess" sentence)? How did the Judge view this example of the relevant crime within the range? Were there sentencing discounts in these cases and, if so, for what? Were the offenders young (there are special rules which require a lower sentence to be handed down)? Etc, etc.

[Tannin]

^ None of these questions are relevant. You SAW what they did, for that there are no excuses. Repeat, no excuses. I don't CARE how old they were at the time, I don't care what "sentencing discounts" were applied or not applied, and neither does the rest of the community. Most of all, I don;t care what the statistics pretend the "acceptable range of sentences" is - for that particular crime, 12 months minimum is manifestly absurd, and a pair of community service orders is a disgrace to the entire legal profession.

The DPP has appealed and wants a miinimum of four to six years for the worst offender, with two years minimum for the other two. If this case had come up just a few months ago, there would have been no possibility of appeal. The scum lawyers representing these criminals- and yes I do call them scum lawyers because any decent human being would be too ashamed to represent these criminals in any way after seeing the evidence of what sort of viscious, evil people they are - are claiming youth, a "grievous error of judgment", "we all make mistakes" "exemplary history", remorse, and depression.

I'd be bloody tempted to jail the defence lawyers too, for wasting the court's time with manifest bullshit.

[Tannin]

Meanwhile, over in the other forum, we see an otherwise law-abiding citizen being smashed with a $25,000 fine and jail till the fine is paid for .. wait for it ... for failing to pay a road toll.

Yes, you heard it right: our contemptible legal system thinks that a violent, unprovoked bashing deserves a community service order, but driving on a toll road without paying the toll deserves $25,000 fine and/or time behind bars.

It's no wonder the bloody Liberals and the herald-Sun are milking the crime issue for all the votes that they can - it's a massive disgrace and Blind Freddie would arc up about it.

The great shame is that the Liberals, if they get in, won't actually fix anything, they will just introduce a few token mandatory sentences such that judges will be unable to exercise discretion when it really is appropriate - in other words, in al likelihood, the Libs will just make it even worse.

But community service orders for vicious, unprovoked bashings and then $25,000.00 fine for driving on a toll road .... People talk about contempt of court. Well, what do the farnarkling courts expect when we see utterly inexcusable idiocy like that?

[pietillidie]

^ None of these questions are relevant. You SAW what they did, for that there are no excuses. Repeat, no excuses. I don't CARE how old they were at the time, I don't care what "sentencing discounts" were applied or not applied, and neither does the rest of the community. Most of all, I don;t care what the statistics pretend the "acceptable range of sentences" is - for that particular crime, 12 months minimum is manifestly absurd, and a pair of community service orders is a disgrace to the entire legal profession.

The DPP has appealed and wants a miinimum of four to six years for the worst offender, with two years minimum for the other two. If this case had come up just a few months ago, there would have been no possibility of appeal. The scum lawyers representing these criminals- and yes I do call them scum lawyers because any decent human being would be too ashamed to represent these criminals in any way after seeing the evidence of what sort of viscious, evil people they are - are claiming youth, a "grievous error of judgment", "we all make mistakes" "exemplary history", remorse, and depression.

I'd be bloody tempted to jail the defence lawyers too, for wasting the court's time with manifest bullshit.

Oh dear, where do we start with this? We've got it all rolled into one, from imagining you speak for the rest of the community, to the existence of "evil", people facilitating due legal process being deemed "scum", and the tossing of the foundations of the legal system, precedent, out the window - all that before even dealing with whether or not your visceral reactionism would even vaguely facilitate a desirable outcome.

[Tannin]

We start with a dose of reality.

First, it is absurd to keep on pretending that the community at large does not feel much the way that I have described on this matter. Utterly absurd. If you really do believe that, then it is well past time that you got out into the real world and talked to some different people. There is a massive community ill-will towards this sort of grossly inadequate sentence. Indeed, it is such a massive groundswell that even bleeding-heart left-wing liberals like yours truly share in it - and it's very rare indeed for me to share anything with the Herald-Sun readers of this world.

Second, it is easy to see that you haven't taken up my dare - for no even semi-civilised human being can watch something like that and still pretend that there is no such thing as evil.

Third: I am all in favour of facilitating due legal process, and I am well aware of the lawyer's responsibility to represent all clients regardless of guilt. In this case, however, I do not believe that it is acceptable to weave a web of excuse for such acts, and I have no respect at all for the conscienceless "professionals" who seem to think it is their duty to ensure that justice is perverted. I could not sleep at nights if I'd taken money to stand up and argue that these vicious scum should walk free.

Fourth, where is my "tossing of precedent"? There is none. There is, indeed, plenty of precedent for putting violent criminals in jail, and for taking them out of the community so that they cannot re-offend for a while. Courts have been doing that for centuries. It is when they stop doing it - when they stop doing their job - that the system breaks down.

[pietillidie]

Tannin, you'd be right on the widespread support for being "tougher on crime". I'll concede that, but going by your past posts the popularity of an idea is clearly not something you personally value as a path to understanding and knowledge. That type of judgement is obviously being made at the irrational visceral level, much the same as people thinking Arabs are terrorists, the murder rate was lower in the old days, Satan influences events, snakes are slimy, herbal tea X is good for you because it's bitter, or that things they've personally experienced are more prevalent or salient than things they haven't.

The rest I'll leave to Pies4shaw - not to avoid it, but to save time. I did watch the video; it looks like a very nasty youth fight which obviously had very nasty consequences. But no, I didn't see any "evil", nor any reason to believe the thought of harsher sentences would've entered the minds of those involved before carrying out their primitive arational actions.

The work of Kahneman on the shortcomings of human cognition is worth a read in this context:

http://www.princeton.edu/~kahneman/docs ... K_2003.pdf

http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/capsto ... Policy.pdf

[Pies4shaw]

^ None of these questions are relevant. You SAW what they did, for that there are no excuses. Repeat, no excuses. I don't CARE how old they were at the time, I don't care what "sentencing discounts" were applied or not applied, and neither does the rest of the community. Most of all, I don;t care what the statistics pretend the "acceptable range of sentences" is - for that particular crime, 12 months minimum is manifestly absurd, and a pair of community service orders is a disgrace to the entire legal profession.

The DPP has appealed and wants a miinimum of four to six years for the worst offender, with two years minimum for the other two. If this case had come up just a few months ago, there would have been no possibility of appeal. The scum lawyers representing these criminals- and yes I do call them scum lawyers because any decent human being would be too ashamed to represent these criminals in any way after seeing the evidence of what sort of viscious, evil people they are - are claiming youth, a "grievous error of judgment", "we all make mistakes" "exemplary history", remorse, and depression.

I'd be bloody tempted to jail the defence lawyers too, for wasting the court's time with manifest bullshit.

Settle, Tannin. The "scum lawyers" you refer to are required to represent those people. It would be a sorry day for all of us if lawyers could decline to appear for us because they didn't like what we had done. And, patently, the lawyers didn't waste the Court's time, because the Court seems to have accepted their view of the sentencing! But you're a very smart fellow and I'm sure you know that.

Furthermore, I'm sorry to say so but the questions I posed are (along with an array of other similar ones) the only relevant ones to the Judge on sentencing. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was doing by posing those questions? I wasn't taking "sides" in any debate you are having, I was merely trying to draw a couple of fundamentals of the existing system to your attention. You can't actually wave your magic wand and make what I am telling you bluntly is the position go away - I was not expressing a point of view about how things should be, I was telling you how they are. It's fine to say that you don't like the product the system produces - all I'm pointing out is that the Judges apply the system they are given to work in. You don't, in most cases, sack the Judge because you don't like the outcome of the case. You might want to suggest some variation to the Sentencing Act or the sentencing guidelines the Judges are obliged to apply, perhaps? Judges don't get "tough on crime", Parliaments do.

You might, of course, also want to hold onto your hat until you see what the appellate court thinks of the DPP's view of the appropriate sentence. Either way, this will turn out to be a storm in a teacup: if the DPP appeals and succeeds, the appeal court will have corrected what you perceive to be an error; if the DPP appeals and fails, the appeal court will have determined that there was no misapplication of relevant principles in the original sentencing.

And, no, I didn't see what they did. I have no desire to. I assume (without, of course, knowing - or much caring) that if the footage is available, it has been released for some political purpose associated with things which may take place on Saturday week. It's rather unusual for such footage to be in the public domain, especially when there is still sabre-rattling about appeals. From what you describe, I think it is safe to assume that the defendants didn't publish the video. Think it through.

[Tannin]

Tannin, you'd be right on the widespread support for being "tougher on crime". I'll concede that, but going by your past posts the popularity of an idea is clearly not something you personally value as a path to understanding and knowledge. That type of judgement is obviously being made at the irrational visceral level, much the same as people thinking Arabs are terrorists, the murder rate was lower in the old days, Satan influences events, snakes are slimy, herbal tea X is good for you because it's bitter, or that things they've personally experienced are more prevalent or salient than things they haven't.

It is a massive mistake to assume, because a given statement may be (and indeed quite often is) arrived at by an irrational route, that it is itself therefore irrational. Or, to put it another way, even bogans who read the Herald-Sun get it right sometimes. And very clearly, or legal system is failing us big-time.

PS: I am not unfamiliar with the research linking (or to be more precise "de-linking"!) punishment and crime, and I certainly do not subscribe to the simplistic view that heavier penalties = less crime. If that were the case, I would not be here because my great great great great grandfather would not have been transported to Port Arthur for stealing a piece of cloth!

There is, however, every reason to believe that an appropriate jail sentence does make the community safer, because that particular violent criminal is put away for five years and cannot offend again. Further, in the case of youth crime - which is most of the violent crime we are seeing these days - the violent criminal is released some years later when he is more likely to have got his hormones under control, and less likely to re-offend.

Restoring sanity to sentencing will not magically stop crime. It will, however, at least slow the explosive growth of at least some sorts of crime. And without sensible sentencing, no matter what else we do, we cannot hope to restore the right to walk the streets in safety, for when crime goes unpunished, there is nothing at all to stop it.

[pietillidie]

[OEP]

Violence and the method used to inflict said violence is on the rise as is the brutal nature being used to cause maximum damage to the victims. Also what has become a worrying trend is for the assailant to continue inflicting damage after it is obvious the assaulted is no longer in a position to defend themselves.

I've seen assaults like the one posted by Tannin and much worse.

Three questions are often posed to me by my friends and those who know my past experiences.

The most asked question is how can a person or persons do that, what's the trigger?

Sometimes it's alcohol, sometimes drugs, sometimes it can be a culmination of things over a period of time, sometimes the person doing the assaulting can originally be defending themselves and take it to far, and in extreme cases these people are evil.

Another question is usually are any of these legitimate reasons, not just legally but also morally, for the dangerous nature of these types of assaults (and in a lot of cases the sustained brutality involved), and should genuine remorse after the fact be taken into account when (if) a trial occurs?

The other common question is what can be done to stop this? The unfortunate answer to this is nothing. Greater sentences, harsher penalties aren't the be all and end all that some want them to be because some people simply don't care about the possible consequences for their actions, while others become so entranced by their actions they loose the ability to process any possible future consequences.

I have my views and obviously they'll directly conflict with other peoples views and generally it's almost impossible to find middle ground because middle ground isn't there to be found. Half measures don't work and are a waste of time, definitive action needs to be taken because the current system just isn't working and a change needs to occur before society completely descends into anarchy.

If anyone is interested I believe the laws themselves need to be simplified, there are simply to many and there to complicated making it harder to gain a successful prosecution and easier to attain a not guilty verdict.
The sentencing laws need to be tightened because at the moment Magistrates and Judges have far to much latitude when deciding on a sentence, basically the gap between the minimum and maximum possible sentence needs to be shortened.
A three strike rule needs to be invoked for all serious offences and by this I mean a combined three strike rule not just three for one offence and three for another, instead three total.
Juries need to made redundant because it's far to easy to confuse them and confusion often leads to doubt and doubt ends up becoming a not guilty verdict. By this I mean you have a situation where a lawyer simply muddies the issues and instead of it being a contest of law it becomes a contest of intellect and if you've had no previous exposure to statute law even the smartest person can be easily confused. Switching from a 12 person jury system to a three panel Judging panel negates this issue (and in doing so will reduce the length of trials and the shorten the period between someone being charged and having to face a trial date), but still allows for multiple opinions of the evidence being presented.
I believe more prisons need to be built (and sufficiently staffed and overcrowding reduced), and more offenders need to be jailed. Yes I know I previously stated this doesn't work in all cases but at the end of the day the publics safety MUST be made a higher priority than the offenders possible rehabilitation.

Take it all as you will these are my views, and these views have been fostered after years and years of dealing with these violent crimes, investigating them, and completing the process by having the charges heard in court.

At the end of the day the more meaningful debate that society have on this ever increasing problem the greater chance a real solution can be found for the majority rather than the minority.