http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24813070-421,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24813489-1242,00.html
Absolutely disgusting.
For discussion.
I'd love to hear the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal's rationalisation for this.
Absolute joke!!!
Most likely some technicality in the legislation
These guys should be executed
but I am waiting or looking forward to the day when a disgruntel victim walks in with a shotgun ,
No Julia, it's a bit different to that.The Qld Attorney-General today provoked outrage by saying that some rapes aren't all that serious compared with others. Unbelievably tactless remark.
I can see what he was meaning, i.e. rape with home invasion, assault, injury and violence would have to be worse than a woman saying no after she's said yes, and he's right with the point he was making about the sentence being dictated accordingly.
But the law is just insane. A very very dangerous world out there for young men, with the laws now in place...
Very dangerous for women too, I agree the Judiciary are a failure in todays society.
In a lot of cases now, it isn't the judiciary that's the problem, it's the legislation and the way it HAS to be interpreted in a lot of cases.
I mean, you can get a heavier penalty for cybering with a minor, than you can get for having thousands upon thousands of child pr0n images. Hell... you usually get less for killing someone.
Even in this atrocious rape case, he still has got more than the drop kick aboriginal in Gero that hit the father in the back of the head with a cricket bat.I don't know... but I'd think killing someone would get more than rape... but that's just me...
BTW, trying to find the article about the new rape laws. Absolutely scary when you look at it...
Very dangerous for women too, I agree the Judiciary are a failure in todays society.
But, the most significant change to sexual assault law has been the introduction of a legal definition of consent. New South Wales is the latest state to adopt the reform after Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. Victims' advocates say it's long overdue.
HOWARD BROWN, VICTIMS' ADVOCATE: All these changes in effect achieve is a reversal of the burden, so that no longer does it fall to the victim to prove that they were not giving consent. It now falls to the accused to prove that they believe that they did have consent.
ADRIAN RASCHELLA: Until recently, jurors had to use common sense when trying to decide if there was consensual sex. Under the new definition, consent isn't as simple as "yes" or "no". For example, in NSW, if a woman is under the influence of alcohol and agrees to have sex, a jury can still find she was assaulted because her capacity to say "yes" was affected by the alcohol. And this has defence lawyers worried.
STEPHEN ODGERS, BARRISTER: It does mean that a person who believes - honestly believes that there's consent, honestly believes that there's "free and voluntary agreement" - to use the new language - can still be convicted.
ADRIAN RASCHELLA: Stephen Odgers is a high-profile Sydney barrister. He believes the introduction of a legal definition of consent will result in innocent people going to jail.
STEPHEN ODGERS: You may well have people who most members of the community don't regard as criminals being criminalised.
NICHOLAS COWDERY, NSW DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS: Alarmist statements that innocent people will be convicted and sent to prison as a result of the change in the law are simply that: alarmist at this stage.
ADRIAN RASCHELLA: Nicholas Cowdery has been the NSW chief prosecutor for 14 years.
NICHOLAS COWDERY: People have been warned: if you now have sex with somebody else, you'd better be sure that that person is consenting to what is going on.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2422124.htm
The magistrates of the children's court in Perth have spoken out on multiple occasions...You're right it's not the judiciary so much as it is the law, BUT the judiciary should be up front and leading the charge for reform of the law but they dont , They powder their wigs and pounce into Court , shame on them.
The Qld Attorney-General today provoked outrage by saying that some rapes aren't all that serious compared with others. Unbelievably tactless remark.
I can see what he was meaning, i.e. rape with home invasion, assault, injury and violence would have to be worse than a woman saying no after she's said yes, and he's right with the point he was making about the sentence being dictated accordingly.
Sometimes I think there's a case for mandatory sentencing to counteract the wussy pathetic sentences deemed appropriate by some of these soft judges.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?