Thread: Another disappointing sentence

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

you are all going off on a tangent we are not questioning lawyers here we are questioning a judge slapping this sleeze bag with a wet bus ticket

As always in these discussions, the competency of the legally trained (lawyers) who become judges has been challenged (and defended).

The sentence should also be a deterent to others contemplating the same thing. Not me, but if theres good money in it and thats all you get why wouldnt you

exactly Blip good on ya there is no deterrent if Judges are going to hand down extremely weak sentences and thats the point most of us are trying to make

This is an interesting perspective: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/...out-deterrence

I have known 2 x district court judges. One a mates dad. One a family member by marriage. Both were pretty much divorced from reality: from the life of a working man/woman. both carried on life with other family members as though we were below their station in life. other judges may of course be different I imagine. But my personal experience, and changes to the judicial landscape over the past 2 decades means I now hold their musings with a deal of disdain and possibly now trepidation. Sentences like the one we are discussing help reinforce my thoughts.

I don't want these people in jail because I believe that crims are smart enough to plan ahead and be deterred by harsh sentences - that is not what I see. I want longer sentences to keep crims out of circulation of the general populace

I don't believe in rehabilitation, I do believe that men "age out" of being actively criminal in about their 50s, con artists and kiddie fiddlers keep going a lot longer

I believe that many violent crims have sent a clear signal to us taxpayers that they do not want to abide by our laws and norms and hence I would be quite happy to pay to keep more of them locked up for longer

In my ideal world all 3-strikes violent offenders would be shipped off to a subantarctic island and left to starve but unfortunately that is illegal


Tahr is correct in that the best deterrence is the belief that there is a high chance of being caught, beyond that I have seen no good evidence that crims plan further ahead than their next score

What the liberal handwringers get wrong is that a lot of these crims don't see the world the same as Joe and Jane public - it's not until they are in a shit situation where something immediate is threatening them that they realise what is happening - they live in a more primal world where a bit of biff and blood is more their reality than a suspended sentence

I don't give a rat's arse about their welfare because when they bash up a dairy owner or steal people's kids presents from under the tree they don't give a rat's arse about us taxpayers so if I'm gonna shell out money for some no-hoper fuckwit to live in a motel and do nothing at least keep them off the streets and make that motel a secure stay

Originally Posted by MarkN

I often wonder how the general public, can read an article in the news and then form concrete opinions, on a judicial matter, without having attended the hearings, the court case and the sentencing and surely not being in possession, of all the facts.

Much like I can form opinions, of other people's driving skills whilst assuming, that I'm the best driver ever.

However I do know, never having been a Judge or a lawyer, that those professions, have years and years and years of education, designed to allow them to arrive at the best conclusions.

While I agree that we don't have all the facts - the defendant wasn't cooperative, there is a level of potential harm that still exists from other firearms that could have been diverted and - to quote the article: "Two people were killed and 10 others injured".....and home detention is meted out as punishment? Really?

Well I guess I should have been more clear, lawyering is wot yer do before yer get to Judging.

I general terms, Judges are drawn from the better of the Lawyers.

Like a chippy could progress from hammer hand, to builder, to Master Builder. He's not gonna be a Master Builder if he's crap with the hammer.

My mistake when originally talking about Lawyers and Judges was that I assumed that people would know that the Judges are usually made from very good and honourable Lawyers .

Unlike in the states where you can be a Judge or a Sheriff by being voted for, qualifications not required.

My one personal experience with an ex lawyer, who at the time was a friend of the family, was that apart from being a little eccentric they could be basically called an educated idiot.
Common sense was a bit absent.
At the time we had a bit of a drama at the local primary school. She was one of the more troublesome parents.
Not angry aggressive but her sense of being her interpretation of right and how far she pushed it could've easily wrecked tye place and almost did.
Mind you I also had a similar experience with a teacher a year or so later that absolutely did my head in. Very much the same thing with a hint of chip on the shoulder and a slice of superiority on top for good measure.
Bit of history, I became the chair of the BOT for the school right before a nationwide school review where the govt where aiming at shutting down as many marginal schools right across the country.
Met 5 members of parliament and had to deal with parents and teachers albeit for only 2 years.
Saved the school but only just.
Sorry back on subject

Bit off the subject, but I remember when I was first involved in court proceedings and was a bit green, complaining about the set-up of the district court. Defendants had rooms available to meet with their lawyers, but victims and witnesses did not, they met with the Police in the public waiting room, often in the same area as those accused of offending against them were sitting. My question was why the criminals are treated better than the witness.
A somewhat cynical, but honest old defence lawyer answered this very simply, "Sonny, remember there's no money in victims."
I have come to realize over the years that this sums up the criminal justice system in one sentence.

Fear of being caught ummm to them the more they get caught= more status. They even brag about what they do before getting caught on social media these days. And you think they fear getting caught and then they get caught and then what...

Originally Posted by blip

Fear of being caught ummm to them the more they get caught= more status. They even brag about what they do before getting caught on social media these days. And you think they fear getting caught and then they get caught and then what...

Yes they don't get deterred because of the bus ticket sentence but from I understand of the research, they are more likely to keep walking past someone's open garage if there is a camera watching

How many cameras do do recon a michael hill jewelry store has in it?

Originally Posted by MarkN

Well I guess I should have been more clear, lawyering is wot yer do before yer get to Judging.

I general terms, Judges are drawn from the better of the Lawyers.

Like a chippy could progress from hammer hand, to builder, to Master Builder. He's not gonna be a Master Builder if he's crap with the hammer.

My mistake when originally talking about Lawyers and Judges was that I assumed that people would know that the Judges are usually made from very good and honourable Lawyers .

Unlike in the states where you can be a Judge or a Sheriff by being voted for, qualifications not required.

Years ago in South Canterbury there were 2 master builders,good business men.Hold it,they never did their apprenticeships in carpentry.But sucked up the right people,smooth talked their way thru bank managers.Became very successfull.

Originally Posted by blip

How many cameras do do recon a michael hill jewelry store has in it?

Sorry, I wasn't looking to argue the point

Apparently it is true for the majority of crime and I certainly agree that the jewellery store smash n grabs are mainly / partly for a thrill

A lot of those kids know that they won't get fuck all punishment so that is true about them thinking about consequences to some extent

What I was trying to get across was that the data that I have seen by , for example Jennifer Doleac at Probable Causation
https://www.probablecausation.com/
supports the link that Tahr put up earlier about what works in crime
There are some good podcasts if stats and crime are your thing but it gets pretty into the weeds, I don't even know what the hell a difference in difference study is..