The numpty questions thread

Remove this Banner Ad

The problem is the awkwardness when some of them are later found out to be innocent...


Well yeah, there is that element of course, but that usually only happens in America...seemingly on a regular basis.

..can't recall too many innocent people incarcerated here..I believe we are a tad more thorough in our policing and justice systems in Aus.

..bit too quick, gung ho and colour blind in the good old US of A.

..nah, I'm happy to leave em hanging in the elements and at the mercy of the crows;)....thats all they deserve.
 
Just catching up with the rest of the news, I'm glad at least it sounds like previous behaviour is taken into account for sentencing, although I have never been a fan of or understood 'concurrent sentencing' each crime/sentence should be served separately.


Also for the lawyers, was there a change some years ago regarding prior behaviour/records? I used to read a lot of Australian true crime stories (particularly Andrew Rule & John Sylvester) and recall a story where a de facto stepfather ran scalding hot water on an infant who IIRC died as a result. None of his past was admissible, and as the jury could not believe anyone could act the way he did, he either got off or found guilty of much lesser charges. It was on the back of this that I thought things changed, or perhaps only added fuel to a campaign to do so.
So it is possible that monsters walk free because juries are not allowed all the facts.

It's up to the prosecution to do their job.

The jury is allowed all of the facts relevant to a fact in issue necessary to establish the charge. If we focus on past offences I suspect it would lead to lazy policing and more wrongful convictions.

Using this case, we know that Cowan was about 7 on the suspect list. Jackwat who the defence tried to smokescreen with was higher up. Jackway had a significant previous, had they known they could put that to the jury to bolster their 'blue car' circumstantial case the police might have stopped looking. Got a conviction against Jackway and the morcombes would never have got Daniels remains because the person convicted would have had NFI.

At the end of the day the only technicality that gets people off is that the prosecution failed to provide enough admissible evidence to prove the case.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Are there any radio stations you can tune into in Brisbane to listen to AFL matches (without streaming through the net). So just on a regular radio device.
Nirs play some it's fm station 98.9 I think. Check the afl website for schedule
 
Well yeah, there is that element of course, but that usually only happens in America...seemingly on a regular basis.

..can't recall too many innocent people incarcerated here..I believe we are a tad more thorough in our policing and justice systems in Aus.

..bit too quick, gung ho and colour blind in the good old US of A.

..nah, I'm happy to leave em hanging in the elements and at the mercy of the crows;)....thats all they deserve.
No doubt someone can correct me, but I'm pretty sure the last guy hung in Australia was later found innocent of the crime (but guilty as sin for plenty else).
 
No doubt someone can correct me, but I'm pretty sure the last guy hung in Australia was later found innocent of the crime (but guilty as sin for plenty else).

*Hanged

I don't think his guilt has been disproved, but there was certainly a strong case for his innocence.:thumbsu:

What Skoob said. I had the same memory as you, wbb, but when I refreshed it via Wikipedia he hadn't been proven innocent (such as it could be done), there's just a lot of doubt whether he was was actually guilty. Basically his conviction was based on a combination of circumstantial evidence, conflicting eyewitness reports, an unrecorded and unsigned "confession" and a belief by the jury members that he wouldn't be given the death penalty.
 
It sucks that Cowan was imprisoned in the NT for such a short time. I understand the necessity of a rehabilitary system over a retributive one, but at the moment it feels like we don't have either.
Punishment doesn't work as a deterrent for most kinds of aberrant behaviour, but we have no way of accurately determining whether a criminal is unable to be rehabilitated. So we end up with people getting punished for problems that are really public health and disadvantage situations while the real psychopaths are eventually released back onto the streets.
Now that there are a couple of high profile cases of the system failing strung together I fear for a knee-jerk reaction from law makers pandering to an outraged public by tightening retributive aspects because it's what people want to work rather than what does work in the majority of cases.
Tl;dr Cowan should never see the light of day again as he will likely always be a threat to public safety. Enough with the monsters world!
 
I fear for a knee-jerk reaction from law makers pandering to an outraged public by tightening retributive aspects because it's what people want to work rather than what does work in the majority of cases.

As a resident in a state where the goverment wants me to go to jail for two years if I get convicted for punching a mate while drunk, I don't know what you're worried about! o_O
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

As a resident in a state where the goverment wants me to go to jail for two years if I get convicted for punching a mate while drunk, I don't know what you're worried about! o_O

Serious? Did he file or is it the cops?
 
As a resident in a state where the goverment wants me to go to jail for two years if I get convicted for punching a mate while drunk, I don't know what you're worried about! o_O
In our state, our government wants us to follow three simple rules:

1. Don't be a Bikie
2. If we are a bikie, try to stop being a bikie
3. Try to avoid riding a motorcycle, if possible.

Kneejerks. Kneejerks everywhere!
 
Serious? Did he file or is it the cops?

Haha no, sorry, that's a hypothetical based off NSW's proposed "drunk" laws (which at the moment look to be made more sane by Labor, the Greens and the Shooters in the Upper House).
 
In our state, our government wants us to follow three simple rules:

1. Don't be a Bikie
2. If we are a bikie, try to stop being a bikie
3. Try to avoid riding a motorcycle, if possible.

Kneejerks. Kneejerks everywhere!
Soon to be followed by <insert group government is targeting because the laws are kind of written like that>.

G20 is going to be so much fun.
 
But how does he serve one year for raping a kid. One year FFS. The kid gets a life sentence, a real life sentence, not just for his life but the kick on effect to his family as well.

Something fundamentally flawed in our justice system and I'm not talking about the cops who would be as frustrated as anybody.
 
Haha no, sorry, that's a hypothetical based off NSW's proposed "drunk" laws (which at the moment look to be made more sane by Labor, the Greens and the Shooters in the Upper House).
"hypothetical"
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The numpty questions thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top