The Law The Many Problems With Our Legal System
- Thread starter Rod Stroker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
read post 200
For starters, viewing something as farcical is not 'bitching', it's an observation.
As post 200 has explained, sometimes too lenient, sometimes sentences that are not appropriate.
And yeah I'm not buying your rigid view 'if guilty convicted, if not then not, no ifs buts or maybes' you're not gonna convince Jan and Joe public that the law, judicial system, sentencing act, whatever term you wanna use get's it right all the time.
Sometimes people get wrongly convicted, sometimes not convicted when they should be, and sometimes the sentence is inappropriate.
And having the option to or not to swear on the bible, doesn't change the fact that a legal team can use it as in a 'god made me do it case' < which is inconsistent.
And no, I'm not gonna go searching the internet for cases.
I know you have a lawyer background and that's why you're defending the whatever you wanna call it so hard.
I guess we can agree to disagree then.
- Moderator
- #205
Has nothing to do with the judiciary, and everything to do with the Sentencing Acts (i.e. the Parliament).
If the Sentencing Acts provided for (say) a 20 year mandatory minimum for Murder, you get a 20 year mandatory minimum for murder.
Yeah, because no system is perfect.
Name a single legal system other than ours, that's better and you would prefer.
I'll wait.
The thread title really says it all.
So there seems to be a 'vibe' that deterrent and consequence is waning and crime victims seem not to be a priority of care.
Anyone on here could pull links to dispute that, none the less, you won't convince Jan and Joe public.
I get the arguments that 'hard on crime' doesn't work, it's backwards, I agree, and I can see the possibilities of progress in rehabilitation.
Somehow it's skewed, most will argue that prevention is better than cure, in reality it's not really a debate. Prevention is better than cure.
I hypothesize that our all too free wheeling liberalism is in part the cause, the ideology that criminals have rights, and deterrent and consequence, seems almost non existent for criminals.
Society now, where parents seem to feel they're not allowed to discipline their children, it's not ok to smack your kid on the bum if they do something wrong so they don't do it again.
The same 'free to do whatever you want' attitude that allows pos to procreate more pos.
Whichever way you wanna boil it down and dissect it, there's no easy answer and we're in part experiencing the consequences of an unmitigated liberal society.
In saying that, I'm a liberal democrat, and believe in the freedom of the individual, but personally I feel we've gone too far away from social elements and need more balance.
All this adds up to the thread title, it's not some conspiracy and the solutions debate, is just that, all noise and no action, and the viscous cycle continues.
So there seems to be a 'vibe' that deterrent and consequence is waning and crime victims seem not to be a priority of care.
Anyone on here could pull links to dispute that, none the less, you won't convince Jan and Joe public.
I get the arguments that 'hard on crime' doesn't work, it's backwards, I agree, and I can see the possibilities of progress in rehabilitation.
Somehow it's skewed, most will argue that prevention is better than cure, in reality it's not really a debate. Prevention is better than cure.
I hypothesize that our all too free wheeling liberalism is in part the cause, the ideology that criminals have rights, and deterrent and consequence, seems almost non existent for criminals.
Society now, where parents seem to feel they're not allowed to discipline their children, it's not ok to smack your kid on the bum if they do something wrong so they don't do it again.
The same 'free to do whatever you want' attitude that allows pos to procreate more pos.
Whichever way you wanna boil it down and dissect it, there's no easy answer and we're in part experiencing the consequences of an unmitigated liberal society.
In saying that, I'm a liberal democrat, and believe in the freedom of the individual, but personally I feel we've gone too far away from social elements and need more balance.
All this adds up to the thread title, it's not some conspiracy and the solutions debate, is just that, all noise and no action, and the viscous cycle continues.
Semantics, whoever.
The parliament, the judicial system, fact remains the legal system has many problems and it could be a lot better.
I never said or alluded I'm after perfection.
The fact remains we have mind boggling sentences, just like the op, and this is what is pissing people off. It 'feels' like the victim is not being shown duty of care and the criminal is being let off lightly.
Could our system be a lot better? Absolutely, what as a society should we put in place to improve it? I don't know, I'm just Joe public that sees we're not doing enough and that's why the legal system is so sh**.
Is our legal system better than others? Probably, but that's not the point is it, again the crime in the op is an example of why Jan and Joe public have their back up about our legal system.
Maybe read post 206 and what may be in part the cause of the sh*t show that we have, opinion? Yes, is it fair speculation? Yes, I think you'd find many that agree with it.
Gough
Moderator
- Sep 29, 2006
- 72,983
- 135,619
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Moderator
- #208
We're seeing one of the biggest problems with the legal system being played out in real time right now with Bruce Lehrmann and that's the level of access to it. Thanks to whoever has been bankrolling him he's been able to engineer a completely different sort of legal experience than someone facing similar charges represented by a legal aid lawyer.
- Moderator
- #209
Our legal and political system is literally the best in not only the world at present, but also in all of recorded human history.
If you disagree, name a single legal and political system that you think does (or did) it better.
A bloke with schizophrenia got 5 years in prison (3 and a half years non parole) for brutally attacking a grandmother, with her most serious injury being a broken pelvis from falling (or being pushed) on the ground, along with a fractured wrist.
What about that sentence is 'mind boggling' to you?
Do you think a schizophrenic person violently (and seriously) assaulting someone leading to a broken pelvis etc deserves more (or less) than 5 years in prison?
I guess you didn't read my reply post, I've never alluded that it is not the 'best' (read least worst)
Did you read post 206?
Ok, a schizophrenic has likely caused these horrific injuries to an elderly person, possibly because of schizophrenia.
That shouldn't equate to a light sentence, coz schizophrenia. Ok 3.5 years, how would you feel if you that elderly person? Or is that irrelevant coz 'we have the best legal system in the world'?
Whichever way you boil it down and dissect it, an elderly person has been beaten up through no fault of their own and probably zero or little recompense, and the perpetrator has a light sentence.
But hey we have the 'best legal system in the world', in my book doesn't say much for our 'best' legal system.
Again, agree to disagree.
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 33,932
- 32,986
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #211
Don't forget political pressure on the judiciary to keep as many out of jail as possible, because the Government doesnt want to have to find more money to build more prisons
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 33,932
- 32,986
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #212
For a myriad of reasons, technicalities letting off scumbags when guilt is clear, swearing on the bible in cases where prosecution and / or defence uses 'belief in god' as an argument against - yet you can swear on the bible.
This isnt the issue with the court IMO, Judges and Justices are umpires of the legal system. Their role is to ensure that all parties present their evidence and cases in accordance with the rules of the law. Often mistakes are made, evidence is questionable or a process has not been followed. The judges & justices then have to determine whether or not evidence, either verbal/documented/video or otherwise meets the requirements in the Evidence Act (Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) for example).
Then in sentencing their hands are tied to the confines of the Sentencing Act for the relevant crime charged. They cant direct the DPP to change their case, change evidence, or otherwise. This is where people power comes into play, public pressure on the inadequacy of the sentencing needs to be changed under a parliamentary review process, as it's legislation and not common law.
Pressure the local state MPs to force the issue through Parliament
Which can have life changing impact
Well they should be shouldn't they.
And it's still a massive problem.
- Moderator
- #214
You keep saying that, but its not.
Last FY there were 533,971 criminal matters finalized in our Criminal justice system.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release
While the system is run by humans, and humans can (and do) make mistakes (which is why we have an appeal system in place), I dare say the overwhelming majority of those criminal matters were handled well.
Of course, every now and then you get an offender that seems to have gotten off lightly, and it makes front page news.
It's invariably reported in a misleading way (such as in the OP, where the article leads you to believe the sentence was 3 1/2 years when it was a 5 year sentence, with a 3 and a 1/2 year non parole period set) and you usually have to sift through the story to get a glimpse of mitigating factors for the accused (for example, in the OP you had to dig into the article to see that the offender had a long history of schizophrenia and substance abuse, with the latter likely an effort to self medicate the former).
Overwhelmingly our system works.
Don't get me wrong, I do think there is room for improvement. I'd like to see stronger sentencing laws for high end offending (murder and manslaughter mainly) and significant reform of the Prison system.
Tell that to the lady bashed up in the op, or any other victim unjust.
Look I get it, it's not wholly and solely the judicial system or the parliament or the lawmakers or whatever.
I'll ask you again to read post 206, it explains my position pretty well about what I believe the causation is.
And this is not happening, is it the fault of the legal system? Probably not, but lets not pretend 'it's not a problem'
Improvements can and should be made, and they wouldn't be that difficult.
- Moderator
- #217
The - schizophrenic - offender from the OP got 5 years in prison.
To me, that sounds like a just sentence. If anything it was a tad harsh considering his mental health (which he was likely unable to fully rely on as a total defense, because the psychotic break he was experiencing at the time was influenced by drugs as well as his poor mental health).
It's not uncommon for people with poor mental health (schizophrenia etc) to self medicate with recreational drugs (cannabis and meth etc). In fact its extremely common.
Of course that always just makes it worse in the long run.
Mate, Judges have a tough job.
Imagine being a Magistrate and dealing with a never ending stream of petty crims, DUI's, cookers, grifters, DV victims and perpetrators and so forth, and remaining objective and fair.
Just think about that for a second.
You're blaming liberalism for some kind of ineffective justice system.
Firstly, I wholly refute your argument that our justice system is ineffective.
Secondly, I would take the legal system of any liberal democracy over the Kangaroo courts riddled with corruption in Socialist, Fascist, Fundamentalist and every other non liberal or non democracy in the World.
Surely you can see that the (Common law + liberal democracy) legal systems of the USA, UK, NZ, Canada and Australia are in every way far superior to non liberal States legal systems?
Maybe, doesn't help the victim though does it.
The bolded shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Put yourself in the victims shoes.
No, I'm saying it could and should be a lot better, free wheeling liberalism and by extension almost zero accountability and by extension almost zero consequence and by extension almost zero deterrence is a by product of that free wheeling liberalism.
You'll know, I'm a staunch liberal democrat, but it's gone too far, there needs to be balance.
I never suggested that, I suggested that it could be and should be a lot better.
I haven't argued this, I've just argued that our legal system is sh*thouse, if it's the best the world has got, it doesn't change the fact it's still sh*thouse.
Again, I haven't argued this.
- Moderator
- #219
How would you 'help' the victim in this case?
As it stands, she gets $60,000 in compo from the Justice system. What more would you give her, and importantly how on earth would you fund it?
https://www.vic.gov.au/victims-crime-financial-assistance-scheme
Yeah I have, and 5 years is a just sentence for the crime.
What utter nonsense.
Liberalism places an emphasis on individual responsibility, and imposes an actual legal obligation on the State to legislate to protect peoples liberty.
Far from enabling a lack of individual accountability, liberalism ensures it.
It's not shithouse, it's literally among the best in the world, and other than changing a few things here or there, I wouldn't swap it for literally any other legal system.
The fact you cant specify a single thing that needs changing, with evidence to back up your claim is telling.
Prevention is better than the cure
Opinion.
Doesn't seem that way to me, there are examples of repeat offenders, it's fair argument that lack of deterrence / consequence has something to do with that.
Disagree.
Agree.
So coz I'm not an expert, and don't have the answers, I'm just Joe public, I shouldn't be allowed to criticize the legal system.
Ok I'll stop now.
- Moderator
- #221
Our Criminal justice system is not responsible for causing violent crime.
If you want to prevent crime from occurring, you should be looking at the education and welfare systems.
Yes it is.
How many years imprisonment do you think a schizophrenic drug user subject to psychosis should get for a violent assault on a grandmother leading to these kinds of injuries?
No, it's not a fair argument and in fact 'lack of deterrent' is an argument Criminologists have repeatedly proven to be largely irrelevant.
Recidivism is down to a myriad of factors, mainly socio economic ones.
No, I'm saying if you're going to make a claim 'this thing is shit' you need to be prepared to back that claim up with actual empirical evidence (peer reviewed papers, actual data etc).
That's not asking too much is it?
Never stated or alluded it was
Or maybe we should have more social elements in our liberal democracy, you know my view, I think there is lack of accountability, self discipline, consequence, deterrence.
I don't think this is a wildly out of touch position to take, I do think there could be a better balance.
As a liberal yourself how do you view that? I do rate your opinion generally, so I'm genuinely interested on your thoughts on this.
Do you think our liberal democracy is possibly too liberal, and the consequences of that, in part are the crimes we see, like youth home invasions etc.?
If deterrence is not the answer, or at least in part, then I don't know what is, rehabilitation has a part to play but I'd confidently argue that deterrence also has a part to play, and possibly other factors.
The word deterrence wouldn't exist if there was no evidence / claim of it deterring people doing bad things.
Disagree, like you have your opinion, I have mine.
Our legal system, which you claim is the worlds best (and trust me I believe you, because you're a lawyer and have studied this obviously), well that being true, doesn't say much about any legal system anywhere on the planet.
Just coz it's 'least worst than anything else' doesn't make it good, again my opinion. And I'm allowed to have that and express that here and I wouldn't be the only one to hold this view.
So again, agree to disagree.
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 33,932
- 32,986
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #223
A subjective opinion in my view, each has its merits & flaws to which needs to understand the wider implications on society of said legal system. The Australian Judiciary has applied a restorative approach to justice, looking at addressing the cause of crime and getting the perpetrator to understand the impact of their crime.
In comparison the US system is based on punitive justice focuses more on punishing the perpetrator for their crime - an example of this is the 3-strike system in the US. Both systems have consequences, the restorative system relies on the faith that the wrongdoer, outside the normal except of the most serious of crimes, can be rehabilitated. The US punishes the wrongdoer to the maximum, at the cost of any chance of rehabilitation.
The impact of punitive justice in the American system is proportionate to the amount of jails and people in them. 3 criminal charges and you're in jail, a burden on society funding prisons. The value of restorative justice in the Australian is subjective itself, and not always seen as equitable in it's application.
Similar threads
