Politics Aussie Fascists, (neo)Nazis and Leg Spinners

[Malifice]

Apologies, that wasnt intended to come across as aggressively as it likely did.

In my experience trying to discuss potential shortcomings of the legal system and its pillars tends to get lawyers pretty up in arms, im very happy to admit im not an expert and im sure there are reasons behind sentencing and verdicts that escape my simpleton understanding but thats sort of the issue.

Judges (when sentencing) apply the Sentencing Act, which is an Act of Parliament that tells them how to calculate the sentence.

If you want to blame anyone for sentencing, blame Parliament.

If it was up to me, Murder would start at a whole of life sentence, and be able to reduce no lower than 20 years by reason of mitigation and so forth. In exceptional circumstances, maybe lower.

 

[phantom13]

Judges (when sentencing) apply the Sentencing Act, which is an Act of Parliament that tells them how to calculate the sentence.

If you want to blame anyone for sentencing, blame Parliament.

If it was up to me, Murder would start at a whole of life sentence, and be able to reduce no lower than 20 years by reason of mitigation and so forth. In exceptional circumstances, maybe lower.

Except that they often don’t consider the longest sentence, take into account ridiculous stuff (oh they show remorse do they?) etc etc.
again, I’m not trying to have an argument about the law aspects, I appreciate I’m not educated on that.

 

[the_interloper]

Except that they often don’t consider the longest sentence, take into account ridiculous stuff (oh they show remorse do they?) etc etc.
again, I’m not trying to have an argument about the law aspects, I appreciate I’m not educated on that.

Would be interesting to see stats of the average sentence versus the maximum sentence as a percentage, feels like the majority of sentences are not close to the maximum.

 

[phantom13]

Would be interesting to see stats of the average sentence versus the maximum sentence as a percentage, feels like the majority of sentences are not close to the maximum.

Im not too fussed on the sentencing for low level shit. Current repeat underage offenders too TBH (rehab and diversionary programs are still better than long custodial sentences IMO although id say most would disagree with me on that).

Im talking violent crimes, sex crimes, hate crimes, DV, adult repeat offenders etc etc.

 

[the_interloper]

Im not too fussed on the sentencing for low level s**t. Current repeat underage offenders too TBH (rehab and diversionary programs are still better than long custodial sentences IMO although id say most would disagree with me on that).

Im talking violent crimes, sex crimes, hate crimes, DV, adult repeat offenders etc etc.

My gym does a program with Odyssey House where convicts can go and do rehab and part of it is boxing training. I totally support this and try to make them feel welcome, they're in a tough spot and the reality is most of them will go back.

Don't quite know how it works but basically they're the ones with a chance to turn things around, I think this is up to the judge.

 

[Malifice]

Except that they often don’t consider the longest sentence, take into account ridiculous stuff (oh they show remorse do they?) etc etc.

Both are things the Sentencing Act literally and expressly order them to do, and to take into account.

 

[Gough]

I wonder if people underestimate the trauma of imprisonment when looking at sentencing. I know it's meant to be punitive but I couldn't imagine a single thing worse than having my liberties removed for any length of time.

 

[phantom13]

Both are things the Sentencing Act literally and expressly order them to do, and to take into account.

… yeh, I think I made that point (and how much they reduce the sentence is their discretion is it not). Would you feel better if I said Judges and the act are out of step with puboic expectation?

Like, I made the point lawyers get uppity about this and here we are.

 

[phantom13]

I wonder if people underestimate the trauma of imprisonment when looking at sentencing. I know it's meant to be punitive but I couldn't imagine a single thing worse than having my liberties removed for any length of time.

Murder, rape, violent attack.

All worse imo.

 

[Malifice]

… yeh, I think I made that point (and how much they reduce the sentence is their discretion is it not). Would you feel better if I said Judges and the act are out of step with puboic expectation?

Like, I made the point lawyers get uppity about this and here we are.

Judges are required to follow the law. The law in this case is the Sentencing Act, which directs Judges to offer sentencing discounts for things like early pleas of 'Guilty', co-operation with the Police, genuine remorse and contrition (and probabilities of rehabilitation), severity of the crime (in context with other crimes of a similar nature), aggravating factors and more.

Here is the Act for WA:

SENTENCING ACT 1995

Dont blame the Judges for following the law. If that Act instead directed Judges to apply 10-year minimums or whatever, then that's what Judges would do.

 

[phantom13]

Judges are required to follow the law. The law in this case is the Sentencing Act, which directs Judges to offer sentencing discounts for things like early pleas of 'Guilty', co-operation with the Police, genuine remorse and contrition (and probabilities of rehabilitation), severity of the crime (in context with other crimes of a similar nature), aggravating factors and more.

Here is the Act for WA:

SENTENCING ACT 1995

Dont blame the Judges for following the law. If that Act instead directed Judges to apply 10-year minimums or whatever, then that's what Judges would do.

So there is absolutely no discretion in it is there?

 

[Malifice]

So there is absolutely no discretion in it is there?

It's not a precise science, but the Act is pretty clear (and there are reams of prior cases to uses as measuring sticks, plus there are appeals if the Judge goes give something too harsh or too lenient).

Judges can't just be tossing out maximum sentences will nilly.

Here is a recent case (a total tragedy) in which 4 people were killed, where a Judge goes through the process (and explains in detail) sentencing (in this case in NSW) and how it comes together in imposing a 12-year sentence (7-year non-parole) for killing 4 people:

R v Edwards - NSW Caselaw

 

[phantom13]

It's not a precise science, but the Act is pretty clear (and there are reams of prior cases to uses as measuring sticks, plus there are appeals if the Judge goes give something too harsh or too lenient).

Judges can't just be tossing out maximum sentences will nilly.

Here is a recent case (a total tragedy) in which 4 people were killed, where a Judge goes through the process (and explains in detail) sentencing (in this case in NSW) and how it comes together in imposing a 12-year sentence (7-year non-parole) for killing 4 people:

R v Edwards - NSW Caselaw

So there is discretion? It’s a pretty simple question.

 

[Malifice]

So there is discretion? It’s a pretty simple question.

Of course there is. It's not a precise science; there are a number of factors that need to be weighed against each other.

Again, I literally posted for you above a detailed sentencing remarks so you can see the system in action and see the many variables that go into sentencing (and much of the case law that guides the judges).

In the attached case, the Judge used prior sentences as a benchmark, reduced the head sentence on account of the perpetrators young age and immaturity, good prior record, genuine remorse, early pleas of guilty (this alone triggered a 25 percent discount), and excellent chances of rehabilitation and low prospects of re-offending.

OTOH he also had to take into account the perpetrator actions on the day, the fact it was on the extreme end of offending, and the deaths of 4 people were the consequence.

If you want 'higher sentences' tell the Politicians to put it in the Sentencing Acts. A judge can only follow the law, and if the Act says 'send them to jail for longer' the Judges will send them to jail for longer.

If Judges were getting it wrong in sentencing, you'd see a lot more sentences getting reduced or increased on appeal. You hardly see any getting reduced or increased, or indeed even appealed.

You're directing your anger at the wrong cohort. It's the Sentencing Acts that need sentences increased (presuming you want tougher sentences), not the Judges applying them getting it wrong.

 

[evolved2]

... which is frequently why lawyers don't like lawyers sitting on juries.

I'm not a lawyer, and I agree with Malifice.

 

[phantom13]

I’m not angry, I simply pointed out that I believe judges are out of touch with societal expectations around sentencing and that this would be a pointless and needlessly defensive conversation to have with a lawyer, again.

Proven right on both counts.

I’m aware that they have guidelines and precedent, I’m also aware that societal expectation is only one of the pillars of sentencing but they have discretionary powers both about how much they choose to reduce a sentence and ultimately what they take into account (who decides what “genuine” remorse looks like).

Giving a laundry list of reasons doesn’t change that the broader public thinks 14 years for killing 4 people seems a touch under. Act and judge both look pretty cooked to me

 

[evolved2]

I’m not angry, I simply pointed out that I believe judges are out of touch with societal expectations around sentencing and that this would be a pointless and needlessly defensive conversation to have with a lawyer, again.

Proven right on both counts.

I’m aware that they have guidelines and precedent, I’m also aware that societal expectation is only one of the pillars of sentencing but they have discretionary powers both about how much they choose to reduce a sentence and ultimately what they take into account (who decides what “genuine” remorse looks like).

Giving a laundry list of reasons doesn’t change that the broader public thinks 14 years for killing 4 people seems a touch under. Act and judge both look pretty cooked to me

What are societal expectations, and how much are they going to cost to implement?

 

[phantom13]

What are societal expectations, and how much are they going to cost to implement?

Longer sentences for violent crimes and repeat offenders.

I wouldn’t have a clue what it costs, I’m not actually suggesting they should be implemented either, nor am
I suggesting that the sentences handed out are wrong.

Lotta bleeding hearts for judges over a throwaway comment.

 

[Malifice]

I’m not angry, I simply pointed out that I believe judges are out of touch with societal expectations around sentencing and that this would be a pointless and needlessly defensive conversation to have with a lawyer, again.

Proven right on both counts.

Did you even look at the judgement I posted mate?

You're blaming the wrong people. If you want lengthier sentences, put those laws in the Sentencing Acts.

Judges sentence according to the law found in that legislation. It's not their fault that murderers are only getting 10 years (give or take) sentences; that's the fault of the Sentencing guidelines.

FWIW, I agree with you that sentences are too light. I want higher penalties for crimes like murder and so forth put in the actual Sentencing legislation, in addition to multiple victims (or multiple offences) having more of a cumulative effect instead of a concurrent one.

If Judges were getting it wrong in sentencing all the time (as you claim) you would be seeing multiple appeals against those sentences (remember, unlike an overly harsh sentence which has to be appealed by the accused at his own expense or via a grant of legal aid, an overly lenient sentence is be appealed by the DPP, who have effectively unlimited money to do so).

The DPP are not appealing lenient sentences all the time. In fact its extremely rare.

Considering the sheer number of sentences being handed out daily (thousands) making the claim that 'Judges are getting it wrong all the time' simply doesnt stack up.

 

[phantom13]

Did you even look at the judgement I posted mate?

You're blaming the wrong people. If you want lengthier sentences, put those laws in the Sentencing Acts.

Judges sentence according to the law found in that legislation. It's not their fault that murderers are only getting 10 years (give or take) sentences; that's the fault of the Sentencing guidelines.

FWIW, I agree with you that sentences are too light. I want higher penalties for crimes like murder and so forth put in the actual Sentencing legislation, in addition to multiple victims (or multiple offences) having more of a cumulative effect instead of a concurrent one.

If Judges were getting it wrong in sentencing all the time (as you claim) you would be seeing multiple appeals against those sentences (remember, unlike an overly harsh sentence which has to be appealed by the accused at his own expense or via a grant of legal aid, an overly lenient sentence is be appealed by the DPP, who have unlimited money to do so).

The DPP are not appealing lenient sentences all the time. In fact its extremely rare.

Considering the sheer number of sentences being handed out daily (thousands) making the claim that 'Judges are getting it wrong all the time' simply doesnt stack up.

I never made the claim they’re getting it wrong. Are you actually reading my posts?

Like you ignored a direct question, twice, then jumped all over a comment not directed at you and now are assigning all sorts or other shit to my comment.

My comment was this

Id argue most seem to be woefully out of touch with societal expectation.

Now I’ve noted that societal expectation is absolutely not the only factor judges should consider, I’ve also noted that it’s not entirely their discretion what the sentence is, they are constrained by the sentencing act and precedent but they do have discretion, they do make completely subjective calls about sentencing within those parameters.

I’ve never said they’re wrong, I haven’t even really criticized them so maybe chill out.

 

[rank and file]

As long as you take into account most judges are Freemasons,sames as high level police.
It all adds up.
More clout than politician puppets.
Pay the way and you don't go to jail.

Aussie fascists and nazis are protected species
in this climate.

 

[Malifice]

Now I’ve noted that societal expectation is absolutely not the only factor judges should consider, I’ve also noted that it’s not entirely their discretion what the sentence is, they are constrained by the sentencing act and precedent but they do have discretion, they do make completely subjective calls about sentencing within those parameters.

I get what you're saying, but you're saying judges are out of touch with society.

That's not something I agree with, and I know judges.

 

[rank and file]

I get what you're saying, but you're saying judges are out of touch with society.

That's not something I agree with, and I know judges.

Probably shook Len Roberts-Smith hand and bowed

 

[Malifice]

Probably shook Len Roberts-Smith hand and bowed

Magistrates courts are were most of the grunt work and sentencing is done. If you think Magistrates are out of touch with 'the common man' then you dont know any Magistrates.

The shit they deal with on a daily basis more than justifies their salary. Cookers and neighborhood disputes and dividing fences and VRO's and all sorts of shit.

You actually lose faith in humanity. Only the Family Court is worse.

 

[phantom13]

I get what you're saying, but you're saying judges are out of touch with society.

That's not something I agree with, and I know judges.

Well you either misrepresented or misunderstood what I was saying for some time but given the passionate defence and the fact you “know judges” I suspect you might be a touch biased regarding the whole thing.

Again, it’s not a criticism, simply an observation.

In any even neither of us can prove our point, it’s an opinion and disagreeing is perfectly acceptable.