Australia's Courts are too soft.

[WWmelb]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/18673546/parents-convicted-over-8yo-girls-vacuum-cleaner-pole-killing/

Long and the short of this: Assholebitch mother beats her daughter repeatedly over a number of days with a vaccuum cleaner pole, resulting in her death.

and gets 7 years for it.

7 for killing an innocent child through torture.

7 years.

Fuck i've had enough of this Country's soft handed legal system. We need the courts to start setting some serious examples, whether they actually work as a deterrent or not.

captcha: they are watching

I sure hope so.

 

[Zhukov]

"Assholebitch"?

I've never really regarded our courts as particularly soft, but that does seem like a ludicrously short sentence. I mean, I can beat a defenseless person to death without provocation and be free in seven years? Really?

The article mentioned she had unspecified mental problems. That might have had something to do with it.

EDIT: Ooooh, I see. It was ruled as manslaughter, not murder. Hence a much shorter sentence. Not sure why though.

 

[Timotei]

Long and the short of this: Assholebitch mother beats her daughter repeatedly over a number of days with a vaccuum cleaner pole, resulting in her death.

and gets 7 years for it.

7 for killing an innocent child through torture.

7 years.

Fuck i've had enough of this Country's soft handed legal system.

Would you rather live in Bali, Thailand or Myanmar where the simple act of drug possession of any kind can net you multiple life or even death sentences?

 

[WWmelb]

Long and the short of this: Assholebitch mother beats her daughter repeatedly over a number of days with a vaccuum cleaner pole, resulting in her death.

and gets 7 years for it.

7 for killing an innocent child through torture.

7 years.

Fuck i've had enough of this Country's soft handed legal system.

Would you rather live in Bali, Thailand or Myanmar where the simple act of drug possession of any kind can net you multiple life or even death sentences?

Take things to the extremes. I didn't say that. However, we need harsher sentencing here. This is ridiculously soft, and it sickens me.

"Assholebitch"?

I've never really regarded our courts as particularly soft, but that does seem like a ludicrously short sentence. I mean, I can beat a defenseless person to death without provocation and be free in seven years? Really?

The article mentioned she had unspecified mental problems. That might have had something to do with it.

EDIT: Ooooh, I see. It was ruled as manslaughter, not murder. Hence a much shorter sentence. Not sure why though.

Yeah manslaughter... why charge with manslaughter? This is torture and murder. And yeah, unspecified mental problems. Obviously if you can beat an 8year old for days on end with a metal pole, you have some sort of problems with your wiring. But it's bullshit. Especially on the husbands part. Step-father or real father, if your wife is beating a child, you report it and get the child to saftey. He deserves more than he got too. About 8 months before parole for turning a blind eye to this.

Ugh..

Last year a guy killed a family of four while driving drunk.. while his license was revoked.. for drink driving.. not for the first time.. and he got i think from memory 2years.. parole in 1.

We are soft of crime here

 

[Legion]

Long and the short of this: Assholebitch mother beats her daughter repeatedly over a number of days with a vaccuum cleaner pole, resulting in her death.

and gets 7 years for it.

7 for killing an innocent child through torture.

7 years.

Fuck i've had enough of this Country's soft handed legal system.

Would you rather live in Bali, Thailand or Myanmar where the simple act of drug possession of any kind can net you multiple life or even death sentences?

But that is the point.

In those countries you can get a life or death sentence for simply possessing a drug whereas in another country you can torture and kill a child and get less than a decade.

It shows how unbelievably unjust the latter is by comparison. Yes, it also shows that the former is too harsh, but that doesn't mean much when a child murderer is back on the streets in less amount of time than the victims entire life.

Naturally the reason is because they were charged with manslaughter rather than murder, but considering the killing was over a period of days that is just nonsensical. Manslaughter should be when the death was preventable, like a fight that got out of hand, not when somebody does it in cold blood.

 

[Amakusa]

Firstly, it's easy to bash on judges because you actually haven't read the transcripts of the court cases. Also alot of this soft on crime term is sensational news.

Secondly harsher sentences doesn't necessarily make the crime you are trying to stop go down. What harsher sentences does it make jail time longer. It cost like $40K to 60K per person per year in jail. This includes stuff like paying for the Corrective services guards to watch over them. Also having people in jail longer does impact on the budget of the state. Someone has to pay for it, and if more jails are being built, that's less money going to schools, welfare, hospitals roads etc. If you want to see what happens to a state that has too many jails, go look at California. They are going bust because they can't afford all the jails they have there.

There are other reasons why people commit crimes and a longer jail sentence doesn't factor into a person reason why they might commit a crime. It's alot more complicated than that with alot more factors. A longer sentence is just a symbolic gesture that doesn't by itself reduce crime.

Thirdly the DPP (Department of public prosecution) only pursued a manslaughter change. Maybe it's because there wasn't enough evidence to get a bloody murder charge or they did a plea bargain. They are reasons as to why the DPP pursues a charge.

So until i actually get a transcript explaining the judge's decision i'm gonna withhold judgement about how soft judges are. It's easy to bash judges because they don't talk to the media. The are facts in the case that are not in that media article you linked that would explain alot.

 

[Kristian Fischer]

Because harsher sentencing work as a deterrent.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.

The only thing harsher sentencing accomplishes is filling up prisons faster.

 

[talker]

Because harsher sentencing work as a deterrent.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.

The only thing harsher sentencing accomplishes is filling up prisons faster.

yeah, but that doesn't mean she didn't DESERVE a harsher sentence.

 

[Kristian Fischer]

Because harsher sentencing work as a deterrent.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.

The only thing harsher sentencing accomplishes is filling up prisons faster.

yeah, but that doesn't mean she didn't DESERVE a harsher sentence.

Didn't say that, but the OP made a very sweeping statement that I responded to.

 

[Amakusa]

Because harsher sentencing work as a deterrent.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.

The only thing harsher sentencing accomplishes is filling up prisons faster.

yeah, but that doesn't mean she didn't DESERVE a harsher sentence.

Deserve has got nothing to do with it. The court system isn't designed for vengeance. You have no idea why the judge gave the sentence that was given, neither do I. It's done on a scale and relevant information influences how they come to that decision hasn't been shown. And that media article gives no information on it on the reasoning of the judge.

 

[Rblade]

as much as I agree that people should be punished for crimes. There is no serious research showing it has any effect on reducing that types of crimes. There is the clear point of justice, but it doesn't actually `help´ to be ´tough on crime´

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

I live in Finland. There was a (real) example of a man raping two children and two adults getting 2,5 years as punishment in my textbook. Maximum punishment for a rape is 6 years, minimum is 1. ONE FUCKING YEAR. Maximum punishment for "forced sexual relations", which is for some reason considered a lesser crime (I spent at least 10 minutes reading this in a law textbook and can't figure out why) is 3 years.

But then again, I'm not an expert on the matter, and how prison sentences affect actual crime rates is an immensely complex issue that anyone making decisions about must commit an immense amount of research in. I have neither the time or the inclination, the best I can do is hope that they are.

It's easy to get all worked up and angry without thinking about it. What if harsher sentences decrease the amount of people that get caught because people are more desperate to avoid it? What if it increases probability of repeated offence? And in countries with juries high prison time can be detrimental to actually convicting people since people are less inclined to sentence a man to 25 years for manslaughter.

The only thing you should take into account with sentencing is how it will affect crime rates, and how much money it will take away from the government. Punishment is satisfying, but it doesn't help anyone. Even if that rapist got 25 years as a punishment it wouldn't be worth it if it meant a severely increased probability of repeated offence.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

It's easy to point and go "injustice!" but the article doesn't say much about the trial itself, just the verdict. It's very possible the just didn't have enough evidence to convict for murder and had to settle for manslaughter.

 

[chocolate pickles]

Because harsher sentencing work as a deterrent.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.

The only thing harsher sentencing accomplishes is filling up prisons faster.

Not trying to sound like a dick, but i don't think that's true. If i was desperate, then i would be more likely to consider stealing something if the penalty was a fine + short prison stint rather than amputation of one of my hands.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Most courts in the first world are too soft, this isn't exclusive to Australia.

 

[MrPhyntch]

Deserve has got nothing to do with it. The court system isn't designed for vengeance.

And vengeance has nothing to do with whether or not they deserve a punishment. A person commits a crime, they owe a debt, either to a victim or to society, and the standard way of paying off this debt is with prison.

In the case of murder, where a proper debt is impossible to determine (what is the value of human life?), a person has proved that they cannot function in society the moment they murder a person. This is why Life and Death sentences are given for murders; not to deter people, and not really even for vengeance, but rather because this person has proven that they cannot live in normal society without killing, so we must remove them.

And now, we get back to how this is relevant to the topic at hand. This person obviously can't live in proper society; she killed her 8 year old daughter, literally torturing her to death. And I'm unsure about the Australian legal system, but based on what I know of MY legal system, the fact that she was sent to "prison" and not a mental institute meant that her mental health wasn't factored in much at all. So the question remains; do the Aussie courts believe that her debt is paid after only 7 years? How can she be expected to return to society after that?

 

[Amakusa]

Because harsher sentencing work as a deterrent.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.

The only thing harsher sentencing accomplishes is filling up prisons faster.

Not trying to sound like a dick, but i don't think that's true. If i was desperate, then i would be more likely to consider stealing something if the penalty was a fine + short prison stint rather than amputation of one of my hands.

For you yes, but that doesn't mean ever single other person that commits a crime factors in the length of how long the sentence is or whether there is capital punishment. It's more complicated than that. Going by your logic, every jurisdiction should have low crime rates if the death sentence was implemented on every major crime conceivable. Heck countries with death sentence for drug smuggling should have very little drug smuggling crime problems.

 

[Norithics]

Too lenient for what, is the question? Courts aren't there to satisfy a sense of sadism.

Not trying to sound like a dick, but i don't think that's true. If i was desperate, then i would be more likely to consider stealing something if the penalty was a fine + short prison stint rather than amputation of one of my hands.

That's fine, I guess, but your own personal opinion of what you'd hypothetically do in another hypothetical life you haven't lived... isn't really worth much.

 

[Strazdas]

Beat a kid with a vacuum cleaner - 7 years.
download a movie - 15 years.

Because harsher sentencing work as a deterrent.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.

The only thing harsher sentencing accomplishes is filling up prisons faster.

It does not need to work as a deterant. it needs to work as punishment.

Would you rather live in Bali, Thailand or Myanmar where the simple act of drug possession of any kind can net you multiple life or even death sentences?

If that was the single difference, yes. I mean i wouldnt live in thailand for multitude of reasons, but death penalty to drug dealers is certainly not one of them.

as much as I agree that people should be punished for crimes. There is no serious research showing it has any effect on reducing that types of crimes. There is the clear point of justice, but it doesn't actually `help´ to be ´tough on crime´

so your saying that police is completely useless and we woudl have same amount of crimes commited without them?

I live in Finland. There was a (real) example of a man raping two children and two adults getting 2,5 years as punishment in my textbook. Maximum punishment for a rape is 6 years, minimum is 1. ONE FUCKING YEAR. Maximum punishment for "forced sexual relations", which is for some reason considered a lesser crime (I spent at least 10 minutes reading this in a law textbook and can't figure out why) is 3 years.

You dont need prison time for rapists. there are ways to prevent them from repeating their offence.