Alcohol fueled violence

[McLovin]

There's going to be so many issues with these laws.

Damn straight there is. There is very little evidence that increasing sentence lengths does anything but increase the cost to the taxpayer and increase the likelihood of recividism. Just look at America's overcrowded prison system for just how effective mandatory sentencing is. We're seriously going to start locking people up for 2 years for assaulting a police officer, please.

Why are we looking to cost the community millions in locking people up, when most likely there wont be a large drop in the kinds of behaviour that lead to these unfortunate deaths.

Oh that's an easy one. It appeases the simpletons who listen to talkback radio.

 

[sydboy007]

Damn straight there is. There is very little evidence that increasing sentence lengths does anything but increase the cost to the taxpayer and increase the likelihood of recividism. Just look at America's overcrowded prison system for just how effective mandatory sentencing is. We're seriously going to start locking people up for 2 years for assaulting a police officer, please.

Oh that's an easy one. It appeases the simpletons who listen to talkback radio.

Considering the USA has nearly 5 times the number of citizens locked up (on a per capita basis) as we do, there's a ways to catch up, but yeah these seemingly simple solutions do little to actually resolve the issue. We've seen a doubling in the imprisonment rate in Australia over the last 30 years. Last year we spend $3.2B on prisons. If we keep on increasing the incarceration rate like the last 30 years then we're looking at spending an addition $5B to build new prisons since the current system is averaging 94-96% of capacity. So the question we should be asking is do we really need to make million dollar first offenders?

I am sort of for harsher sentences for people assaulting police as they are the ones keeping us from anarchy. Conversely I would like to see harsher penalties for police officers found breaking the law. If they are to be provided extra protection they should face stiffer consequences when caught doing the wrong thing.

 

[McLovin]

I am sort of for harsher sentences for people assaulting police as they are the ones keeping us from anarchy. Conversely I would like to see harsher penalties for police officers found breaking the law. If they are to be provided extra protection they should face stiffer consequences when caught doing the wrong thing.

Yes, but assault police doesn't mean punching police, it's such a broad category, that making a threatening statement to a police officer when they are putting you in the paddy wagon is considered assault police. Around 3,000 people are convicted of assault police each year in NSW. NSW has a prison population of ~11,000 are we really going to lock up another 6,000 people for two years for assault police, for what are overwhelmingly relatively minor offences?

And that of course ignores the fact that the police can basically start handing out 2 year jail sentences on trumped up assault police charges...

 

[Tink]

Well don't assault police, simple.
You wont have a problem.

I think they have to deal with more than enough.

All of those coward punches were on more than their first offence.

These criminals have no respect for authority, be it police, teachers, or people in general.

 

[Bill M]

Well don't assault police, simple.
You wont have a problem.

I think they have to deal with more than enough.

All of those coward punches were on more than their first offence.

These criminals have no respect for authority, be it police, teachers, or people in general.

Exactly, couldn't agree with you more.

How is it, the majority of people go through life with next to no encounters with Police, yet others continuously seem to get into trouble?

If you don't go around getting boozed up and punching people then you have nothing to fear.

The Police should have special protection against assault, they are not punching bags for the drunks out there. You need to look after those that are suppose to be looking after us.

Although a stint in prison may not reform a perp at least it keeps them off the streets for a couple of years and once they get a criminal record they can not work in Public positions anymore. There are so many jobs out there that you can never get once you've done some time and that's how it should be. Who in their right mind would want to employ someone that flips off on the grog or goes around punching people?. Maybe when real sentences start getting handed out and real consequences start being felt then the whole community might take notice and the individuals might take more responsibility for their actions.

And here we go again with another pathetic response from our system, this bloke was let off for drinking and driving, resting arrest and failing to comply with Police. As long as these mongrels keep getting let off alcohol fueled violence will continue. The bolded part, is my highlighting.

---
MANLY rugby league player Richie Fa'aoso has been placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond after drinking and driving, and resisting arrest following an argument with his pregnant wife.

He drove for 2.5km before being pulled over, but then "used his bulk" to resist arrest and was brought to the ground by police, the court heard.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/manly-nrl-prop-richie-faaoso-given-bond-over-drinkdrive-charge/story-e6frg6nf-1226808502204
---

 

[McLovin]

Well don't assault police, simple.
You wont have a problem.

That old chestnut.

Locking people up for years because someone (police or otherwise) gets a bloody nose on a Saturday night is just pathetic.

I guess some of see a scale and some see black and white.

 

[Smurf1976]

A bit of a struggle being arrested, foul language etc - that's not an assault in my opinion and it's just something that police reasonably expect to deal with. Not nice but it comes with the job.

But throwing a punch? That's assault, simple as that, and prison seems a reasonable consequence. If not prison then what' the alternative? Slaps on the wrist aren't an effective deterrent.

Using drink driving as another example, I very much doubt that it's concerns about road safety which prevent most people from doing it. It's the consequence if caught, loss of license, that is taken seriously. Same with most crimes - if there's no serious consequence then people will do it.

One idea I heard mentioned elsewhere is the concept of a license to buy alcohol. Everyone gets one automatically upon turning 18, no specific action required. But throw a coward punch whilst under the influence of alcohol (at any level) or illegal drugs and it's gone for 10 years. No alcohol license = no entry to any place alcohol is sold or served, including restaurants, music festivals, casinos and the like with no exceptions. The concept is based on the deterrent value plus the benefit of keeping the troublemakers out of such places.

Personally I don't like the "ID card" aspect of it but then we have that anyway with driver's licenses etc so it's not a major change there. I'm not sure if it would work, but I can't see how it would be bad.

 

[Tink]

McLovin, I am sick of criminals yelling out about 'their rights', and this has been the problem where the victim is no longer being heard. Its time that roles were reversed and the law abiding citizens are being heard.

It may seem extreme but it has become extreme, there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Agree with you, Bill, exactly, how is it that people have NO involvement with the police, yet you get the same ones playing the system and its got to stop.

These people are on their fourth offence with no fear, and something needs to change in society.

 

[McLovin]

A bit of a struggle being arrested, foul language etc - that's not an assault in my opinion and it's just something that police reasonably expect to deal with. Not nice but it comes with the job.

Right, and if during that struggle a police officer gets a bruise on their arm from an arm flapping around the person will get two years in prison. That's assault, but it's hardly in the same league as walking up and punching a police officer.

Using drink driving as another example, I very much doubt that it's concerns about road safety which prevent most people from doing it. It's the consequence if caught, loss of license, that is taken seriously. Same with most crimes - if there's no serious consequence then people will do it.

For people my generation, I think you're completely wrong. There's a social stigma attached to it, and very little sympathy for those who do and get caught. I've said in these threads so many times, longer sentences don't reduce crime. There's overwhelming evidence of that. But they make a loud minority feel pleased as punch that something is being done because, you know, Sydney is like Baghdad these days.

McLovin, I am sick of criminals yelling out about 'their rights', and this has been the problem where the victim is no longer being heard. Its time that roles were reversed and the law abiding citizens are being heard.

It may seem extreme but it has become extreme, there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Agree with you, Bill, exactly, how is it that people have NO involvement with the police, yet you get the same ones playing the system and its got to stop.

These people are on their fourth offence with no fear, and something needs to change in society.

Maybe take your blinkers off for a second. Mandatory sentencing will not care whether it's your first offence and you were provoked while taking your wife out for a night on the town, and usually you volunteer down at the homeless shelter on a Saturday night, you will still get the same sentence. These laws treat first time offenders, regardless of the circumstance of what took place, the same as repeat offenders. Like I said above, longer sentences don't reduce crime, the risk of getting caught does. Heck even the Police Association agrees with.

The severity of sentences has very little influence on crime rates.
Policy makers must look beyond sentencing rhetoric and look towards recent and emerging research in order to develop the most effective criminal justice policies to reduce crime.

...

From a policy perspective, it appears that targeting the risk of apprehension and conviction are more effective strategies in reducing crime compared to increasing the severity of punishment.

...

These research findings have serious policy implications as it shifts the focus from enforcing tougher sentences, which to date has had minimal impact on reducing crime, to allowing the criminal justice system to exert a much greater influence on crime by targeting risk of apprehension and conviction.

http://www.pansw.org.au/sites/defau...ncing _Effects_on_Crime_Rates_ExecSummary.pdf

So maybe, just maybe, politicians are just reacting to what will improve their approval rating, and God knows standing on a soap box and talking about being tough on crime does that, even if the outcomes are so poor.

 

[CanOz]

Excellent post McLovin

 

[sydboy007]

shows what can go wrong at times with the police

Ms Gardner was at Cronulla station with two tourist friends just before midnight when they were approached by transit officers and found to be without tickets.

An altercation ensued when the tourists could not produce identification and police attended.

Ms Gardner claimed that, when she protested that one of the tourists was being pinned to the ground by a transit officer, acting Sergeant Craig Sands kicked both her legs out from under her, breaking her right leg.

In her statement of claim, it was alleged that Sergeant Sands then directed a transit officer to sit on her while she was lying face down on the platform before she was handcuffed, told she was under arrest and put in a paddy wagon.

When she objected to what she believed was an unlawful arrest, an officer said "we don't care if this is legal", the statement said.

Ms Gardner was not taken to a police station and charged. Instead, she was driven to Sutherland railway station and "left to fend for herself in a seriously injured condition".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/student-r...e-break-leg-20140124-31cww.html#ixzz2rHkmVdAn

 

[Logique]

King hits in and around drinking spots, it's been around forever, but too often swept under the carpet.

Publicity and education are paramount. Our kids need to learn some street smarts here, they're not always going to get it at home.

But it's no reason to go soft on sentencing, especially with offenders with a track record.

 

[Smurf1976]

Right, and if during that struggle a police officer gets a bruise on their arm from an arm flapping around the person will get two years in prison. That's assault, but it's hardly in the same league as walking up and punching a police officer.

Agreed there. I do see a difference between something like "resisting arrest" (I think that's the official term they use or something similar) versus someone walking up and punching a Police Officer for no apparent reason.

If I were a Police Officer then I'd expect to encounter the former in the course of my duties. It's something that's not nice that's for sure, but it's to be expected in that line of work. Just like an electrician expects to be crawling about in hot roofs (and they get damn hot I can assure you - not fun) and a cleaner expects that they may have to clean up some unpleasant messes in a public toilet.

If that's not your thing then either do a different job or work your way into something that isn't patrolling the streets (police), get a job that doesn't involve wiring houses (electricians) or get a job cleaning offices (cleaner). Indeed that's exactly what many pursue. Police pursue internal opportunities to shift into different jobs within the police that involve little or no walking the streets. Electricians who stay in the trade long term tend to pursue roles in factories, utilities or become some sort of foreman, supervisor, estimator, manager etc which doesn't involve lying face down in a pile of fiberglass under a hot tin roof. And cleaners try to get the better jobs in many cases too if they're available - the team leader might still be cleaning but they'll be doing schools or offices and leave the public toilet contract to someone else.

But someone just walking up and punching, shooting etc a Police Officer is very different in my opinion. It's a crime in itself with the potential to cause serious injury. Whilst any sane Police Officer would have thought of the prospect that this could happen, it's not something they ought to be expected to live with. Just like a sparkie doesn't expect someone to walk up and push them off the ladder and a cleaner doesn't expect someone to come along and throw **** in their face. Anything like that is clearly an unprovoked assault and ought to be punished in my opinion.

For people my generation, I think you're completely wrong. There's a social stigma attached to it, and very little sympathy for those who do and get caught. I've said in these threads so many times, longer sentences don't reduce crime. There's overwhelming evidence of that.

You may be right about drink driving, I won't claim to know for sure. But I am pretty confident that for young people especially that "Essential Requirements = Drivers License" line on their employment contract is a factor. I supervise such people, and they know damn well that loss of license is grounds for dismissal on the grounds of not being able to perform their duties. How much it actually influences behaviour I'm not sure, but it would influence some I'd expect.

Mandatory sentencing will not care whether it's your first offence and you were provoked while taking your wife out for a night on the town, and usually you volunteer down at the homeless shelter on a Saturday night, you will still get the same sentence. These laws treat first time offenders, regardless of the circumstance of what took place, the same as repeat offenders. Like I said above, longer sentences don't reduce crime, the risk of getting caught does.

Agreed that there's an inherent problem with tough mandatory sentences for first time offenders which doesn't take account of circumstances. As a minimum, there ought to be a requirement for proof - eg if there's two people in a fight then one is likely acting in self defence and ought not be punished.

But I'd argue that it is the proabiltiy of being significantly punished, not the probability of being caught per se, which is an effective deterrent.

As an example, I periodically attend work meetings and park near the head office in order to do so. I park on the street, typically in a space with 2 hour parking limit. But suffice to say the prospect of having to pay a $35 fine for parking too long doesn't cause me to park 10 blocks away or use a commercial car park. Any fines are paid by the driver, not the employer, but let's be realistic. There's perhaps a 20% chance of being caught, so on average that's a $7 cost if the meeting runs longer than scheduled which won't occur on most occasions. The threat of a $35 fine at my personal expense is not a deterrent but it sure would be if the fine was $3500 in which case I'd find somewhere else to park, come out of the meeting and move the car after 2 hours or whatever.

Same with anything. If being caught means that a Police Officer tells me I've done the wrong thing and asks me to not do it again then that's not much of a deterrent since the few minutes spent talking to police is of no real consequence to me or anyone else and that applies even if there is decent chance (say 20%) of being caught. But if the consequence is a large fine, time in prison or a community service order then that's going to make any sensible person think twice about committing that crime.

"Sensible" person is the key word here though, and I'd expect that your average puncher doesn't fit into the category of "sensible" such that this probably wouldn't work with this particular crime unless the odds of being caught are extremely high.

 

[Tink]

Agree Smurf, punishment is a deterrent and in my view, the soft sentencing is not working.
If these people choose to live a life of crime, then suffer the consequences.
This entitlement mentality is spreading and these people are picking and choosing the weak, the elderly being my main concern.

I stand by the police and their works, and their protection.
Singapore locks them up for a week, we should be looking at more deterrents.
I wouldn't call it a minority, McLovin, the public are getting sick of these thugs.
We should be entitled to walk the streets, catch public transport, go shopping without some idiot hassling the elderly or any person walking by.

There is no respect in society with these people, and there needs to be changes.

 

[Bill M]

So what does everybody think about the sentence this guy got? He was caught on camera assaulting a bouncer that was just doing his job. The perp was drunk, he kneed the bouncer in the groin and then punched him in the face. He got 8 Months minimum sentence, he is going to appeal.

Do you think he got a fair sentence? In this case I think he did. Where does it stop? When will people realise that this is not the kind of behaviour that is accepted in a first world country?

---
The sentence was handed down after the magistrate viewed security footage of the incident, which showed Dooley punching the bouncer in the face and kneeing him in the stomach.

Dooley pleaded guilty to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm at the Downing Centre Local Court but said and told the court he had been drunk at the time and had no memory of attacking the bouncer.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/irish-backpacker-jailed-for-minimum-eight-months-for-attack-on-bouncer-outside-scruffy-murphys/story-e6frg6n6-1226810086019
---

 

[IFocus]

Right, and if during that struggle a police officer gets a bruise on their arm from an arm flapping around the person will get two years in prison. That's assault, but it's hardly in the same league as walking up and punching a police officer.




For people my generation, I think you're completely wrong. There's a social stigma attached to it, and very little sympathy for those who do and get caught. I've said in these threads so many times, longer sentences don't reduce crime. There's overwhelming evidence of that. But they make a loud minority feel pleased as punch that something is being done because, you know, Sydney is like Baghdad these days.



Maybe take your blinkers off for a second. Mandatory sentencing will not care whether it's your first offence and you were provoked while taking your wife out for a night on the town, and usually you volunteer down at the homeless shelter on a Saturday night, you will still get the same sentence. These laws treat first time offenders, regardless of the circumstance of what took place, the same as repeat offenders. Like I said above, longer sentences don't reduce crime, the risk of getting caught does. Heck even the Police Association agrees with.



http://www.pansw.org.au/sites/defau...ncing _Effects_on_Crime_Rates_ExecSummary.pdf

So maybe, just maybe, politicians are just reacting to what will improve their approval rating, and God knows standing on a soap box and talking about being tough on crime does that, even if the outcomes are so poor.

jezzzsssa's you'll end up joining the communist greens gay rights left wing propaganda unit saying things like that .

Of course you are right there is a place for the law, incarceration, fines and etc but its of little deterrent as the US are now finding out and strangely or maybe not its US state Republicans that are moving to wind back mandatory sentencing due to its costs and non effectiveness.

Mandatory sentencing is about and always has been revenge and political grandstanding (used by both sides)

Of course there that other factor that crime rates have long been falling as a % of population and we have never been safer but you wont see that on the 6.00 News (lost dog shows more like it)

 

[Smurf1976]

I've always thought of mandatory sentencing as a response to judges handing out "slap on the wrist" punishments where a more substantial punishment is clearly warranted rather than as a goal in itself.

 

[IFocus]

I've always thought of mandatory sentencing as a response to judges handing out "slap on the wrist" punishments where a more substantial punishment is clearly warranted rather than as a goal in itself.

Tends to be the fodder of talk back Nazis, read the whole of the sentencing script and often as not there is a logic to a magistrates view but again you wont find that on the 6.00 news.

 

[Tink]

Yes, they only show the 90 that have died, they don't show the others, like what's filling up the emergency units.

Well now that the asylum seekers have stopped, how much was that costing us a day? maybe we can covert these places into prisons, looks like we may be needing them.

 

[McLovin]

Tends to be the fodder of talk back Nazis, read the whole of the sentencing script and often as not there is a logic to a magistrates view but again you wont find that on the 6.00 news.

There's a research paper from the AIC floating around about sentencing in Australia. It found that members of the public when given all the relevant facts of a case tended to give far lighter sentences than magistrates and judges. That's not to say some people get let off easy, as with anything that involves human decision making that happens, and it makes great "news", but it doesn't mean the system is broken.