Society & Culture Things in life you just don't understand - Part 3

[perthblue]

Remember when mental illness meant mental illness, and not just an umbrella term for being a campaigner?

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

Remember when mental illness meant mental illness, and not just an umbrella term for being a campaigner?

Or a drug ****ed campaigner

 

[Off The Couch]

Sure, but I'm not convinced they did get it wrong. Judges hear a shitload of evidence and have a ton of experience that goes into making their decision, we just get the sensational headline. Without the context, I'm loathe to buy into this 'judges are soft touches' narrative. Also, judges hate mandatory sentencing, and rightfully so, imo. They are blunt instruments designed to appease the baying masses that don't take into account real world situations. In some cases, sending someone to jail when there is scope for rehabilitation ensures they become career criminals and making the situation worse.

It’s irrelevant that judges hate mandatory sentencing - if it’s legislated, they should of been jailed.

 

[Perth gal]

So can you explain why Adrian Bayley was afforded to be released on parole, yet having committed 27 counts of rape or assault previously?

He should never have been allowed back into society to begin with, yet judges never through the book at him hard enough.

I bet Jill Meaghers parents hate the judge that let him out.

 

[phantom13]

Sure, but I'm not convinced they did get it wrong. Judges hear a shitload of evidence and have a ton of experience that goes into making their decision, we just get the sensational headline. Without the context, I'm loathe to buy into this 'judges are soft touches' narrative. Also, judges hate mandatory sentencing, and rightfully so, imo. They are blunt instruments designed to appease the baying masses that don't take into account real world situations. In some cases, sending someone to jail when there is scope for rehabilitation ensures they become career criminals and making the situation worse.

I find it pretty hard to justify someone assaulting a paramedic attending to a patient being shown leniency I also think judges ignoring mandatory sentencing is defeating the purpose of said sentencing (dont like the parameters of the job judge person, quit).

In any event I’m not really arguing the merits of the case or the sentencing, we disagree and that’s fine but any suggestion of judges being beyond reproach cause they usually get it right is ridiculous.

 

[JackOutback]

I find it pretty hard to justify someone assaulting a paramedic attending to a patient being shown leniency I also think judges ignoring mandatory sentencing is defeating the purpose of said sentencing (dont like the parameters of the job judge person, quit).

In any event I’m not really arguing the merits of the case or the sentencing, we disagree and that’s fine but any suggestion of judges being beyond reproach cause they usually get it right is ridiculous.

I don't think judges are beyond reproach, all I said is people are usually potting them without all the facts. I'm sure mistakes have been made and will be made again. But unless you have sat in a courtroom (and I have), it's pretty difficult to understand the full context of any case.

It’s irrelevant that judges hate mandatory sentencing - if it’s legislated, they should of been jailed.

Most politicians know zero tenths of **** all about justice. They are looking for those sweet sweet votes and tough on crime always works, even if it's counter productive. If judges have found a workaround where they think it's advisable, I'd still trust them over a pollie every day if the week.

 

[Off The Couch]

Most politicians know zero tenths of **** all about justice. They are looking for those sweet sweet votes and tough on crime always works, even if it's counter productive. If judges have found a workaround where they think it's advisable, I'd still trust them over a pollie every day if the week.

Doesn’t make it any less relevant. It’s been legislated so they should of received a jail term. The courts don’t seem to have a problem incarcerating aboriginal women with children and hard luck stories

 

[phantom13]

But unless you have sat in a courtroom (and I have), it's pretty difficult to understand the full context of any case.

Oh well that settles it, you MUST be right.

 

[JackOutback]

Oh well that settles it, you MUST be right.

That wasn't my point. The point was none of us know the the full context of the case because we weren't there. We don't know the extent of their history, their prospects for rehabilitation etc. Every case is different. We're relying on a news outlet to form our opinions, which benefits from public outrage.

 

[phantom13]

That wasn't my point. The point was none of us know the the full context of the case because we weren't there. We don't know the extent of their history, their prospects for rehabilitation etc. Every case is different. We're relying on a news outlet to form our opinions, which benefits from public outrage.

No, but people are judging on the facts they do have, unless you want to contribute some currently unknown revelation about the two women then how are you in any better position to judge the sentencing than all of us? Because you went to court once and saw the process? Because you think judges generally get it right? One of the principles of sentencing is community expectation (from a very hazy 12th grade law class) this seems to pretty clearly miss the pass/fail mark in that regard.

I understand your point, we don't have all the facts and if this were an instance where it seemed divisive id probably agree with you but the cold hard facts we do know paint a pretty grim picture of a woefully undercooked sentence, in this instance it seems you are speculating more than those who have condemned the judgement.

 

[JackOutback]

No, but people are judging on the facts they do have, unless you want to contribute some currently unknown revelation about the two women then how are you in any better position to judge the sentencing than all of us? Because you went to court once and saw the process? Because you think judges generally get it right? One of the principles of sentencing is community expectation (from a very hazy 12th grade law class) this seems to pretty clearly miss the pass/fail mark in that regard.

I understand your point, we don't have all the facts and if this were an instance where it seemed divisive id probably agree with you but the cold hard facts we do know paint a pretty grim picture of a woefully undercooked sentence, in this instance it seems you are speculating more than those who have condemned the judgement.

I've tried to avoid commenting on the specific case because the full reasons for the judge ignoring the mandatory sentencing aren't available to me. They seem like shitty people but I don't know if jail would have made the situation worse, maybe left children to become delinquents in their own rights etc. My only point was the old 'judges are soft, out of touch' narrative is low hanging fruit because the facts we do have are filtered through a news organisation that benefits more from saying crime is out of control than it does saying rehabilitation might actually work. Saying this sentence seems lacking is different from saying the justice system is farked.

 

[phantom13]

I've tried to avoid commenting on the specific case because the full reasons for the judge ignoring the mandatory sentencing aren't available to me. They seem like shitty people but I don't know if jail would have made the situation worse, maybe left children to become delinquents in their own rights etc. My only point was the old 'judges are soft, out of touch' narrative is low hanging fruit because the facts we do have are filtered through a news organisation that benefits more from saying crime is out of control than it does saying rehabilitation might actually work. Saying this sentence seems lacking is different from saying the justice system is farked.

Bolded is fair enough, I tend to agree. Issue with THIS case from my POV is the details of the mitigating circumstances are being supressed so all anyone (news outlets or other) have to go off is some very vague "childhood abuse, mental illness and impairment".

The childhood abuse may be a valid reason but without knowing the extent or degree its pretty hard to judge, whilst I understand the reasons for this not being public knowledge I can also understand the frustration from people who (to a degree) have a right to know how this framed the sentencing.

Mental illness is the same as the above, some low grade depression doesn't excuse beating a paramedic but some extreme violent schizophrenia shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. No details makes it hard to know.

Impairment is the most concerning to me, the way this reads (and I could be completely wrong) this is a thinly veiled "they were hammered at the time so diminished capacity" how is this any different to drunk driving or pissed idiots coward punching? Perhaps this is to be considered with the above eg. Self medicating to deal with their mental health issues triggered by traumatic childhoods, but in all, in this case with so much info supressed the facts we (and that's everyone) have to go off are

- Two women high on weed and booze
- Assault a veteran paramedic attending to a patient for him asking them to move
- He cant work due to injuries and PTSD
- Mandatory sentencing ignored due to vague mitigating circumstances
- Those being "rough childhood, some form of mental health issue and they were hammered at the time

Even removing the emotive language that looks bad.

In a certain sense I feel for the judge, the details of the case may absolutely support the sentence imposed but they cant make them public, but its also hard to feel for the justice system when their failures have repeatedly cost lives before.

 

[RU_]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6299557/pakistan-man-eyes-gouged-out-family-marriage/


What. The. ****.

 

[perthblue]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6299557/pakistan-man-eyes-gouged-out-family-marriage/


What. The. ****.

Village culture.

Eye gougings seem to be popular in Pakistani villages.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Remember when mental illness meant mental illness, and not just an umbrella term for being a campaigner?

 

[Firestarter]

I haven't read far enough into it. How were the two women mentioned on the news acquitted of bashing a paramedic?

 

[Cruyff14]

I haven't read far enough into it. How were the two women mentioned on the news acquitted of bashing a paramedic?

Their upbringing/childhood etc

 

[Reynolds Number]

 

[phantom13]

Their upbringing/childhood etc

Childhood, Impairment, Effort at rehabilitation since the event, Mental health issues.

I think they deserved some time but in reality there were a few factors the judge considered, supposedly.

 

[Gough]

You underestimate the power of kitch at times like this.

 

[Scotland]

https://www.deagostini.com/au/collections/build-your-own-R2-D2/

Saw an ad for this on TV. One of those usual $4.99 for the first issue, $20 for the rest of the issues things. Had a look in the interwebs and in order to build the thing you need 100 issues, so it's basically a $2k outlay. Does anyone actually stick these things out?

 

[Off The Couch]

https://www.deagostini.com/au/collections/build-your-own-R2-D2/

Saw an ad for this on TV. One of those usual $4.99 for the first issue, $20 for the rest of the issues things. Had a look in the interwebs and in order to build the thing you need 100 issues, so it's basically a $2k outlay. Does anyone actually stick these things out?

They aren’t marketing people who sit and work out the total cost. It’s aimed at the same people who don’t read the fine print of their interest free agreement

 

[Wojcinski]

I don't understand people that keep getting caught up in pyramid schemes. Someone I know that already lost 80k (literally all of her money after splitting with her husband and selling their house) to a 'life coach' and now she's been spruiking this '90% automated online income!' rubbish on Facebook. I got some details and its called Global Affiliate Zone and they charge you $99 for an account and access to 'training' videos - here is the kicker, you have to buy an $8,000 water purifier to progress in the company to the point that you can sign other people up. You make a percentage back on every person you sign up. It's sold under the guise of selling these water purifiers yet to sell one you have to have bought one in the first place.

Some people are stupid campaigners for falling for this shit, some are smart campaigners for preying on the stupid campaigners.

 

[Scotland]

They aren’t marketing people who sit and work out the total cost. It’s aimed at the same people who don’t read the fine print of their interest free agreement

I think you can get out of a subscription pretty easily, just surprised there are so many issues. I mean it'll take you two years until you finish the thing, let alone that it's $2k.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Ive just finished the millennium falcon thru them, adds up to over two grand
I haven't started it and every edition is still unopened