Culprit wrote:think positive wrote:Agree it's hard to judge with so little info, but the pediphile certainly seems to be getting off early., is that long enough for a sex offender program?
What do you think of the USA case of rape I posted that's all over social media? Yes taking into consideration their wacky system.
And the speeding killer, surely as a flight risk, $40,000 is not enough, or maybe they want him gone?
It's obviously $20000 per deceased woman.
The public should be allowed to sack and appoint judges.
1. The decision was by a Magistrate, not a Judge.
2. Reading the report in The Age, the decision looks to have been correct on the law passed by the Victorian Parliament in relation to bail. Have a look at section 4 of the
Bail Act 1977. Here it is:
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domin ... orised.pdf
You start with section 4(1) - it presumes an entitlement to bail in all cases, for all offences and then proceeds to whittle back that general presumption in particular cases. The section, in substance, contemplates, amongst other things, that - except in respect of certain specified offences where there will be a presumption
against the granting of bail (of which culpable driving causing death does not appear to me to be one) - bail is to be granted unless there is an "unacceptable risk" of one of a list of things occurring (see section 4(2)(d)). There is, of course, always a "risk" of flight - the question is whether there is anything to demonstrate that the risk is "unacceptable" in the circumstances. It appears that the prosecuting DSC merely pointed to some alleged risks but entirely failed to persuade the Court that the risk was "unacceptable". As to what is an unacceptable risk, the Magistrate is
required to look at the things specified in section 4(3). Just to be plain, the question is not whether it would be "unacceptable" for this accused to flee the jurisdiction - plainly it would be - the question is whether the risk of flight in this case is an unacceptable risk. There are other "unacceptable risks" listed in section 4(2) that might lead to a refusal of bail but it does not appear from the media report that the prosecution was able to rely upon any of the other available grounds.
If you don't like the decision, look at the quality of the evidence that was led by the prosecution - the relevant obligation under the Act was for the prosecution to persuade the Court that bail should
not be granted. In other, quite different circumstances (eg, charges of murder or treason), the obligation falls on the accused to show that there are "exceptional circumstances" that would justify a grant of bail.
By all means, criticise the law and agitate, if you wish, for your local Member of Parliament to get the Bail Act changed but, in this case, it looks like all the Magistrate did was apply the law as was required.
It is, of course, entirely inapt to treat the $40,000 surety as "$20,000 per woman" - it's a surety for bail (amongst a bunch of other restrictive conditions that appear to have been imposed) of a person who has been neither tried nor convicted of any offence. If and when the accused is convicted, punishment will be given.
If you want to see what it looks like when a Judge really acts without power in a bail matter, have a look at the following (bearing in mind that the County Court Judge concerned is still on the Bench, 6 years later):
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/ ... 0/142.html
In that case, the Judge concerned revoked bail, even though she had no power to do so (that is, her Honour's revocation of bail was actually illegal) and was excluded from taking any further part in the proceeding for ostensible bias against the accused.
As for the listing of "parole" decisions, the discussion really concerns two quite separate issues. One of which is whether punishment for particular sentences is sufficiently harsh (and, frankly, who knows - as David rightly points out - without looking at the sentencing reasons, rather than a parole decision taken at a later time on an entirely different basis and for an entirely different purpose). The other of which is whether you agree with the underlying rationale of parole (roughly put, that you release people into the community in circumstances where you can impose conditions upon where they go and what they do, with a view to trying to get them on the "straight and narrow" so they are less likely to reoffend), or whether you prefer that people simply serve the entirety of their sentence and then get released into the community with (in most cases - some special offences do impose reporting requirements for ever, at least in some States) no ability to control where they go, what they do or how (or if) they reintegrate into society. I don't know much at all about the operation of the parole system in WA but it looks to me like the decisions Skids doesn't like (because they look, as it were, too relaxed) are decisions taken because the relevant authorities making the parole decisions think it preferable to use parole as a means of supervising people, rather than keeping people in gaol and then not being able to manage them at all when they get out.
It is certainly correct that people who have committed crimes are, generally speaking, (at least a little) more likely to do so again than other members of the community are to commit a first crime - but you might be very surprised to read about quite how low the recidivism rates are for the offences that you probably abhor the most. Eg, the rates of recidivism by persons convicted of sexual offences seem to be much, much lower than you might expect, given the common understanding. Since the reports are typically funded by governments or the prosecuting authorities (and
never the defences), I expect those are reasonably reliable and form a fair basis for deciding whether it is preferable to try to rehabilitate people, or not.
There are a range of other violent offences (eg, serious assaults, manslaughter, murder) where the rates of recidivism are very low, provided appropriate programs are put in place. Of course, there is always the odd sicko/serial killer who gets missed (eg, Bayley) but those misses probably say more about the need to examine particular cases carefully than they do about the appropriateness of the system
per se.
