# 19 years jail for stealing $40,000



## banska bystrica (29 March 2010)

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/6994194/woman-to-get-money-back-from-40k-scam/

Makes our courts look like kindergartens. I see in Qld an 18 year old who viciously bashed a 86 year old pensioner for $20, leaving the pensioner with broken ribs and a broken jaw has been sentenced to 18 months jail with parole recommended after 10 months.
These violent cowards here should be given a bit of the same medicine the Nigerian courts dished out.


----------



## drsmith (29 March 2010)

She's lucky to get her money back.


----------



## bunyip (29 March 2010)

banska bystrica said:


> http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/6994194/woman-to-get-money-back-from-40k-scam/
> 
> Makes our courts look like kindergartens. I see in Qld an 18 year old who viciously bashed a 86 year old pensioner for $20, leaving the pensioner with broken ribs and a broken jaw has been sentenced to 18 months jail with parole recommended after 10 months.
> These violent cowards here should be given a bit of the same medicine the Nigerian courts dished out.




Australian judges repeatedly prove to be incompetent in deciding what punishment to give violent offenders. That judge should be thrown in jail himself for going so easy on that vicious teenager who bashed the 86 year old.

I'd like to see juries deciding what punishment to dish out. If they're considered competent to decide whether a defendant is guilty or innocent, then surely they are also capable of deciding on a suitable punishment to fit the crime. I'm sure they'd do a far better job than judges.


----------



## Sdajii (29 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> Australian judges repeatedly prove to be incompetent in deciding what punishment to give violent offenders. That judge should be thrown in jail himself for going so easy on that vicious teenager who bashed the 86 year old.
> 
> I'd like to see juries deciding what punishment to dish out. If they're considered competent to decide whether a defendant is guilty or innocent, then surely they are also capable of deciding on a suitable punishment to fit the crime. I'm sure they'd do a far better job than judges.




The problem is, if you stick someone in prison it costs the taxpayer a lot of money (if we were magically able to catch all the criminals we wouldn't come close to having the resources to imprison them all). Additionally, if you stick someone in prison (crime school) then let them out, they have a criminal record and a history of prison life. This often turns someone into a career criminal, because they can't get back into a normal, straight life, and have been around criminals in crime school/prison learning how to commit crimes.

Fines often don't work either. Fine a drug dealer or thief and where do you think they will be getting the money to pay that fine?

I think capital punishment definitely has a place, and penalties should be more along the lines of community work (lots of it) rather than imprisonment.


----------



## vincent191 (29 March 2010)

It is true that it cost a lot of money to keep someone in jail. Why don't we or why can't we send them out to work to help pay for part of the costs.

Like what we see in comics about criminals wearing a ball & chain and breaking stones for our roads or breaking down big boulders for our mines. 

Of course they will get paid a fair wage and part of that goes towards their upkeep and part into their savings account so they will have some money when they are released instead of putting them straight onto welfare.

Further, we are also paying for their dependents while they are behind bars. Who say crime doesn't pay.


----------



## Buckfont (29 March 2010)

Did some renovations on one of my sisters rental properties in Tasmania at her request. It was actually a `working holiday` and chose to take vehicle + all tools down there from the here on the Central Coast NSW.

2 weeks into the job, said tenants were served an eviction notice because of the noncompliance to let the work be done, all done through a R.E agent may I add.

So back home for 6 weeks so the eviction process could take it`s course.

In the meantime an AVO. had to be taken out against one tenant.

Back to Tas to finish the work and a few days later end up in hospital, with a broken nose, severe bruising and vision probs, from an assault by the other tenant. Couldn`t eat for a week.

Trespass wasn`t an issue and consequentlty, having gone to court the fellow got off on a $400 fine. His word against mine. No witnesses.

Go figure.


----------



## AQR (29 March 2010)

Buckfont said:


> Back to Tas to finish the work and a few days later end up in hospital, with a broken nose, severe bruising and vision probs, from an assault by the other tenant. Couldn`t eat for a week.
> 
> Trespass wasn`t an issue and consequentlty, having gone to court the fellow got off on a $400 fine. His word against mine. No witnesses.
> 
> Go figure.




Sorry to hear of your personal situation, your story exposes the injustice there is out there.


----------



## Sdajii (29 March 2010)

That's pretty nasty, Buckfont, but even a perfect legal system requires evidence beyond one person making an accusation. It's horrible injustice, but I don't think it highlights a problem with the system. Maybe something bad will happen to him with no more evidence than his word. Let's hope!


----------



## Boyou (29 March 2010)

Guys ,guys ,guys! 

There is already a thread for discussion of this issue.Don't know how to post the link,but it is titled "Sentencing in Australia is a Disgrace" or some such ,by  Mr Burns.

Please save the mods and Joe from amalgamating threads..they have better things to do..like stopping rampers and tidying up the place.....

Use the search features provided..Seek and ye shall find (I say this as one who has, himself ,transgressed)


----------



## Buckfont (29 March 2010)

Boyou said:


> Guys ,guys ,guys!
> 
> There is already a thread for discussion of this issue.Don't know how to post the link,but it is titled "Sentencing in Australia is a Disgrace" or some such ,by  Mr Burns.
> 
> ...




Fair enough Boyou and if anyone can direct me as to transfer my post#6 on this thread to the `Sentencing in Aust is  a disgrace`. Pls let me know. 

Sometimes it takes a lot of time to filter all threads and often many a post on one thread has as much validation as a post on another thread, in this case a matter of the inequitableness of the of the law to punish or not. 

To me its a fine line and the post here was to point out that my comments as I can see are valid to the the thread. 

It`s nothing to do with my head being beaten in  here. It`s to do with justice and the processes that were put into place before the fact. 

I see no difference between the two threads

Thanx AQR and Sadjii. When you`re 59 you deal with all that s.....t


----------



## GumbyLearner (29 March 2010)

vincent191 said:


> Why don't we or why can't we send them out to work to help pay for part of the costs.




In some countries you get locked up *just for* doing your job. 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/28/world/AP-AS-China-Missing-Lawyer.html

Missing Lawyer Says He Is in Northern China
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 28, 2010

Ng Han Guan/Associated Press

BEIJING (AP) -- A dissident Chinese lawyer who was missing for more than a year suddenly resurfaced Sunday, saying he is now living in northern China and wants only to spend time with his family away from media attention.

Twitter messages appeared Sunday saying Gao Zhisheng's family had been in touch with him and listed his phone number. It was the first contact that friends, family and reporters have had with Gao since he went missing on Feb. 4, 2009, from his hometown in central China.

Before being jailed and otherwise muzzled four years ago, Gao was the most dauntless of a new group of civil liberties lawyers. He took on sensitive cases involving underground Christians and the banned Falun Gong spiritual group and was also an advocate of constitutional reform.

The United States and the European Union had called on China to investigate his disappearance.

Chinese authorities gave vague explanations about Gao's whereabouts, heightening worries that he had been jailed or tortured as he was previously.


----------



## bunyip (30 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> That's pretty nasty, Buckfont, but even a perfect legal system requires evidence beyond one person making an accusation. It's horrible injustice, but I don't think it highlights a problem with the system. Maybe something bad will happen to him with no more evidence than his word. Let's hope!




I tried Boyou's suggestions of going to that other thread 'Sentencing in Australia Is A Disgrace'. 
But when I typed that title into the search box, I kept getting the following message...._The search term you specified (in) is under the minimum word length (3) and therefore will not be found. Please make this term longer. _

So it looks like I'll just have to make my post here instead.

Sdajii is right - even a perfect legal system requires evidence beyond one person making an accusation.

However, these days there are many cases where a violent criminals get off scot free even when there's irrefutable evidence of their crime.

Two recent examples.....

1. Three young Sudanese blokes in their early twenties were up to no good at a football club in Brisbane. I've forgotten what they were doing - I have some vague recollection of something to do with a flexi teller machine.
Anyway, two off duty policeman went out to see what they were up to, and were violently set upon and so badly assaulted that they ended up in hospital with horrific injuries.
This was all caught on security camera. But guess what - some low life lawyer got them off scot free - no punishment at all - absolutely none.

2. Two young policemen in one of the southern states were called to sort out a man and his two sons who were drunk and disorderly outside a pub.
The drunks became violent when the police asked them to move on.
A violent scuffle ensued, and one of the offenders launched himself in a flying charge from behind one of the police, head-butted him in the back of the head, and left him brain damaged.
This particular case was featured in 'Australian Story' on TV recently.

The entire incident was filmed on security camera, with the footage being shown on Australian Story.

The offender got off scot free, as did his father and brother. They didn't even get a fine.
Meantime, the young policeman has been left with permanent brain damage.

This sort of thing sickens me. It makes me so angry when irrefutable evidence is ignored and violent criminals receive no punishment at all.
It disgusts me that any lawyer, being fully aware of the video footage that proves the guilt of the offender, could be such a low life as to take on his case and do everything possible to get him acquitted.

I have nothing but contempt for lawyers who stoop to such depths.


----------



## Sdajii (30 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> I have nothing but contempt for lawyers who stoop to such depths.




I agree. Where there is no question of guilt in a violent crime, a lawyer who defends someone is about as guilty as his client. Negotiating for a fair sentence, sure, but trying to prove a clearly man innocent is disgusting, as is the system which allows him to be successful.

I'd be a bit worried if I had assaulted a police officer, left him brain damaged and got off though. I'd be expecting some of his mates to be giving me a bit of trouble not too far down the track.


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> I have nothing but contempt for lawyers who stoop to such depths.




I have *much much more contempt* for country's with totalitarian regimes who throw people in places like "black prisons" in China, re-education camps or neo-gulags without trial and/or lawyers. 

If you want to live in a country that denies legal representation to people then I suggest you move to China Bunyip. Hopefully then you'll wake up and realise what a great country Australia is and the fact that we do have a justice system that is transparent and while not perfect tries it best to uphold the rights of everyone. Or we could act like a bunch of totalitarian dictators and be the laughing stock of the world. 

 The fact that legal representation is guaranteed to offenders in Australia is an essential part of the democratic system. If you want justice to be served, then people need to go trial. It's as simple as that. If you don't like it then find another place to live.


----------



## Buckfont (30 March 2010)

In my case I can bet that the defense lawyer and the court police were in bed together


----------



## alphaman (30 March 2010)

banska bystrica said:


> These violent cowards here should be given a bit of the same medicine the Nigerian courts dished out.



The medicine doesn't help Nigeria's crime rate though.


----------



## Happy (31 March 2010)

banska bystrica said:


> http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/6994194/woman-to-get-money-back-from-40k-scam/
> 
> Makes our courts look like kindergartens. ...





Just shows the level of contempt our legal fraternity has for: safety, security and private property.

Hope it changes one day and penalty is going to be much tougher than crime. 
Then only then there will be visible deterrent. 
Criminals will have to think twice if it is worth to risk the punishment.


----------



## Mofra (31 March 2010)

As opposed to Australia, where gang rape is not seen as serious as the father punching one of the rapists:

http://www.news.com.au/national/fat...unching-attacker/story-e6frfkvr-1225847716849


----------



## Dunger (31 March 2010)

Mofra said:


> As opposed to Australia, where gang rape is not seen as serious as the father punching one of the rapists:
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/fat...unching-attacker/story-e6frfkvr-1225847716849




The Prosecutor negotiated a controversial plea deal that reduced the charges from rape to aggravated indecent assault.

To reduce the charges from rape to 'aggravated indecent assault' is criminal in itself. This is from the CDPP website:



> The CDPP’s purpose is to provide an ethical, high quality and independent prosecution service for Australia in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth.




Reducing the charge is not ethical or high quality in anyones books. They also talked the victim into changing her statement, obviously so they could proceed with the lesser charge.

What the hell is going on with this country?


----------



## Happy (31 March 2010)

Dunger said:


> ...
> 
> What the hell is going on with this country?




Makes me wander too.
Hope that before my days are over we will have bigger push for punishment.

Maybe we could look at forced and irreversible sterilisation of rapists too.


----------



## trainspotter (31 March 2010)

Reading the local paper here the other day and there was an article about a DRUNK DRIVER who had two (yes 2) lifetime bans and guess what, he was pulled over for DIU and no licence. The judge banned his licence for a further 9 months and gave him a $600 fine ! Oh yeah ... a 7 month jail sentence as well but suspended for 12 months. Hah ah aha ha ha hha haaaaaaaa ! What's the point? If this eeeeeeeeejit had killed someone whilst driving pissed then I am sure he would have got let off on some technicality ??


----------



## Sdajii (1 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Reading the local paper here the other day and there was an article about a DRUNK DRIVER who had two (yes 2) lifetime bans and guess what, he was pulled over for DIU and no licence. The judge banned his licence for a further 9 months and gave him a $600 fine ! Oh yeah ... a 7 month jail sentence as well but suspended for 12 months. Hah ah aha ha ha hha haaaaaaaa ! What's the point? If this eeeeeeeeejit had killed someone whilst driving pissed then I am sure he would have got let off on some technicality ??




So they added nine months to a 200 year driving ban? Amazing he didn't asked them to extend it another 50 years in exchange for the $600 fine being dropped. If I am ever on the wrong side of the law I'll see if I can have a quadruple lifetime ban from owning a plumber's license as a penalty. These days you never know.


----------



## Sdajii (1 April 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I have *much much more contempt* for country's with totalitarian regimes who throw people in places like "black prisons" in China, re-education camps or neo-gulags without trial and/or lawyers.
> 
> If you want to live in a country that denies legal representation to people then I suggest you move to China Bunyip. Hopefully then you'll wake up and realise what a great country Australia is and the fact that we do have a justice system that is transparent and while not perfect tries it best to uphold the rights of everyone. Or we could act like a bunch of totalitarian dictators and be the laughing stock of the world.
> 
> The fact that legal representation is guaranteed to offenders in Australia is an essential part of the democratic system. If you want justice to be served, then people need to go trial. It's as simple as that. If you don't like it then find another place to live.




What kind of idiotic mentality leads someone to look at a horrible excuse for a legal system, and rather than acknowledge severe flaws which are destroying countless lives, you simply find the worst example of another legal system and say "at least it's not as bad as that one"?

That's as insane as saying "I may have beaten her up and raped her, officer, but if you think I'm guilty you're wrong, because unlike many other rapists, at least I didn't kill her - they're the bad guys, I'm one of the good guys".

Something else being worse doesn't make a bad thing right. If some country in Africa has an even worse system than China's, will you then start defending China too? Look at the thing for what it is, don't just look for something worse! It's the mentality of people like you which leaves us stuck with these problems.


----------



## WaveSurfer (1 April 2010)

Sdajii said:


> ....I think capital punishment definitely has a place, and penalties should be more along the lines of community work (lots of it) rather than imprisonment.




Are you serious?

In the case of the old bitty getting brutalised for a measly $20, the perp should be locked away and NEVER allowed back into the community.

Better still, HANG HIM AND HANG HIM FRIGGEN HIGH. Cheaper, more effective and short 'n' sweet.

There's no room on this earth for that sort of scum, period.


----------



## Sdajii (1 April 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> In the case of the old bitty getting brutalised for a measly $20, the perp should be locked away and NEVER allowed back into the community.
> 
> ...




Read my posts again. You actually quoted me saying I think capital punishment has a place. If people are penalised without being killed, I don't think jail is a good option, for the reasons I described. I don't think there is generally much point in putting someone in prison, especially if it is for life. Prison costs money and generally turns a bad person into a worse person, or a good person into a bad person. If it is for life, it is a clear lose-lose situation. The only reason to give someone a life sentence in prison as opposed to execution is to burden our tax system, er, keep the squeamish public happy, or to allow for the possibility that they are actually innocent and might later be released. In cases of uncertain guilt, I think it would be much better to say "Well, we're not quite sure, so rather than imprison you and utterly destroy your life, you can go about things as usual, but we'll stick a tracker on you and you have to report to police every week" or something along those lines. If there is no doubt about guilt when it comes to unprovoked violent crimes, sure, don't hold back.


----------



## Putty7 (1 April 2010)

We are looking at a planet that is is going to be over populised for the resources available in the near future, new technologies aside, why should we let the scum of the Earth live, breed and breath, why waste everyone elses oxygen on them, castrate rapists and anyone who takes a life forfeits their own, pretty simple really, I don't believe in religion so I don't believe it is playing God, simply playing by fairer rules.


----------



## WaveSurfer (1 April 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Read my posts again. You actually quoted me saying I think capital punishment has a place. If people are penalised without being killed, I don't think jail is a good option, for the reasons I described. I don't think there is generally much point in putting someone in prison, especially if it is for life. Prison costs money and generally turns a bad person into a worse person, or a good person into a bad person. If it is for life, it is a clear lose-lose situation. The only reason to give someone a life sentence in prison as opposed to execution is to burden our tax system, er, keep the squeamish public happy, or to allow for the possibility that they are actually innocent and might later be released. In cases of uncertain guilt, I think it would be much better to say "Well, we're not quite sure, so rather than imprison you and utterly destroy your life, you can go about things as usual, but we'll stick a tracker on you and you have to report to police every week" or something along those lines. If there is no doubt about guilt when it comes to unprovoked violent crimes, sure, don't hold back.




Couldn't agree more with you there for the petty crime. Apologies for the misinterpretation.


----------



## Sdajii (1 April 2010)

Putty7 said:


> We are looking at a planet that is is going to be over populised for the resources available in the near future, new technologies aside, why should we let the scum of the Earth live, breed and breath, why waste everyone elses oxygen on them, castrate rapists and anyone who takes a life forfeits their own, pretty simple really, I don't believe in religion so I don't believe it is playing God, simply playing by fairer rules.




Someone has to play god. Even if there is a god, if he is too lazy to do it himself someone has to do it for him.


----------



## Atlas79 (1 April 2010)

Putty7 said:


> We are looking at a planet that is is going to be over populised for the resources available in the near future, new technologies aside, why should we let the scum of the Earth live, breed and breath, why waste everyone elses oxygen on them, castrate rapists and anyone who takes a life forfeits their own, pretty simple really, I don't believe in religion so I don't believe it is playing God, simply playing by fairer rules.




Bollocks. Plenty of resources in space, more than we can ever use. If governments & the Kevin Rudds of the world step out of the way & let the markets get us there we will be fine.

But I agree about rapists and such.


----------



## Julia (1 April 2010)

Happy said:


> Maybe we could look at forced and irreversible sterilisation of rapists too.



Happy, sterilising rapists wouldn't make the slightest difference.  That just means they cannot make their victims pregnant.  I suspect you mean castration, which I'd also contend would be ineffective.

Rape is much less about the sexual urge and much more about violence and control.

I agree with the suggestion that prison is usually unproductive, but it's what the majority of the population demand, and our politicians are too populist and/or apathetic to seriously look at alternatives.

One process which has been shown to have some positive results (though not in every instance) is victim-offender conferencing, where the parties meet in a suitably supervised situation and the victim explains in detail the effect the crime has had on their lives.  Now, of course some criminals will just shrug their shoulders, but others will for the first time consider the effects of their actions.

That prison doesn't work can be shown by the high rates of recidivism, especially if the offending begins in a very young person.

Removing serious offenders from society is often going to be necessary, but it needs to be accompanied by some constructive programmes.
I remember reading an article a while back about a group of violent young offenders, jailed, who were given the responsibility of looking after an abused dog.   It was their job to physically care for the dog, and to find ways of restoring the canine's confidence in human beings.  They initially scoffed at such an idea, but when actually experiencing the presence of the dog, they quickly responded and the outcome was very good, for the offenders and the dog.

Maybe such programmes as having the responsibility of planning and caring for a prison garden which has to supply the vegetables for the inmates would be useful.

I may be quite wrong, but I think when people undertake responsibility for achieving a given outcome, they usually rise to the challenge.

Just sitting in a fairly comfortable jail cell with all meals, laundry, exercise, etc planned and provided can't be conducive to any improvement in self worth or optimism for the future.


----------



## quinny (1 April 2010)

bunyip said:


> 2. Two young policemen in one of the southern states were called to sort out a man and his two sons who were drunk and disorderly outside a pub.
> The drunks became violent when the police asked them to move on.
> A violent scuffle ensued, and one of the offenders launched himself in a flying charge from behind one of the police, head-butted him in the back of the head, and left him brain damaged.
> This particular case was featured in 'Australian Story' on TV recently.
> ...




I assume you are referring to the Matthew Butcher and the McLeods incident that happened in Perth a while back.
This incident had a HUGE impact on things here, it got us mandatory sentencing for attacking police, ambos and some others.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2009/09/22/2693127.htm

Also, from things I remember reading (there were conflicting stories), I am pretty sure there were more than two police and three men involved. Police also tried to taser an "innocent" (which was the father) and that was why he was attacked, allegedly. The McLeods were involved because they tried to help throw out another rowdy group from the pub.

This was a huge thing over here, it was in the media for a long time and there were protests and law changes. I think one of the McLeods got a fine.
Anyway, the point is, so many things happened because of this incident that I am not sure are all good (e.g. mandatory sentencing can be abused by the cops).

I personally don't think McLeod should've gotten off the charge of attacking the policeman but a JURY decided this, not a judge. So what can you do?


----------



## Mofra (1 April 2010)

Sdajii said:


> If it is for life, it is a clear lose-lose situation. The only reason to give someone a life sentence in prison as opposed to execution is to burden our tax system, er, keep the squeamish public happy, or to allow for the possibility that they are actually innocent and might later be released.



It's also far cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to execute them, considering the experience of one country that is as letigious as Australia that does have the death penalty; the US.


----------



## bunyip (1 April 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I have *much much more contempt* for country's with totalitarian regimes who throw people in places like "black prisons" in China, re-education camps or neo-gulags without trial and/or lawyers.
> 
> If you want to live in a country that denies legal representation to people then I suggest you move to China Bunyip. Hopefully then you'll wake up and realise what a great country Australia is and the fact that we do have a justice system that is transparent and while not perfect tries it best to uphold the rights of everyone. Or we could act like a bunch of totalitarian dictators and be the laughing stock of the world.
> 
> The fact that legal representation is guaranteed to offenders in Australia is an essential part of the democratic system. If you want justice to be served, then people need to go trial. It's as simple as that. If you don't like it then find another place to live.




I'm not against a justice system that puts people on trial and allows them legal representation to see that they get a fair trial and that justice is served.
But all too often we see legal representatives deliberately perverting the cause of justice by getting violent offenders acquitted on the basis of some technicality, even when there's video evidence proving the defender's guilt.

You might think we have a great justice system when it allows violent criminals to walk free without punishment or conviction. I do not, and I'll continue to exercise my right of free speech by publicly criticising such a system. 
And if that upsets you, Gumby, tough luck. If you find free speech so objectionable, then I suggest you follow your own advice and go and live in some other country that denies people the right of free speech.
Maybe Vietnam or China would suit you, where speaking out publicly can land you in prison for a decade or so.

I agree with Sadajii....it's absolutely idiotic of you to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of our legal system, by comparing it to some other country whose legal system is even worse.


----------



## bunyip (1 April 2010)

quinny said:


> I assume you are referring to the Matthew Butcher and the McLeods incident that happened in Perth a while back.
> This incident had a HUGE impact on things here, it got us mandatory sentencing for attacking police, ambos and some others.
> http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2009/09/22/2693127.htm
> 
> ...




We can publicly criticise our legal system, we can lobby our MP's, we can write to newspapers, we can even try to become MP's ourselves if we feel strongly enough about making changes. If enough people express their dissatisfaction with the justice system, then and only then will some changes be made.
One of the worst things we can do is accept the system in its current form, shut up and say nothing. 
Or worse still, adopt the brain-dead and totally irresponsible attitude  that says _'Hey - you think our system is bad, go and live in some place like China and see how bad *their* system is'._


----------



## WaveSurfer (1 April 2010)

Julia said:


> ....Rape is much less about the sexual urge and much more about violence and control....




You're right about that Julia. Castration attempts to resolve both of those issues however (sexual urges and violent/aggressive behaviour). I don't think chemical castration is as effective as the body will find its own way around it - if it really wants to. Surgical castration through, removing the potential root cause of the problem altogether (the testes and the masses of testosterone they produce) could well be a viable solution. Shaft the ethical debate - do the crime, do the time I say.

We don't fully understand testosterone as of yet. But it certainly isn't hard to see that an overwhelming majority of sex offenders are male, and so are majority of the aggressors. There's something about boys and their testosterone filled toys.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2010)

Sdajii said:


> The problem is, if you stick someone in prison it costs the taxpayer a lot of money (if we were magically able to catch all the criminals we wouldn't come close to having the resources to imprison them all).



The underlying principle behind punishment is to deter people from committing the crime in the first place. If we sent 100% of criminals to prison and it were common knowledge that this occurred then we would have very, very few criminals.


----------



## Sdajii (2 April 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> The underlying principle behind punishment is to deter people from committing the crime in the first place. If we sent 100% of criminals to prison and it were common knowledge that this occurred then we would have very, very few criminals.




Deterrent is the only real benefit to prisons. We couldn't come anywhere near funding putting them all into prison though, even if we could magically catch them all. The reality is, criminals form a significant proportion of our community. If they make their money through crime they generally pay no income tax, but in many ways they are an integral part of the economy. They make their money and they then spend it like any other consumer. Many of them work part time or full time as well as their criminal activities. Removing them from the community means that they no longer spend, any legitimate part of their life is stopped, the community now needs to put a lot more money into them than it did when they were an active criminal, and if/when released they will probably be full time criminals even if they were previously only part time criminals.

In any case, death is probably at least as much of a deterrent as prison, and if we ran a system which allowed criminals the freedom to live in the outside world with tracking devices permanently attached, they could be all but prevented from committing further crimes (you would know exactly where and when they were, and if this coincided with any other crime you'd catch them pretty easily - there are further applications of gadgetry which would make this highly effective, but I won't fill several pages here getting into it), and on top of that they could be put to work for x hours per week for x months/years to pay back their debt to society. If anyone broke the requirements they were under in this situation they could be turned into glue or soylent green or similar.

I don't know how much use deterrents really are. In some cases, people are pathologically the way they are. They aren't like you or I, they don't necessarily consider their actions, they just go ahead and act on instinct. For these people at least, deterrents are completely irrelevant. With an expensive system such as what we have, the habitual criminals who do consider what they are doing know what a joke the legal system is, and they know that even if they are caught once in a while crime still pays. The magical system which allows all criminals to be caught and appropriately penalised is completely outside our possible budget - such a system would require more resources than Australia has in total, and obviously we need to keep putting resources into things like infrastructure, hospitals, schools, etc.


----------



## Go Nuke (2 April 2010)

Yeah we all know Australian courts are a bunch of soft cocks.

It disgusts me how soft we are on people who break the law. Eye for an eye works well for me. Or just cut a theifs hand off like they suposedly do in the middle east.

If that doesn't deter people...then I don't know what will!


----------



## bunyip (2 April 2010)

I've said it before on this forum, and it usually brings a reaction of _'it wouldn't work here'._ 
I'll say it again now....If you want to become proficient at something, learn from someone who's already proficient.
There's no better example than Singapore when it comes to crime control. It's one of the safest places in the world, with one of the lowest crime rates.
They don't muck around if you break the law in Singapore - they hit you and they hit you hard.

We should take a leaf out of their book by learning their methods and implementing them here. Our escalating crime rate would quickly be brought under control. 
Law abiding citizens would control the streets, not criminals. Our neighbourhoods would be safe again.

Would it be restrictive to live in a society with such no-no-nonsense rules? I don't think so. I've spent time in Singapore. I was free to do the normal things that law abiding citizens do, and I was able to do them in safety.


----------



## Trade wind (2 April 2010)

Our justice system may not be perfect, but all these suggestions for hangings, castration, mulitalation and floggings makes me mighty glad we have courts and not mob rule.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 April 2010)

Trade wind said:


> Our justice system may not be perfect, but all these suggestions for hangings, castration, mulitalation and floggings makes me mighty glad we have courts and not mob rule.




Watch this space, it will come brother. Its already available a la carte in Saudi and Iran, courtesy of the courts as well.

gg


----------



## WaveSurfer (2 April 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Watch this space, it will come brother. Its already available a la carte in Saudi and Iran, courtesy of the courts as well.
> 
> gg




Yep. Chemical castration is already in force in some countries.

A few states in the US, Poland, Argentina just off the top of my head.

It will be a way of the future. And rightly so IMO. Do the crime, do the time. Eye for an eye. Whatever you wanna term it.


----------



## Julia (2 April 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Yep. Chemical castration is already in force in some countries.
> 
> A few states in the US, Poland, Argentina just off the top of my head.
> 
> It will be a way of the future. And rightly so IMO. Do the crime, do the time. Eye for an eye. Whatever you wanna term it.




I'm not sure if I dare raise a question in the face of so much determination to adopt extreme measures, but wrongful convictions have happened.
Yes, I know this is a hoary old chestnut when you are all filled with so much righteousness about how to deal with criminals, but just recently a bloke who was apparently wrongfully convicted of murder here in Qld, and who has served 15 years, has now been released and will not be retried.

How can you be so sure our police service always gets it right?  Or the DPP?

Bad enough to wrongfully imprison someone, but a helluva lot worse to hang them.


----------



## WaveSurfer (3 April 2010)

Julia said:


> I'm not sure if I dare raise a question in the face of so much determination to adopt extreme measures, but wrongful convictions have happened.
> Yes, I know this is a hoary old chestnut when you are all filled with so much righteousness about how to deal with criminals, but just recently a bloke who was apparently wrongfully convicted of murder here in Qld, and who has served 15 years, has now been released and will not be retried.
> 
> How can you be so sure our police service always gets it right?  Or the DPP?
> ...




Of course. There's also the risk that some will try to take advantage of it and attempt to wrongfully frame others. Certainly can't put anything past some of our fellow beings.

Chemical castration is however reversible. Once the injections stop, the testes will function again.

And I also believe it's a two strikes and you're out in some countries. I'm assuming for that very reason you pointed out above.

I also believe the Argentinean laws are voluntary - the criminal agrees to voluntary undergo the treatment in order to reduce their court sentence.


----------



## WaveSurfer (3 April 2010)

Julia said:


> I'm not sure if I dare raise a question in the face of so much determination to adopt extreme measures, but wrongful convictions have happened.
> Yes, I know this is a hoary old chestnut when you are all filled with so much righteousness about how to deal with criminals, but just recently a bloke who was apparently wrongfully convicted of murder here in Qld, and who has served 15 years, has now been released and will not be retried.
> 
> How can you be so sure our police service always gets it right?  Or the DPP?
> ...





Looking back over the stack of medical journal articles I used last year for an assignment on this topic, there's a vast majority of the "against argument" that happen to be female. Now that's very interesting indeed considering they are the ones to be at most risk. I would have thought it would be the opposite. Must look into that one.


----------



## Julia (3 April 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Looking back over the stack of medical journal articles I used last year for an assignment on this topic, there's a vast majority of the "against argument" that happen to be female. Now that's very interesting indeed considering they are the ones to be at most risk. I would have thought it would be the opposite. Must look into that one.



That is indeed interesting.  Perhaps something to do with my earlier suggestion that rape isn't much about sex?


----------



## bunyip (3 April 2010)

Julia said:


> That is indeed interesting.  Perhaps something to do with my earlier suggestion that rape isn't much about sex?




Rape is about sex all right! Not only sex - there are various other factors at play as well, with control being right up there as one of the prime motivators. But rape is definitely about sex.
In the trial of rapists it frequently comes out that the rapist has had an ongoing problem controlling his sexual lust for women.
For example, Luke Colless, the Brisbane bikeway rapist, has a history of being a peeping tom - looking through the windows of women's bedrooms and bathrooms in the hope of seeing them undressed.
I've heard various other stories of rapists who had histories as sexual perverts before becoming a full-on rapist. 
In one case I heard of about ten years back, several women testified that over the years the rapist had engaged in various indecent acts such as putting his hand up their skirts on public transport, grabbing their breasts, making lewd comments of a sexual nature, etc etc.


----------



## Happy (3 April 2010)

Julia said:


> ....
> 
> *That prison doesn't work can be shown by the high rates of recidivism*, especially if the offending begins in a very young person.
> 
> ...





No disrespect to your opinion, but it would work if after first chance, offender would be removed from society FOR LIFE, with life sentence that would mean life.


----------



## IFocus (3 April 2010)

bunyip said:


> I've said it before on this forum, and it usually brings a reaction of _'it wouldn't work here'._
> I'll say it again now....If you want to become proficient at something, learn from someone who's already proficient.
> There's no better example than Singapore when it comes to crime control. It's one of the safest places in the world, with one of the lowest crime rates.
> They don't muck around if you break the law in Singapore - they hit you and they hit you hard.
> ...




Weak state politicians both lib and labor love people like you who blame judges and lawyers for the social failures, pass nasty laws give the police more powers out side of the court system etc to prove how tough on crime they are as this wins elections but wont address the issues.

Antoinette Kennedy a judge here in the West (has seen more of lifes rejects than most)just retired spoke on this very subject a number of times pointing out that the court system isn't going to fix social issues. 

Your example of Singapore reinforces this fact, an example would be school leavers week does that happen in Singapore do they teach their kids that getting wasted is OK?


----------



## So_Cynical (3 April 2010)

IFocus said:


> Your example of Singapore reinforces this fact, an example would be school leavers week does that happen in Singapore do they teach their kids that getting wasted is OK?




Singapore...right up there with Tehran and Harare as global party destinations and great places to have fun  You cant have a schoolies or spring break type event in Singapore because as soon as the girls started to get there t1ts out the cops would start splitting there heads open....regardless what there parents teach them.

Singapore...i could never live there, even when im just flying through i feel like i could get arrested just for what im thinking.


----------



## bunyip (3 April 2010)

IFocus said:


> Weak state politicians both lib and labor love people like you who blame judges and lawyers for the social failures, pass nasty laws give the police more powers out side of the court system etc to prove how tough on crime they are as this wins elections but wont address the issues.
> 
> Antoinette Kennedy a judge here in the West (has seen more of lifes rejects than most)just retired spoke on this very subject a number of times pointing out that the court system isn't going to fix social issues.
> 
> Your example of Singapore reinforces this fact, an example would be school leavers week does that happen in Singapore do they teach their kids that getting wasted is OK?




Well you're a smart lad, IFocus - you proved it over on the flying fox thread!!
So what's your solution to our escalating crime rate?


----------



## Julia (3 April 2010)

bunyip said:


> Rape is about sex all right! Not only sex - there are various other factors at play as well, with control being right up there as one of the prime motivators. But rape is definitely about sex.
> In the trial of rapists it frequently comes out that the rapist has had an ongoing problem controlling his sexual lust for women.
> For example, Luke Colless, the Brisbane bikeway rapist, has a history of being a peeping tom - looking through the windows of women's bedrooms and bathrooms in the hope of seeing them undressed.
> I've heard various other stories of rapists who had histories as sexual perverts before becoming a full-on rapist.
> In one case I heard of about ten years back, several women testified that over the years the rapist had engaged in various indecent acts such as putting his hand up their skirts on public transport, grabbing their breasts, making lewd comments of a sexual nature, etc etc.



If you are asserting that rape is primarily about sex, not domination, violence, and anger toward women, why do only a few men rape, but many have a preoccupation with sex?

If the main motivation was sexual, and the predator was unable to find willing partners, why wouldn't he use a prostitute?
There are plenty of opportunities for any male to satisfy purely sexual desire without the need to use violence or force.

Your anecdotal examples above could all be described as lack of respect toward/anger toward women, and would clearly be a means of intimidation.

Ditto the peeping tom story:  you have no way of knowing what he may have been fantasising about whilst doing this.  

I've been raped.  It was all about anger and the need to dominate and humiliate.


----------



## IFocus (4 April 2010)

bunyip said:


> Well you're a smart lad, IFocus - you proved it over on the flying fox thread!!
> So what's your solution to our escalating crime rate?




Don't have the answers but do know how violence is escalating in most capital city's on any weekend night thanks to a heavy drinking / chemical combination night out to the point of young women smashing faces of innocents.

Expecting our police to be the punching bag for this behavior is crap when politicians spout about tougher laws when the answer is changing social behavior / environments so the police don't have to put up with this time wasting and risk.  

This would require very unpopular laws around containing drinking and removing the environment that allows escalation of anti social behavior / violence.

This would of course would reduce state revenue, back to my point about weak politicians so wont happen far easier to blame the courts make tougher laws get re-elected etc. 

No silver bullet and only one example


----------



## bunyip (4 April 2010)

Julia said:


> If you are asserting that rape is primarily about sex, not domination, violence, and anger toward women, why do only a few men rape, but many have a preoccupation with sex?
> 
> If the main motivation was sexual, and the predator was unable to find willing partners, why wouldn't he use a prostitute?
> There are plenty of opportunities for any male to satisfy purely sexual desire without the need to use violence or force.
> ...




Julia - Rather than argue the point with you on here, I'll be contacting you by private correspondence to answer the points you've raised.


----------



## bunyip (4 April 2010)

IFocus said:


> Weak state politicians both lib and labor love people like you who blame judges and lawyers for the social failures, pass nasty laws give the police more powers out side of the court system etc to prove how tough on crime they are as this wins elections but wont address the issues.
> 
> Antoinette Kennedy a judge here in the West (has seen more of lifes rejects than most)just retired spoke on this very subject a number of times pointing out that the court system isn't going to fix social issues.
> 
> Your example of Singapore reinforces this fact, an example would be school leavers week does that happen in Singapore do they teach their kids that getting wasted is OK?




Interesting to see you snipe at me for putting forward concrete suggestions for bringing the crime under control, but when I ask you for your solution to the escalating crime rate, you admit that you don't have the answers.

As the saying goes, anyone can pull down a house, but it's far more difficult to build a better one in its place.

And just for the record, I didn't say, suggest or imply that judges and lawyers are to blame for the social failures. So how about you try to avoid misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I said, and focus instead on what I actually did say.


----------



## Happy (5 April 2010)

bunyip said:


> ...
> 
> As the saying goes, anyone can pull down a house, but it's far more difficult to build a better one in its place.
> 
> ...





My solution is simple, especially that we face or have ovrerpopulation already.

Criminals, for *whatever reason *should be stopped having opportunity to commit crime, full stop. 

(by total exclusion, or physical elimination - with probably use of spare parts to recover some good from bad person)

Selective breeding seems to make sense too, as it has some good results in other species.


----------



## newbie trader (5 April 2010)

I'm sure many of you in this thread as well as the 'sentancing in Australia is a disgrace' thread would like to see the defence council do this to their client...
(even though its a fictional movie it still makes a few valid points of which im sure many of you agree)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZjgCK1_tAY


----------



## Happy (5 April 2010)

Julia said:


> ...
> I've been raped.  It was all about anger and the need to dominate and humiliate.





Julia,
Sorry to hear you had to go through this terrible experience, that affected you and marked your life for life.
To tell the truth I did not know how could I react to your post. 

Sex must have been part of it, as you could be only beaten or just murdered.

When I watch films about animals, violence is part of their existence, suppose being part of animal kingdom, part of us is affected by atavism. 

After all democracy is artificial addition to our society, it sounds and looks good on surface, but even democratic majority is effectively power over minority.

However, we should put more emphasis on upholding rights of majority over criminal minority (while they are minority).

Punishment should be much more severe than crime and sentence in opening post is fine by me.


----------



## bunyip (7 April 2010)

One of the stories on tonight's TV news was of a man who killed his partner because she refused to pick him up from the pub. He was so angry by the time he got home that he bashed and strangled her and left her for dead. She died as a result of her injuries.
So he was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison, right? _*Wrong!*_
OK, he got 20 years then? Wrong again! 10 years? No!  8 years? 6 years? 5 years? Hell no - our hero got 3 years in the slammer, that's right - 3 years for a brutal killing! And you can bet he'll be out much sooner if he behaves himself while he's in there.

As disgusted as I am at such a light sentence for this brutal crime, it wouldn't have surprised me if some smartarse lawyer had got him off scot free on a minor technicality. There are plenty of morally deficient lawyers who would do exactly that if given the chance, and all to often they find a loophole in our legal system to allow them to do it.

Earlier in this thread I was critical of incompetent judges and unscrupulous lawyers, and our legal system generally. In response I got an idiotic post from some character who told me I should go and live in China if I didn't like our legal system. And from some other character I got a response that was almost as silly, telling me that I was blaming judges and lawyers for the social failures.

Well I won't be going to China to live - I'll be staying right here and continuing to publicly criticise our pathetic legal system that all too often makes decisions and gives sentences that are an apology for justice. And I'll be continuing to pressure politicians to make changes so that the system starts doing what it's meant to do, which is punish criminals and get justice for the victims. There are too many cases these days where that's just not happening.

And no, I'm not blaming judges and lawyers for the social failures that lead to these crimes in the first place. But I'm certainly blaming incompetent judges and unscrupulous lawyers for fostering a nonchalant attitude towards the legal system by the more irresponsible members of the community. 
One of the objectives of the legal system is to act as a deterrent to irresponsible and criminal behaviour. But what sort of deterrent is it when violent crime brings only light punishment, or in some cases no punishment at all?

Our legal system needs a complete overhaul - there are too many cases these days where it's just not achieving the objectives it was designed to achieve.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 April 2010)

bunyip said:


> Our legal system needs a complete overhaul - there are too many cases these days where it's just not achieving the objectives it was designed to achieve.




I agree.

Alan Bond should have got 30,000 years according to YOUR calculations. Don't get me wrong I agree!
Alan Bond should have never done a SEEK ad but hey that's life. They thought he was worth it. A guy steals 40K and Alan Bond bankrupts communities to the tune of billions. Who you gunna call? Conservative voting carers? Labor voting palm greasers? Green voting grandstanders? 

I would vote for Lord Sutch if he ran a ticket in Australia.


----------



## bunyip (8 April 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I agree.
> 
> Alan Bond should have got 30,000 years according to YOUR calculations. Don't get me wrong I agree!




One minute you're taking a shot at me for criticising the failings of our legal system, and suggesting I go and live somewhere else if I don't like it.

Now you're agreeing with me that our legal system needs a complete overhaul!

Make up your mind.


----------



## IFocus (8 April 2010)

> One of the stories on tonight's TV news was of a man who killed his partner because she refused to pick him up from the pub. He was so angry by the time he got home that he bashed and strangled her and left her for dead. She died as a result of her injuries.
> So he was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison, right? _*Wrong!*_
> OK, he got 20 years then? Wrong again! 10 years? No!  8 years? 6 years? 5 years? Hell no - our hero got 3 years in the slammer, that's right - 3 years for a brutal killing! And you can bet he'll be out much sooner if he behaves himself while he's in there.




Seems incredulous have you read the trial transcript?
Did the evidence get presented correctly?
Did the prosecution present their case correctly?
Was it a jury trial?
Do you only read head lines then decide its all broken?



> As disgusted as I am at such a light sentence for this brutal crime, it wouldn't have surprised me if some smartarse lawyer had got him off scot free on a minor technicality. There are plenty of morally deficient lawyers who would do exactly that if given the chance, and all to often they find a loophole in our legal system to allow them to do it.




You need to read the transcript?



> Earlier in this thread I was critical of incompetent judges and unscrupulous lawyers, and our legal system generally.




Big call given 1,000's of case's Oz wide.



> In response I got an idiotic post from some character who told me I should go and live in China if I didn't like our legal system.




Not any more unreasonable than many of your responses 



> And from some other character I got a response that was almost as silly, telling me that I was blaming judges and lawyers for the social failures.




You were talking about escalating violence, greatest area of growth in this currently is the combo of drug an alcohol which is a social issue.



> Well I won't be going to China to live - I'll be staying right here and continuing to publicly criticise our pathetic legal system that all too often makes decisions and gives sentences that are an apology for justice. And I'll be continuing to pressure politicians to make changes so that the system starts doing what it's meant to do, which is punish criminals and get justice for the victims. There are too many cases these days where that's just not happening.




Don't blame you China still has the rule of man and occasional rule of law.



> And no, I'm not blaming judges and lawyers for the social failures that lead to these crimes in the first place. But I'm certainly blaming incompetent judges and unscrupulous lawyers for fostering a nonchalant attitude towards the legal system by the more irresponsible members of the community.




You blamed them for the Matthew Butcher case which Quinny pointed out was decided by a jury sounded to me maybe the prosecution blew it!




> One of the objectives of the legal system is to act as a deterrent to irresponsible and criminal behaviour. But what sort of deterrent is it when violent crime brings only light punishment, or in some cases no punishment at all?




Absolutely bad people should be locked up



> Our legal system needs a complete overhaul - there are too many cases these days where it's just not achieving the objectives it was designed to achieve.




In 1,000's of case's there will be mistakes but Australia still has a very good legal system complete with separation of powers that most country's world wide don't have.

As for the deterrent thing Texas is a great example of the failure of capital punishment to deter crimes of passion or mental illness.

Hopefully this post wont be met with the usual abuse.


----------



## newbie trader (9 April 2010)

IFocus said:


> have you read the trial transcript?
> Did the evidence get presented correctly?
> Did the prosecution present their case correctly?
> Was it a jury trial?
> ...




Have been waiting for someone to bring that up. 
Everyone who has been complaining and carrying on about the various rulings seem to be using the Courier Mail etc as their authority, which becomes rather tiring after a while. 
Also it seems that the only way to fix the problem (if you were to follow the advice of some of the posters here) is to either execute the criminals or 'throw away the key' (neither of which are very helpful answers).
You also did well to mention the separation of powers.

(Keep up the good work with your posts, very enjoyable to read)


----------



## Happy (9 April 2010)

newbie trader said:


> ...
> Also it seems that the only way to fix the problem (if you were to follow the advice of some of the posters here) is to either execute the criminals or 'throw away the key' (neither of which are very helpful answers).
> ...






Besides all the needs of the criminal to feed habit or two and / or find motivation to get off the booze, or other recreational mind altering chemicals, there are also sitting ducks general public, that surprise surprise would not mind to be looked after too.

Quite a few years back stealing from private premises totalled to $800 million dollars in that particular year. 
Should all new and previous robbers be kept locked, chances are that total figure would be much lower.

Also if all keys instead of being thrown out were collected for recycling, we would have additional benefit.


Current legal system does not reduce crime the way that general public expects, so surely *to get different result we have to use different methods of deterrence / rehabilitation.*

(I get it, lawyers woud not have the same workload ($$$$$)  )


----------



## newbie trader (9 April 2010)

Happy said:


> Also if all keys instead of being thrown out were collected for recycling, we would have additional benefit.
> 
> (I get it, lawyers woud not have the same workload ($$$$$)  )




It would be a sad sad world if everyone lost faith in humanity...

Lawyers don't make the laws last time I checked? So why would laws be made in accordance with what will/won't effect them financially? 

Repetition repetition lets sing it again repetition repetition it'll never end.


----------



## Happy (9 April 2010)

newbie trader said:


> ...Lawyers don't make the laws last time I checked? ...





Of course they don’t, they just find loopholes.

(As good example GLOVE comes to my mind from USA)


----------



## newbie trader (9 April 2010)

Happy said:


> Of course they don’t, they just find loopholes.
> 
> (As good example GLOVE comes to my mind from USA)




Yeah I agree lawyers do, do their job - some better than others.

(Working within the confines of the law)


----------



## Happy (9 April 2010)

newbie trader said:


> ...(Working within the confines of the law)





Yes, I almost feel sorry for how constricted they are in this terrible confinement!


----------



## newbie trader (9 April 2010)

Happy said:


> Yes, I almost feel sorry for how constricted they are in this terrible confinement!




Indeedy do.

Happy, you have a knack, neigh a talent of taking little extracts from what people say, taking them out of context and giving an answer to them which doesnt fit the point the poster is trying to make.


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 April 2010)

bunyip said:


> This sort of thing sickens me. It makes me so angry when irrefutable evidence is ignored and violent criminals receive no punishment at all.
> It disgusts me that any lawyer, being fully aware of the video footage that proves the guilt of the offender, could be such a low life as to take on his case and do everything possible to get him acquitted.
> 
> I have nothing but contempt for lawyers who stoop to such depths.




Here's what you said.

It's about the admissibility of evidence. And the Evidence Act of the Commonwealth and each state don't just apply to criminal trials they also apply in a whole variety of civil litigation matters as well. Do you have just as much contempt for a lawyer successfully arguing an exception to the Evidence Act on a civil litigation matter standing up for the property rights of his client. Or do the precedents in such civil litigation matters only attract your dissatisfaction within the criminal jurisdiction of the courts??? 

The laws an ass bunyip. Get over it!


----------



## bunyip (11 April 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Here's what you said.
> 
> It's about the admissibility of evidence. And the Evidence Act of the Commonwealth and each state don't just apply to criminal trials they also apply in a whole variety of civil litigation matters as well. Do you have just as much contempt for a lawyer successfully arguing an exception to the Evidence Act on a civil litigation matter standing up for the property rights of his client. Or do the precedents in such civil litigation matters only attract your dissatisfaction within the criminal jurisdiction of the courts???
> 
> The laws an ass bunyip. Get over it!




I've made my position pretty clear - the legal system is too often failing in its objectives, which are, or at least should be, to get justice for victims of crime and appropriate penalties for the criminals.
Yes, the law is an ass - that's why I'm saying (and you're now agreeing with me) that our legal system needs a complete overhaul.


----------



## bunyip (11 April 2010)

IFocus said:


> Hopefully this post wont be met with the usual abuse.




Abuse? Pffftt! 
Not from me, pal. I've been forthright in my views, certainly, but not abusive.
On another thread you copped a dose of your own medicine when I handed you a small burst of sarcasm which you fully deserved, given that you yourself had been dishing out sarcasm left right and centre in some of your previous posts.
You got all offended and called it a personal attack. lol
Toughen up - if you dish it out then you shouldn't complain when you find yourself on the receiving end.

Anyway, you can always report me to the moderator if you're so convinced that I've been abusive.


----------

