"The Law is a Ass - a Idiot"

[McLovin]

However if such an assault causes death the charge should be 2nd degree murder or similar, manslaughter should be reserved for accidental death caused by negligence, ie: lack of concentration while driving.

Second degree murder, in countries that have it, still requires intent to commit either murder or GBH, no different to NSW. Without intent you can never have murder.

 

[MrBurns]

Second degree murder, in countries that have it, still requires intent to commit either murder or GBH, no different to NSW.

intent to commit GBH is there..........we should have a second degree murder charge...

 

[McLovin]

intent to commit GBH is there..........we should have a second degree murder charge...

I'd say it's not, if it was they would have gone for the murder charge.

 

[MrBurns]

I'd say it's not, if it was they would have gone for the murder charge.

Wouldn't you say a king hit is done with the intent to commit GBH ?

I would think that would be fairly easy to prove, especially if the victim is dead.

 

[McLovin]

Wouldn't you say a king hit is done with the intent to commit GBH ?

Not really. Punching someone is no doubt intent to commit assault but not to commit GBH. Intent is harder to prove than recklessness and it's a somewhat gray area between the two that depends on the indivudual circumstances of the case. I highly doubt the DPP took the decision they did lightly.

I would think that would be fairly easy to prove, especially if the victim is dead.

The outcome does not prove intent anymore than killing a pedestrian in the course of driving home drunk proves intent to kill a pedestrian.

 

[MrBurns]

Not really. Punching someone is no doubt intent to commit assault but not to commit GBH. Intent is harder to prove than recklessness and it's a somewhat gray area between the two that depends on the indivudual circumstances of the case. I highly doubt the DPP took the decision they did lightly.

The outcome does not prove intent, anymore than killing a pedestrian in the course of driving home drunk proves intent to kill a pedestrian.

Well I still think a punch of severe intensity, enough to kill someone constitutes intent to commit GBH it is a grey area but when someone dies the perpetrator should not be given the benefit of the doubt, the assault resulted in death.......that should be enough.

 

[McLovin]

Well I still think a punch of severe intensity, enough to kill someone constitutes intent to commit GBH it is a grey area but when someone dies the perpetrator should not be given the benefit of the doubt, the assault resulted in death.......that should be enough.

How do you know he died from the punch and not from hitting the pavement? How do you know that the punch wasn't actually relatively weak it just knocked him off balance and he fell and died as a result of the fall? These are all legitimate questions that the defence would have used to argue against the murder charge. All it takes is reasonable doubt.

Fortunately, we still live in a country that believes someone is given the benefit of the doubt of their innocence.

FWIW, I hope this thug gets locked up for a long time.

 

[MrBurns]

How do you know he died from the punch and not from hitting the pavement? How do you know that the punch wasn't actually relatively weak it just knocked him off balance and he fell and died as a result of the fall? These are all legitimate questions that the defence would have used to argue against the murder charge. All it takes is reasonable doubt.

Fortunately, we still live in a country that believes someone is given the benefit of the doubt of their innocence.

FWIW, I hope this thug gets locked up for a long time.

Yes I understand all that but if there are witnesses they would attest to the situation, if death occurred because of head hitting the ground that makes no difference but if the victim stepped back to dodge the attack and fell, well that's different.

It's hard but they should lay some rules out to make it a bit clearer.

 

[Julia]

So...agree 100% with the sentence...murder should always cop a HEFTY life imprisonment. But I can't feel that just because this girl was 'somewhat' famous (was she really even?) then the guilty party got a fair whack with the book.

Our murder cases with 2 apparent 'commoners' get probably 20 years with parole after 15...with their crimes being no less heinous. What a slight on the system I say.

Thank you for raising this, JTLP. I've been thinking the same. Not to at all take away from the grief and anger of Jill Meahger's husband and family whose distress I can't begin to imagine, I do feel for all of his previous victims (and for that matter other victims of violent crime) who have received not a fraction of the sympathy and attention given to Jill Meahger.

I gather from a brief comment on 7.30 this evening that his previous victims worked in the sex industry.
Even Jill's husband, amongst his anger, was able to reflect on the apparent reality that murder of these previous victims didn't rate such a severe sentence or as much attention.

Do we really have to accept that because one person was middle class and employed in a 'respectable' job, their violent demise counts for more than those who perhaps never had the capacity to work in less salubrious occupations?

If we apply that standard and ignore the element of intent and instead apply something along the lines of "has the possibility however remote of causing death", it follows that punching someone should result in a charge of attempted murder (how many State of Origin players would be facing a judge tomorrow morning?). As should pushing someone over, tripping someone....the list goes on and on.

Not really. Punching someone is no doubt intent to commit assault but not to commit GBH. Intent is harder to prove than recklessness and it's a somewhat gray area between the two that depends on the indivudual circumstances of the case. I highly doubt the DPP took the decision they did lightly.




The outcome does not prove intent anymore than killing a pedestrian in the course of driving home drunk proves intent to kill a pedestrian.

 

[MrBurns]

I'm of the opinion of people go round punching others they should go inside until we can be assured they wont do it again...............once again it's hard.

 

[boofhead]

Yes I understand all that but if there are witnesses they would attest to the situation, if death occurred because of head hitting the ground that makes no difference but if the victim stepped back to dodge the attack and fell, well that's different.

Witnesses can be less reliable than you appear to realise. Catalyst and other shows have recreated situations to provide examples based on studies recently done. People forget things, don't notice details and more importantly people have false memories. During situations of surprise, chaos or shock the memory becomes less able than normal.

The more laws are modified - the more the laws become either widesweeping covering things they shouldn't or develop a lot more corner cases or contradictions.

Trial by media is powerful (as seen in the above posts) and can backfire. A Tasmanian maybe a decade ago was convicted of rape or sexual assault on an elderly woman. He maintained he was innocent throughout. He was convicted. He started to serve time. Later his conviction was overturned as someone else was eventually convicted of the crime. He was named upon conviction. His personal business was killed - it is hard to operate a single person business when it is a labour based business from prison. After release he found it difficult to get any employment. He still caries the burden.

Care also needs to be taken to not harden criminals that have served time. That is when released they are more disatisfied with society they're more likely to break laws.

 

[JTLP]

Thank you for raising this, JTLP. I've been thinking the same. Not to at all take away from the grief and anger of Jill Meahger's husband and family whose distress I can't begin to imagine, I do feel for all of his previous victims (and for that matter other victims of violent crime) who have received not a fraction of the sympathy and attention given to Jill Meahger.

I gather from a brief comment on 7.30 this evening that his previous victims worked in the sex industry.
Even Jill's husband, amongst his anger, was able to reflect on the apparent reality that murder of these previous victims didn't rate such a severe sentence or as much attention.

Do we really have to accept that because one person was middle class and employed in a 'respectable' job, their violent demise counts for more than those who perhaps never had the capacity to work in less salubrious occupations?

Well that is interesting that he raised that point. It's unfortunately not going to bring back any loved ones; but it should be a message to bench that society isn't really happy with this mediocre sentences.

I think the thing that the public will struggle to understand (myself included) is when the words 'chances of rehabilitation' are thrown around. Victims of crimes don't really get rehabilitate do they? They live in fear/anxiety/anger or worse death; yet the people committing these crimes have an apparent chance at living a life of normality again? Not saying we can have people locked up in jail forever but there really is some strange blurred lines.

 

[Tink]

Great posts Mr Burns and McLovin.
I hope the laws do get changed and strengthened.

Fists and a punch ARE weapons

A statement needs to be made.

 

[Calliope]

Will the Victorian Parole Board accept responsibility for Jill Meagher's death by releasing a dangerous serial rapist on parole.?? Tom Meagher has been asking why for some time, without any answers.

 

[Tink]

Agree Calliope, they have questions to answer.
Bayley is already trying to appeal his sentence, back on the front page.

Yet prior to his sentencing, he said, he should never have been released, the parole board was wrong, and that he wanted the death penalty, now he wants to lessen the sentence on legalities.

Toms wife is dead and can no longer speak, yet these people continuously cause grief to the victims families.

 

[johenmo]

Re: "The Law is a Ass - an Idiot"

Test case on whether Aboriginality can be used as a defence
6 AUG 2013, 5:50 PM - SOURCE: BROOKE BONEY, NITV NEWS

This could create an interesting precedent. If upheld, can the experiences of refugees from troubled/war-torn areas be used as a defence? And extending it further, why not be able to use what is customary in someone's original country as a defence e.g. treatment of women or children? I can see the rights of victims being eroded.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1797053/Test-case-on-whether-Aboriginality-can-be-used-as

 

[Tink]

Yes, Johenmo, this is concerning and makes me question where we are heading, when victims arent being heard anymore.
We seem to be going down more and more of this slippery slope.
With freedom comes responsibility but I can see thats not the case the more that we are pandering to all these different issues.

Parole is another issue where people are only doing half to a third of their sentence.

 

[MrBurns]

Baby killer wins compensation over vegetable diet

A Queensland prisoner who killed and dismembered his own baby daughter has won a $3000 compensation payout because he was forced to eat vegetables in jail.

Raymond Akhtar Ali, 60, was fed a vegetarian diet in Maryborough Correctional Centre for four months in late 2008 and early 2009.

His religious beliefs required he eat specially-prepared halal meat, which must be blessed, slaughtered, cooked and stored according to strict rules.

Ali was incorrectly told that halal food was not available, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard.

The Tribunal ordered the Queensland State Government to pay the $3000 compensation into a victim trust fund, the Courier-Mail reports.

Ali can access the money after he leaves jail if there are no claims from victims and he does not owe any fines.

He can apply for parole from August next year.

Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie described Ali as a "monster" and said he is seeking advice to appeal the decision.

Ali was sentenced to life in prison after he bashed and dismembered his newborn daughter before burying her body at his home in Logan City in 1998

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national...-killer-wins-compensation-over-vegetable-diet

 

[Tink]

Damning Government report slams Adult Parole Board for releasing serious offenders far too easily

THE PREMIER Denis Napthine has vowed parole laws will be changed to enshrine "community safety" as the Adult Parole Board's priority as a damning report reveals the file on Jill Meagher's killer did not have a full rundown of his criminal history.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...s-far-too-easily/story-fni0fee2-1226700180903

Like all these government things, it makes you wonder. Unbelievable, signing him out without even seeing him (Bailey).

 

[Boggo]

How is this for lunacy, this happened in Adelaide a few days ago.

A mate of mine who is a gyprock installer was working with others on building site when a group of kids on mini bikes ride up the street, then turn around and ride back, this time with handfulls of gravel that they throw at the builders vehicles as they ride past.
A carpenter happens to be having his lunch in his ute when his vehicle gets hit too so he drops his lunch and takes off after these kids.

They come to a roundabout and one of them hits the kerb and both the rider and the passenger go flying across the road. The others escape but the chippy keeps these two there until police etc arrive.

The outcome is that the parents are now suing the chippy for injuries caused to their precious little offspring even though they are under age, were not licenced and were riding unregistered bikes on a public road without helmets and they hit the kerb in an attempt to escape.

All the people who witnessed it are now being called to give evidence on behalf of the chippy.

I reckon they should sue the parents for stupidity.