Sentencing in Australia is a disgrace

[Happy]

From post #179

Mr Campbell has asked for a five-year jail term for Watson, with the possibility of parole after 18 months.

In sarcastic terms, this might be income protection scheme.

Fellow committed crime; chances are that when out will commit crime again.
So, sooner out (in 18 months), chances are there will be repeat income sooner too.

Hope this assumption is wrong and there must be reasonable explanation.

I wander is there a standard way to contact Government and tell them opinion?

 

[Calliope]

Christina's parents came over from America to see justice done. They have been badly let down.

 

[pilots]

He can't say it was a accident, so it must be murder, and he gets five years, AUSTRALIA IS A JOKE.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Christina's parents came over from America to see justice done. They have been badly let down.

I am outraged at this judgement and sentencing.

 

[Green08]

Capital Punishment for the bastards

I know a woman who works with 'inmates' - perhaps her sense of reality has been warped as she would "care for them" them anyday. Free medical, medicine, accomodation, Austar, they get PAID. Taking our resources to fix their self inflicted (or ) with medical surgery over people needing real surgery.

Australian prisons like the Bangkok Hilton instead of the Hilton, when do we start.

I work with disabled clients and would gladly give them assistance anyday. Yet they get a pretty rough go in comparison to 'inmates'.

 

[gav]

WTF ?????? the prosecutor asks for only 5 years with parole after 18 months??????????

Perhaps he'd been planning it for quiet some time. He knew if he did that in his own country he'd face the chair. So he thought 'how about a honeymoon in Australia, I can get rid of her and be a free man in less than 2yrs'....

 

[scanspeak]

From what I gathered on ACA, it seems the guy panicked and failed in his duty of care as a "scuba buddy".
If that's the case then 12 months seems reasonable.
Has a motive been established?

 

[Wysiwyg]

From what I gathered on ACA, it seems the guy panicked and failed in his duty of care as a "scuba buddy".
If that's the case then 12 months seems reasonable.
Has a motive been established?

My experience with advanced s.c.u.b.a. diving is the one panicking is the person in distress. The buddy, as in "any" call for help does what they can. Matter of fact complete strangers over-turn cars to get people free of danger.

Do you not see through this person?

 

[scanspeak]

I'm trying to understand the reasoning of the court.
I've personally witnessed people freeze or panic in serious situations.

What bothers me most is motive, or the lack of one

 

[Wysiwyg]

I'm trying to understand the reasoning of the court.
I've personally witnessed people freeze or panic in serious situations.

What bothers me most is motive, or the lack of one

What motivates any killing? Power, money, anger and pure enjoyment of doing it. Psychological assessment won`t show anything because his script is well prepared. Truth is via agreement.

 

[scanspeak]

It just doesnt make any sense, they were on their honeymoon.
As far as I can see, there's not enough evidence for a full murder conviction..

 

[Julia]

I wander is there a standard way to contact Government and tell them opinion?

Yes. Just contact Justice Department.

He can't say it was a accident, so it must be murder, and he gets five years, AUSTRALIA IS A JOKE.

I'd guess that he did a deal before agreeing to come back to Australia, i.e. he'd plead guilty to manslaughter but not murder. As far as Australia is concerned, this wraps the case up. Tick that one off. Next please.
Justice for the girl is not really a consideration it seems.

I'm trying to understand the reasoning of the court.
I've personally witnessed people freeze or panic in serious situations.

What bothers me most is motive, or the lack of one

There have been reports of his having discussions with the insurance company prior to coming out here. It hasn't been made clear whether he increased the life insurance on his wife.
You'd think the prosecution was unable to prove such a motive, or they'd not have agreed to the manslaughter plea.

 

[Wysiwyg]

It just doesnt make any sense, they were on their honeymoon.
As far as I can see, there's not enough evidence for a full murder conviction..

Perfect. Why was an accident never a certainty?

 

[MrBurns]

From the ABC web site, Justice Australian style.

Attorney-General considers scuba sentence appeal
Posted 3 hours 5 minutes ago
Updated 2 hours 32 minutes ago

Map: Townsville 4810
The Queensland Attorney-General is considering an appeal against the sentence handed down to an American man jailed over the death of his wife in 2006.

David Gabriel Watson was sentenced to 4.5 years jail, after pleading guilty to the manslaughter of his wife Tina while diving off Townsville in north Queensland.

His jail term will be suspended after 12 months.

Tina Watson's family and the State Opposition have criticised the sentence.

In a statement, the Attorney-General Cameron Dick said he has requested the sentencing remarks, with a view to considering an appeal.

Christina Watson's father, sister and best friend say they travelled from the US to see justice served but are feeling bitterly disappointed.

"We are in total shock over what has transpired," Ms Watson's father Tommy Thomas said.

In October 2003, 26-year-old Ms Watson was on her honeymoon in north Queensland when she and her husband David went diving on Yongala wreck off Townsville.

The newlywed had problems breathing.

The court heard her 32-year-old husband, who was also her dive buddy, did nothing to help despite holding a dive search and rescue certificate.

Watson said he panicked and surfaced to tell the crew while his wife sank to the ocean floor.

The American voluntarily returned to Queensland last month, indicating he was prepared to face a murder charge.

However, the prosecution accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Defence lawyer Stephen Zillman argued that investigators had all the evidence they needed to charge Watson six years ago when his wife died.

Mr Zillman said since then Watson has endured public accusations of crimes he did not commit.

Justice Peter Lyons said Watson alone was responsible for his wife's death.

He said he failed to make any reasonable attempt to take Ms Watson to the surface.

"It's an embarrassment to, I think, everyone involved," Mr Thomas said.

He says his family will continue to fight for justice

- ABC/AAP

 

[Stan 101]

From what I gathered on ACA, it seems the guy panicked and failed in his duty of care as a "scuba buddy".
If that's the case then 12 months seems reasonable.
Has a motive been established?

It is plausible the man plead guilty to manslaughter after discussions with legal representatives. He was trialled and presumed guilty by the media and public at large very early in the piece. This may not have given him or his legal team much heart in proving innocence.

He may have weighed up the pros and cons of trial and figured the costs of defending himself during a long trial would ruin him financially and decided 1 year of incarceration would mean he can still keep his house, car whatever. 1 year and he could start to rebuild his life.

Now, people make poor judgement calls all the time; often in extreme situations. Nobody knows how they will react in scenarios. You can plan for it. A vast majority of motorcyclists wound not be dead if they had control of their reactions to an unexpected scenario. Many of them have had specific training.

To claim a PADI rescue course is the only prerequisite to give one sound mind and judgement to rescue those in precarious situations is lunacy. The course is nothing more than the basic level search tactic, bringing up an unconcious diver from no more than 18 metres of water (generally 12 metres) with emphasis on slow ascent to not impose self injury.

The Padi manual also emphasises a panicked diver should be avoided at all costs, to kick them away and not attempt to help them if you can not safely get near the panicked one without endangering yourself.

Now this man had his mask kicked off in the incident. To be a rescue diver you need a minimum 20 dives. Any real training on such a situation doesn't happen until the Dive Master rating and then the task loading in minimal and in a safe controlled envioroment like the deep end of a swimming pool.

Has it ever occured to the media and community at large that this guy simply may have royally screwed up on that dive and as a consequence lost his life partner. Could it be that he is now going to have to play out that dive over and over again for the rest of his life knowing he made a really bad judgement call. Maybe he feels he needs to be found guilty of something to revieve the burden of ultimate loss through poor judgement? Qld police prosecution couldn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt premeditation or there is no way they would have entered negotiations.


This post is no more than just heresay and imagination, like most other reports, but it is certainly plausible. To admit guilt does not nessesarily mean guilty. Judge Judy is wrong!!

Walk a mile in a man's shoes........


cheers,

 

[MrBurns]

It is plausible the man plead guilty to manslaughter after discussions with legal representatives. He was trialled and presumed guilty by the media and public at large very early in the piece. This may not have given him or his legal team much heart in proving innocence.

He may have weighed up the pros and cons of trial and figured the costs of defending himself during a long trial would ruin him financially and decided 1 year of incarceration would mean he can still keep his house, car whatever. 1 year and he could start to rebuild his life.

Now, people make poor judgement calls all the time; often in extreme situations. Nobody knows how they will react in scenarios. You can plan for it. A vast majority of motorcyclists wound not be dead if they had control of their reactions to an unexpected scenario. Many of them have had specific training.

To claim a PADI rescue course is the only prerequisite to give one sound mind and judgement to rescue those in precarious situations is lunacy. The course is nothing more than the basic level search tactic, bringing up an unconcious diver from less than 18 metres of water (generally 12 metres) with emphasis on slow ascent to not impose self injury.

The Padi manual also emphasises a panicked diver should be avoided at all costs, to kick them away and not attempt to help them if you can not safely get near the panicked one without endangering yourself.

Now this man had his mask kicked off in the incident. To be a rescue diver you need a minimum 20 dives. Any real training on such a situation doesn't happen until the Dive Master rating and then the task loading in minimal and in a safe controlled envioroment like the deep end of a swimming pool.

Has it ever occured to the media and community at large that this guy simply may have royally screwed up on that dive and as a consequence lost his life partner. Could it be that he is now going to have to play out that dive over and over again for the rest of his life knowing he made a really bad judgement call. Maybe he feels he needs to be found guilty of something to revieve the burden of ultimate loss through poor judgement? Qld police prosecution couldn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt premeditation or there is no way they would have entered negotiations.


This post is no more than just heresay and imagination, like most other reports, but it is certainly plausible. To admit guilt does not nessesarily mean guilty. Judge Judy is wrong!!

Walk a mile in a man's shoes........


cheers,

He must have screwed up big time to be charged with anything, if it was plainly an accident it would have been obvious I imagine, there must have been a lot to go on to charge him in the first place.

 

[Stan 101]

He must have screwed up big time to be charged with anything,

He was found guity of being derelict in his duty as a dive buddy. His apparent crime was to do the wrong thing by heading to the surface for help.

if it was plainly an accident it would have been obvious I imagine,

Who says there was an accident? If there was one, why and how would it be obvious? There was certainly an incident or a turn of events that led to a woman's death underwater. The events aren't clear and probably will never be known.

there must have been a lot to go on to charge him in the first place.

Clearly there wasn't or there would not been a plea bargin. No conclusive evidence was found. One could argue he was not derelict in his duty and simply followed the Padi handbook and sought immediate help from the closest dive co ordinator who just happened to be on the surface.

He claimed his mask had been dislodged and therefore was effectively blind. Add that to the already heavy burden of having a destressed buddy and the task loading climbs dramatically. The surface may have been his best option under the conditions.
People react strangely underwater, that's why there are so many fatalities inside shipwrecks and caves. Panic sets in and normally rational people lose it at the slightest hurdle.





This whole thing is quite a mystery the more one thinks about it.


The facts:
Woman found dead face down on the ocean floor. There is photo evidence of this. Weight belt and BCD still on.
Air in the tank at a standard mix, gauges were working as was the regulator stages.
New divers generally head to the surface when panic sets in. They are also generally underweighted therefore the tendancy is to float as the tank empties during the dive.
Photo evidence also shows visability to be quite good on the dive. That sandy bottom is in thirty metres of water.

Assumptions:

Mike Ball, the dive operator's ships are large and one would assume plenty of divers in the drink at the time of the incident.
Visability was good.
The dive site is just the wreck on a sandy featureless bottom. People dive around the wreck only. Generally in big groups some go clockwise and others go anticlockwise from the stern.
Experienced divers will start deep and then spiral up to the top of the wreck in about 15 metres of water. The top of the wreck is the port side as she is sitting on her starboard side.
Inexperienced divers go along the top of the wreck (port side) so they are hanging out in 15 metres.
2 minutes as a general rule, is the time we can survive without air. without air.

Questions:

For this man to have committed murder, he needed to do a few things.
1. He needed to deny the girl air for a set period of time. 2. He needed to restrain her whilst she drowned without causing bruising and without both he and she floating to the surface (a common scenario) or sinking to the bottom, and do this without anyone noticing. How did he acheive this?
To accomplish good bouyancy whist restraining an unwilling diver is no mean feat and would need an experienced diver with really good bouyancy IMO. If she wasn't being restrained whilst being murdered, one would suggest she would bolt to the surface.

Did she over breath the regulator? There are a lot of thermoclines (layers of differing water temperature) around the Yongala and some are cold enough to bring on migraines during a dive for some. Much like the pain one feels sometimes eating really cold ice cream. Overbreathing the reg happens when a panicked diver trys to suck too much air too quickly than the regulator was designed to offer. Cheap rental gear is often the worst. You need to try hard to overbreath even basic regs these days, but it can be done.


There are a lot more points that need to be thought through on this.


Is he guilty?

 

[MrBurns]

I dont think you can charge someone for not being a "good dive buddy" BUT if she got into trouble and he deliberately didnt help her when he could have thats different and could be seen as murder by inaction, and did he assist in her getting into trouble ?, if you're a diver you'd know how very easily you could drown a novice by panicking them.

 

[Stan 101]

if you're a diver you'd know how very easily you could drown a novice by panicking them.

Yes I am and no I don't understand how a novice diver could be easily drowned by panicking them. I have no such idea or even an inkling of how that could happen.
To do that the regulator must fall out or the mouth and can not be regathered, the occy or backup reg must not be in position, the diver must be grossly overweighted to not float (generally speaking).

Panicked divers shoot to the surface as part of the four F responses (fight, fright, flight and making love).

A CESA from 15 metres for a panicked diver is a doddle and a natural response. 30 metres in a panicked situation is very simple.

 

[MrBurns]

A CESA from 15 metres for a panicked diver is a doddle and a natural response. 30 metres in a panicked situation is very simple.

Not if they get a lung full of water surely.