Thread: Hunter convicted

What do you know of victims outcomes when they feel completely let down by the system?

The system cannot be responsible for the reaction of an individual to what happens in their lives. There is too many variables to that.. I know that the heathiest response is a process of coming to terms with whatever happened and some form of reconciliation with the offender. I also know that the retribution/appropriate penalty mentality has little to do with the best outcomes for the victims families. Even if the sentence in the view of the victims is appropriate as they exit the courtrooms, most of what you hear is relief because it is the perceived end of the process - only to later realise that at parole or potential release, the are still traumatised again at the idea of that offender now being free, while the victim still is still dead or living with the consequences.

The concept that the appropriate pound of flesh can be extracted is flawed. It is almost never achieveable.

You need to break it down a bit more than most people do .. accountability is the first part of the process, natural consequences and making right, penalty, protection for society, preparation for re-entry to society..... people here get stuck in the penalty groove, assuming some value for the victims when it doesn't exist, and justifying it with deterence, when that doesn't exist either in reality...

Are you so sure the odd up and coming Rugby player wont look at George Moalla and be emboldened because he "got away with it" ?

In spite of the fact that it still happens with rugby players, do you think that it would be more frequent for that group of people if they were not rugby players? So I would say no and the reason is accountability and not penalty. People modify their behaviour for the realistic appreciation of consequence, not specifc penalty. If you don't think you are going to get caught you might choose to take the risk.

Are you not going to get caught swinging punches in a drunken brawl when you are a recognisable person? These aren't the actions of of people who process things in the way that you suggest.

Neither is severe penalty a deterrent for someone shooting their mate. No one intends to shoot their mate. The penalty of shooting your mate far exceeds anything the court can do to you and it still happens doesn't it..

Now pedos are in a different category again, there is addictive compulsion involved... I would suggest severe deterrant value might have a role to play with these people..

Originally Posted by Sidney

The system cannot be responsible for the reaction of an individual to what happens in their lives. There is too many variables to that.. I know that the heathiest response is a process of coming to terms with whatever happened and some form of reconciliation with the offender. I also know that the retribution/appropriate penalty mentality has little to do with the best outcomes for the victims families. Even if the sentence in the view of the victims is appropriate as they exit the courtrooms, most of what you hear is relief because it is the perceived end of the process - only to later realise that at parole or potential release, the are still traumatised again at the idea of that offender now being free, while the victim still is still dead or living with the consequences.

The concept that the appropriate pound of flesh can be extracted is flawed. It is almost never achieveable.

You need to break it down a bit more than most people do .. accountability is the first part of the process, natural consequences and making right, penalty, protection for society, preparation for re-entry to society..... people here get stuck in the penalty groove, assuming some value for the victims when it doesn't exist, and justifying it with deterence, when that doesn't exist either in reality...



In spite of the fact that it still happens with rugby players, do you think that it would be more frequent for that group of people if they were not rugby players? So I would say no and the reason is accountability and not penalty. People modify their behaviour for the realistic appreciation of consequence, not specifc penalty. If you don't think you are going to get caught you might choose to take the risk.

Are you not going to get caught swinging punches in a drunken brawl when you are a recognisable person? These aren't the actions of of people who process things in the way that you suggest.

Neither is severe penalty a deterrent for someone shooting their mate. No one intends to shoot their mate. The penalty of shooting your mate far exceeds anything the court can do to you and it still happens doesn't it..

Now pedos are in a different category again, there is addictive compulsion involved... I would suggest severe deterrant value might have a role to play with these people..

Re pound of flesh, well put.

Re pedos... having everyone subject to being randomly selected to have their internet browsing habits made public could be a deterrent, not just to pedophilia but to all porn use. Face it, in the end most of it is abuse and exploitation, no?