Review Cats defeat gallant Pies by 6 points to get into another PF

[Mr Meow]

I dunno, plenty of Tiger fans have suggested Tom Stewart should be jailed for his bump on Prestia.

I interpreted it that Stewart was merely trying to protect Prestia from further hamstring injuries.

 

[TheAthlete]

They are... both have life imprisonment as a maximum penalty.

When you are sententenced for an attempted murder, you are subject to the same maximum penalty as if the offence were completed.

In fact, there's a saying in criminal law - you don't get a discount for missing.

Now what you actually receive is entirely subjective based on you particular offence. So it is entirely plausible to receive a longer non-parole for attempted murder than someone else gets for an actual murder.

That is such a weird answer and perhaps you aren't in the law. Can you see the flaws? You do realise maximum penalties are guidelines. Both actions are never treated the same in reality. Maximum penalties are created to anticipate every eventuality not to be judged as the normal outcome. If you think what someone can potentially be subjected to and what they recieve are the same thing I can't help you.

However, let me make it very simple for you. Just answer this one why are there seperate offences??????? If the outcome doesn't matter and they are the same then why are they seperate offences?

 

[barmy44]

That is such a weird answer and perhaps you aren't in the law. Can you see the flaws? You do realise maximum penalties are guidelines. Both actions are never treated the same in reality. Maximum penalties are created to anticipate every eventuality not to be judged as the normal outcome. If you think what someone can potentially be subjected to and what they recieve are the same thing I can't help you.

However, let me make it very simple for you. Just answer this one why are there seperate offences??????? If the outcome doesn't matter and they are the same then why are they seperate offences?

Man, I covered that in my answer... in fact I even said exactly what you're now saying. Hint: it was when I said "Now what you actually receive is entirely subjective based on your particular offence".

The max is the same, then depends on the subjective features. An attempt to murder is punishable as if the murder was completed. This means there's no distinction broadly drawn in seriousness as to whether you tried to kill someone and succeeded or failed.

Attempts to murder can and do result in more severe punishment than completed murders, in certain instances - depending on the circumstances of the offence and the offender's antecedents.

As for your second question, the easy answer is they are separate offences because they are separate offences - one is making a dead person, the other is trying to make a dead person.

In both cases, the intent was identical - making a dead person.

 

[barmy44]

I dunno, plenty of Tiger fans have suggested Tom Stewart should be jailed for his bump on Prestia.

Indeed! Similar to when Shiel tried to dislocate Cotchin's hip with the back of his head and neck a week out from a GF...

In jest of course, I was actually glad Cotchin got to play in the flag.

 

[Finknottle]

That was a ordinary game tonight. The Dees were woeful and the Lions not much better.

 

[Finknottle]

Dees sholud have played the other Brown. Mitch.

 

[Finknottle]

Petracca looked proppy, still played ok but you could see he lacked power.

 

[cats_09]

Dees sholud have played the other Brown. Mitch.

What's that got to do with us beating Collingwood?

 

[Nickoo]

That was a ordinary game tonight. The Dees were woeful and the Lions not much better.

Didn’t watch it but I’ve received in an inordinate number of texts from people saying both were woeful. Dees ran out of steam. I still worry about the brions as I feel they’d team we struggle against a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Finknottle]

What's that got to do with us beating Collingwood?

Nothing. Just a bit of frivolity.

 

[TheAthlete]

Man, I covered that in my answer... in fact I even said exactly what you're now saying. Hint: it was when I said "Now what you actually receive is entirely subjective based on your particular offence".

The max is the same, then depends on the subjective features. An attempt to murder is punishable as if the murder was completed. This means there's no distinction broadly drawn in seriousness as to whether you tried to kill someone and succeeded or failed.

Attempts to murder can and do result in more severe punishment than completed murders, in certain instances - depending on the circumstances of the offence and the offender's antecedents.

As for your second question, the easy answer is they are separate offences because they are separate offences - one is making a dead person, the other is trying to make a dead person.

In both cases, the intent was identical - making a dead person.

I think I will have to leave it with you to think about. I can't help you. The law (which I am in) clearly and always takes into account the outcome when determining punishment not simply intent. If you don't understand that I just can't help you as it is a very very simple objective fact.

 

[barmy44]

I think I will have to leave it with you to think about. I can't help you. The law (which I am in) clearly and always takes into account the outcome when determining punishment not simply intent. If you don't understand that I just can't help you as it is a very very simple objective fact.

This again? You have completely abandoned your initial statement - this recent post has nothing to do with your initial wrong comparison. Of course outcome is taken into account, but it is not alone determinative of penalty. It is one factor amongst many.

I have said exactly what you said above myself. I said it in my first post, and my subsequent post, and you still don't realise. I'd say if you are in law, you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

Some people have received harsher sentences for attempted murders than actual murders. You initially seemed to think outcome always determines seriousness. That is wrong.

You used some completely erroneous correlation with attempted murder and murder to try prove a point that you could never get more for an attempt than a completed offence:

I will just never understand this sentiment. Perhaps you can answer a question for me. I assume you think murder and attempted murder should be penalised the same?

That is simply a terrible comparison. Attempts to murder can be more serious and result in harsher sentences than murders. It doesn't get any simpler. So right there, your statement was daft.

No two indiviudal crimes are ever "penalised the same", even when they are the identical offence. Precedent will give guidance, but comparative sentences for similar offences are always just that - guidance.

Criminal sentencing is always entirely based on the subjective features of the particular offence before the court.

Two different offences can be treated as equally serious - this is reflected in the maximum penalty. If an attempt was always punished less severely than the completed offence, the maximum penalty for an offence would be less.

A step further, the unsuccessful offence can be punished more seriously than the completed offence. And this does happen.

Parliament views both murder and attempted murder as equally serious, reflected in the identical maximum penalties. And there are murders that are less serious than an attempted murder, and treated as such in the final sentence imposed.

So they are equally serious, but the actual punishment will differ depending on the unique circumstances of each offence. And again, some attempted murderers will be punished more harshly than actual murderers.

In the football context, I'd say if a player swung a Barry Hall punch at someone else and luckily just missed, that is far more serious than a Hawkins "jumper punch" in a scuffle. One of them could kill someone.

Yet Hawkins will get a week, and the person lucky enough not to have connected will get nothing except a comment from BT that "he would have been in real trouble had he connected there!".

This is completely irrelevant to the thread and probably boring for those not involved, so I'm leaving it here.

If you are going to reply, at least address the points I'm making and don't just resort to petty goading about who does and does not work in the law and recycling my own points back to me.

 

[TheAthlete]

This again? You have completely abandoned your initial statement - this recent post has nothing to do with your initial wrong comparison. Of course outcome is taken into account, but it is not alone determinative of penalty. It is one factor amongst many.

I have said exactly what you said above myself. I said it in my first post, and my subsequent post, and you still don't realise. I'd say if you are in law, you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

Some people have received harsher sentences for attempted murders than actual murders. You initially seemed to think outcome always determines seriousness. That is wrong.

You used some completely erroneous correlation with attempted murder and murder to try prove a point that you could never get more for an attempt than a completed offence:



That is simply a terrible comparison. Attempts to murder can be more serious and result in harsher sentences than murders. It doesn't get any simpler. So right there, your statement was daft.

No two indiviudal crimes are ever "penalised the same", even when they are the identical offence. Precedent will give guidance, but comparative sentences for similar offences are always just that - guidance.

Criminal sentencing is always entirely based on the subjective features of the particular offence before the court.

Two different offences can be treated as equally serious - this is reflected in the maximum penalty. If an attempt was always punished less severely than the completed offence, the maximum penalty for an offence would be less.

A step further, the unsuccessful offence can be punished more seriously than the completed offence. And this does happen.

Parliament views both murder and attempted murder as equally serious, reflected in the identical maximum penalties. And there are murders that are less serious than an attempted murder, and treated as such in the final sentence imposed.

So they are equally serious, but the actual punishment will differ depending on the unique circumstances of each offence. And again, some attempted murderers will be punished more harshly than actual murderers.

In the football context, I'd say if a player swung a Barry Hall punch at someone else and luckily just missed, that is far more serious than a Hawkins "jumper punch" in a scuffle. One of them could kill someone.

Yet Hawkins will get a week, and the person lucky enough not to have connected will get nothing except a comment from BT that "he would have been in real trouble had he connected there!".

This is completely irrelevant to the thread and probably boring for those not involved, so I'm leaving it here.

If you are going to reply, at least address the points I'm making and don't just resort to petty goading about who does and does not work in the law and recycling my own points back to me.

The original discussion was you and others talking about why intent is what matters and not outcome. My point was simply that in the law and football that would be a laughable way to determine penalty. You have posted an entire essay agreeing with me. It was and is never the intent of parliament as you claim here, that the two offences are the same that is simply ridiculous. It is just that at it's most egregious attempted murder can be so bad that it reaches the maximum penalty we have. We don't have the death penalty ( I actually can't believe I am explaining this to you by the way) but a maximum sentence doesn't reflect the intent of parliament as to the seriousness of the crime. That my friend is not the role of parliament. Parliament simply identifies the fact that at it's highest point of criminality attempted murder reaches the top threshold. This is not because parliament views it the same as murder (not their job, probably time to read up on how our tiers of govt work and who does what) but because we have a maximum threshold and taking into account all potential eventualities (another word for this is outcomes) Parliament understands that the court should have the power to sentence accordingly and they can't go any higher. Now let's imagine a time when we did have a higher threshold like the death penalty. NO ONE WAS EVER MURDERED BY THE STATE FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER!!!! It was not allowed as there was a threshold in punishment that society accepted at the time that rose above life imprimsonment.

Now as to you other discussion. I was never and would never say that there aren't eventualities (outcomes) that don't mean that an attempt to do something can't be treated as more dangerous than doing something. There are simply to many outcomes possible to ever make a black and white statement like that.

But perhaps I can make out whole discussion as simple as possible. Do you think outcome as at least as important as intent when it comes to sentencing footballers and criminals? If we can agree on that then we agree regardless of all the semantics around murder attempted murder ect.

 

[barmy44]

The original discussion was you and others talking about why intent is what matters and not outcome. My point was simply that in the law and football that would be a laughable way to determine penalty. You have posted an entire essay agreeing with me. It was and is never the intent of parliament as you claim here, that the two offences are the same that is simply ridiculous. It is just that at it's most egregious attempted murder can be so bad that it reaches the maximum penalty we have. We don't have the death penalty ( I actually can't believe I am explaining this to you by the way) but a maximum sentence doesn't reflect the intent of parliament as to the seriousness of the crime. That my friend is not the role of parliament. Parliament simply identifies the fact that at it's highest point of criminality attempted murder reaches the top threshold. This is not because parliament views it the same as murder (not their job, probably time to read up on how our tiers of govt work and who does what) but because we have a maximum threshold and taking into account all potential eventualities (another word for this is outcomes) Parliament understands that the court should have the power to sentence accordingly and they can't go any higher. Now let's imagine a time when we did have a higher threshold like the death penalty. NO ONE WAS EVER MURDERED BY THE STATE FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER!!!! It was not allowed as there was a threshold in punishment that society accepted at the time that rose above life imprimsonment.

Now as to you other discussion. I was never and would never say that there aren't eventualities (outcomes) that don't mean that an attempt to do something can't be treated as more dangerous than doing something. There are simply to many outcomes possible to ever make a black and white statement like that.

But perhaps I can make out whole discussion as simple as possible. Do you think outcome as at least as important as intent when it comes to sentencing footballers and criminals? If we can agree on that then we agree regardless of all the semantics around murder attempted murder ect.

"(I actually can't believe I'm explaining this to you)" - nice one. It's the little goading asides like that that kind of suggest your are out for reactions.

Parliament legislates maximum penalties. In fact, in criminal sentencing submissions always include some form of statement: "the maximum penalty for this offence is X, and is a yardstick which demonstrates the seriousness with which Parliament views the offence".

Offences and maximum penalties are determined and set by Parliament. Offences arise from legislation, and Parliament are the legislators. That is literally the role of Parliament. Courts then apply that to each individual case to reach the appropriate outcome.

No one ever said only intent matters and not outcome. What people said is that it is ridiculous that on a football field, you can try and do something and not injure someone by dumb luck and be fine. Or you can do something incidental and unluckily injure someone, and be punished. It's a bit odd. It's not the case in criminal law, though. Which is why your initial statement was strange.

It was so broad, a blanket statement about how attempts are never punished the same (or more seriously) which you have completely abandoned and now you are arguing serious nuance.

Now as to you other discussion. I was never and would never say that there aren't eventualities (outcomes) that don't mean that an attempt to do something can't be treated as more dangerous than doing something. There are simply to many outcomes possible to ever make a black and white statement like that.

So why did you start with a black and white statement like that?

"But perhaps I can make out whole discussion as simple as possible. Do you think outcome as at least as important as intent when it comes to sentencing footballers and criminals? If we can agree on that then we agree regardless of all the semantics around murder attempted murder ect."

Huh? Of course outcome is a massive factor. Everything is on its own merits and unique circumstances, though. But see my example about the missed Hall punch and the Hawkins jumper punch.

Both times outcome is the same - absolutely nothing. Intent far worse in the first. And penalty is nothing for the more serious one.

I don't care anymore. You're just arguing for the sake of it and you're off on some tangent, and you rely on condescension far too much. Welcome to the forum, though.

 

[cats_09]

Back on topic - either discuss the QF between Geelong & Collingwood, or we'll lock the thread if things are going off topic and not relevant to that match

 

[dazbroncos]

The original discussion was you and others talking about why intent is what matters and not outcome. My point was simply that in the law and football that would be a laughable way to determine penalty. You have posted an entire essay agreeing with me. It was and is never the intent of parliament as you claim here, that the two offences are the same that is simply ridiculous. It is just that at it's most egregious attempted murder can be so bad that it reaches the maximum penalty we have. We don't have the death penalty ( I actually can't believe I am explaining this to you by the way) but a maximum sentence doesn't reflect the intent of parliament as to the seriousness of the crime. That my friend is not the role of parliament. Parliament simply identifies the fact that at it's highest point of criminality attempted murder reaches the top threshold. This is not because parliament views it the same as murder (not their job, probably time to read up on how our tiers of govt work and who does what) but because we have a maximum threshold and taking into account all potential eventualities (another word for this is outcomes) Parliament understands that the court should have the power to sentence accordingly and they can't go any higher. Now let's imagine a time when we did have a higher threshold like the death penalty. NO ONE WAS EVER MURDERED BY THE STATE FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER!!!! It was not allowed as there was a threshold in punishment that society accepted at the time that rose above life imprimsonment.

Now as to you other discussion. I was never and would never say that there aren't eventualities (outcomes) that don't mean that an attempt to do something can't be treated as more dangerous than doing something. There are simply to many outcomes possible to ever make a black and white statement like that.

But perhaps I can make out whole discussion as simple as possible. Do you think outcome as at least as important as intent when it comes to sentencing footballers and criminals? If we can agree on that then we agree regardless of all the semantics around murder attempted murder ect.

let it go Elsa.

GO Catters

 

[TheAthlete]

let it go Elsa.

GO Catters

Go Catters!

 

[catsfootyfan89]

let it go Elsa.

GO Catters

Attempted moderation there!

Kidding haha. Staying up for the game next week Daz? These 3am games are killing me in Vancouver...

 

[Mr Meow]

Go Catters!

Gooooo Catttttters!!

 

[STPer18]

Scott on 360 admitted he stuffed up his votes post match.

 

[Mr Meow]

Scott on 360 admitted he stuffed up his votes post match.

He forgot Cameron didn't he?

And McRae spite voted him down to 1.

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

Scott on 360 admitted he stuffed up his votes post match.

Interesting McRae said how sore the Collingwood players were after the game and he asked Chris how our players pulled up got nothing.

 

[Cataholic]

Interesting McRae said how sore the Collingwood players were after the game and he asked Chris how our players pulled up got nothing.

He basically parroted Matthew's 'don't care' philosophy.

Said something without saying anything at all.

 

[YOTC]

Interesting McRae said how sore the Collingwood players were after the game and he asked Chris how our players pulled up got nothing.

Was a very weird "oh we're mates from a long time" forced vibe. Because Chris Scott basically said modern players are so much better than his generation and got a similar "mmm" from McRae.

I found it very odd how he said he coached the SCG badly and didn't take account the ground dimensions..... It's a bang average ground size in length and width and it's been around forever (although used to be shorter it just proves that you should still be ready to play anywhere anytime). Such a piss poor excuse.

Not like they flew to New Zealand and played in the smallest ground in heavy wind.

 

[00VicWard001]

Interesting McRae said how sore the Collingwood players were after the game and he asked Chris how our players pulled up got nothing.

It was overall a really good episode. Both friendly and respectful and I can’t help but liking both coaches.

I think Fly, with Bolton and Leppitsch has created one of the most energetic and enthusiastic coaching groups I’ve ever seen. I think it will be infectious and I can see why his players seem to have grown an extra leg this year.

With Scott, he’s just calm and balanced and very chill. He’s very smart and very knowledgeable and you can see why his players trust him implicitly.