Thread: Wtf

It was a rhetorical question.

However, in my view, justice is skewed more towards punishments biased towards the impact of the crimes. This takes into account to a greater extent the effects on the victims, including the families and societies around them. Currently we have more what I call a legal system where the 'rules' are skewed more towards the rights of the perpetrators and their circumstances and a system of rules and processes.

It is not a black and white thing but a large grey scale. It is a matter of where the current position is on that scale.

Look at the likes of Malaysia where tolerances at the lower end of the crime spectrum are dealt with quite severely providing disincentives to the criminal path. More serious crimes are generally at a much lower rate than more lenient systems.

Originally Posted by Sidney

perhaps you can tell me what justice is then...

I'll tell you what justice isn't Sidney....the 10 years jail served of a life sentence by the 16 year old low life who shot my father in the back of the head, killing him. It affected my whole life, but it seems that shouldn't matter. Instead we should think of the perpetrator's well being and rights above those of the victim and family. I wish I had been able to get up in court and express how this mongrel's actions had affected my family's lives.

"Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate? Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?"

Why not? Lawyers constantly appeal to the emotions of judges and juries. How many times do we have to hear of lawyers trying to mitigate the perpetrator's crime by stating 'the offender had an unfortunate upbringing, was socially and economically deprived, used alcohol/illicit substances etc. etc. ad nauseam. I believe the courts really are doing a disservice to the victim, family and society if not taking into account how it affects them when sentencing the perpetrator.

I am so sick and tired of bleeding hearts sticking up for these scum. Do the crime, do the time. No second chance as far as I am concerned. I am a big proponent of 'an eye for an eye', but I am a law abiding citizen that expects the courts to punish the offender accordingly. Unfortunately I now have little faith in the legal system as I believe it is out of touch with community expectations. The pendulum has now swung too far towards upholding the rights? of perpetrators as against society as a whole.

Am I emotional/bitter? Too right I am.

Pete

Well said, and all power to your right arm Pete.

When this social experiment was set up what criteria to measure success or failure was put in place? What threshold was put in place to say that it was a failure and end the experiment? At either end of the grey scale we will have anarchy.

Eye for an eye with no guilty intent?

I can understand 'eye for an eye' but only when there is a guilty intent and deliberate action.

Imagine you teenage kid going to jail for life because they took a corner too fast and killed another person, would the punishment fit?

The victim in this matter, his parents said on TV something along the lines of 'He should go away for a long time, I want his family to know what it's like to lose someone'. That to me is just vindictive and victimises the offenders family to make them feel a little better.

There's a big difference between people with guilty intent and people who've made and unintentional mistake, and people that're reckless.

I agree with most of Sidney's posts in this topic.

Originally Posted by ExPoh75

I'll tell you what justice isn't Sidney....the 10 years jail served of a life sentence by the 16 year old low life who shot my father in the back of the head, killing him. It affected my whole life, but it seems that shouldn't matter. Instead we should think of the perpetrator's well being and rights above those of the victim and family. I wish I had been able to get up in court and express how this mongrel's actions had affected my family's lives.

"Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate? Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?"

Why not? Lawyers constantly appeal to the emotions of judges and juries. How many times do we have to hear of lawyers trying to mitigate the perpetrator's crime by stating 'the offender had an unfortunate upbringing, was socially and economically deprived, used alcohol/illicit substances etc. etc. ad nauseam. I believe the courts really are doing a disservice to the victim, family and society if not taking into account how it affects them when sentencing the perpetrator.

I am so sick and tired of bleeding hearts sticking up for these scum. Do the crime, do the time. No second chance as far as I am concerned. I am a big proponent of 'an eye for an eye', but I am a law abiding citizen that expects the courts to punish the offender accordingly. Unfortunately I now have little faith in the legal system as I believe it is out of touch with community expectations. The pendulum has now swung too far towards upholding the rights? of perpetrators as against society as a whole.

Am I emotional/bitter? Too right I am.

Pete

Pete...

You are correct, sentencing isn't justice. You could say that sentencing is the execution of justice and it is a component of the system of justice.

I don't minimise the way your lives have been affected in any way. But how would the way that you feel, and the way that you are affected by the loss of your father, actually change if the kid had got 20 years or the rest of his life, or even been hung by his neck?

I am not sticking up for anybody, accountability is the issue, but justice is simply being held accountable. The sentence may be more or less equitable/fair in your opinion, but you are only considering it from your perspective. Being a judge requires balancing perspectives, the victims, societal and the offender... whether you understand that or not this place is a better place because of it.

There are plenty of other places in the world to live that don't balance those perspectives, but you and most of us would not want to live there.

What you are talking about is how that balance is prioritised or weighted. That is always up for debate, but in spite of your understanding there is significant legal opinion that considers that our justice system has become too weighted towards the victim, and this distorts the application of the law.

I am always interested in the "rights of the criminal/perpetrator" comment. People don't seem to connect that these are actually the same rights that apply to ordinary citizens, until guilt is established. To reduce the "rights of the perpetrator prior to conviction" is to also reduce the rights of everybody else. I'm certainly not comfortable with that, nor should anybody else be.

Originally Posted by ebf

I still struggle to get my head around the concept of handing a firearm to someone that does not have a license... If this happens on a designated range, under the supervision of a RO, all good, but out in the bush it just seems like an accident waiting to happen.

Doesn't the 'supervision' requirement mean that the person with a licence is supposed to be in a position to take control of the firearm at any time? One firearm in use per licence holder and so on. Obviously people don't always do it that way, but I think thats what the rules say.

So if you're using one rifle and giving your unlicenced mate one to use as well, you aren't supervising them.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Doesn't the 'supervision' requirement mean that the person with a licence is supposed to be in a position to take control of the firearm at any time? One firearm in use per licence holder and so on. Obviously people don't always do it that way, but I think thats what the rules say.

Yes it does, but that is not what happens in the real world. On a range, maybe. Out in the bush or the back paddock it is a very different story.

Originally Posted by ebf

Yes it does, but that is not what happens in the real world. On a range, maybe. Out in the bush or the back paddock it is a very different story.

For the real simple buggers can you explain how's it different in the back paddock?
Never been two a range but imagine some RO are Rambo dudes dealing with multiple range only shooters?

On a range it is reasonably simple to maintain "direct supervision". You have range officers, known range procedures etc. Not saying it can't go pear shaped, but unlikely.

On the farm or in the bush, mates shoot with a lot less formal rules. Very easy for a guy without a license who wants to try shooting to be handed a firearm, and then to wander off (away from direct supervision) or in a hunting scenario to split up and hunt the next valley etc.

Does that make sense ?

Originally Posted by ebf

Yes it does, but that is not what happens in the real world. On a range, maybe. Out in the bush or the back paddock it is a very different story.

Still how I do it with the other half (one rifle, me and him) and it still scares the shit outta me sometimes!! He says I'm a rifle hog...I say I'm preventing an accident.

Originally Posted by Dougie

I say I'm preventing an accident.

I love the softly, softly, gentle approach Dougie. I'm the same. I am there and within very quick reach.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Pete...

You are correct, sentencing isn't justice. You could say that sentencing is the execution of justice and it is a component of the system of justice.

I don't minimise the way your lives have been affected in any way. But how would the way that you feel, and the way that you are affected by the loss of your father, actually change if the kid had got 20 years or the rest of his life, or even been hung by his neck?

I am not sticking up for anybody, accountability is the issue, but justice is simply being held accountable. The sentence may be more or less equitable/fair in your opinion, but you are only considering it from your perspective. Being a judge requires balancing perspectives, the victims, societal and the offender... whether you understand that or not this place is a better place because of it.

There are plenty of other places in the world to live that don't balance those perspectives, but you and most of us would not want to live there.

What you are talking about is how that balance is prioritised or weighted. That is always up for debate, but in spite of your understanding there is significant legal opinion that considers that our justice system has become too weighted towards the victim, and this distorts the application of the law.

I am always interested in the "rights of the criminal/perpetrator" comment. People don't seem to connect that these are actually the same rights that apply to ordinary citizens, until guilt is established. To reduce the "rights of the perpetrator prior to conviction" is to also reduce the rights of everybody else. I'm certainly not comfortable with that, nor should anybody else be.

Fair enough comment Sydney. I apologise if you think my comments were a direct attack on you personally, that was not my intention.

I was trying to give an example of where, in my opinion, the legal system let not only my family but also society down.

Anyway we seem to have drifted away from the main thrust of the original post so I'll leave it that.

No issues Pete.... I know and have seen....

Found this quote which is worth reflection...... the balance thing again.......


Mercy in the absence of justice leads to weakness. Justice in the absence of mercy leads to tyranny. St Augustine

Originally Posted by Sidney

No issues Pete.... I know and have seen....

Found this quote which is worth reflection...... the balance thing again.......


Mercy in the absence of justice leads to weakness. Justice in the absence of mercy leads to tyranny. St Augustine

“Forgiveness has nothing to do with absolving a criminal of his crime. It has everything to do with relieving oneself of the burden of being a victim--letting go of the pain and transforming oneself from victim to survivor.”
― C.R. Strahan