mb64 said:
If you consider scoring points against strawmen an example of great posting, then you couldn't be more accurate.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Justice?
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
If you consider scoring points against strawmen an example of great posting, then you couldn't be more accurate.
Beats me how he didn't go for culpable driving? ???
Mildura crash sentence due next week
Six teenagers were killed as they left a 16th birthday party in February 2006.
A Supreme Court jury yesterday found Thomas Towle not guilty of culpable driving, but found him guilty of six lesser counts of dangerous driving.
The 36-year-old will be sentenced in the Victorian Supreme Court on March 17th.
The court was told Towle had a number of previous driving convictions dating back to 1991.
They include being found guilty of drink driving, driving while disqualified, driving an unregistered vehicle, fraudulently using a number plate and identification, and driving a vehicle with ineffective headlights.
He was sentenced to two months jail in 2002 for driving offences.
The families of six children killed in the accident say they are devastated he has been found not guilty of culpable driving.
The mother of two of those killed, Kerry Prowse, found it hard to articulate her feelings about the verdict.
She said she was "numb.... just in shock."
Their uncle, Richard Prowse, says the families will return to Mildura and get a debrief from their lawyers before deciding how to proceed. He says they may work together for a change in the law.
Colin Cole, from the children's secondary college in Mildura, says the families of those killed will begin returning home today.
"Being in a strange place and having it end this way hasn't helped them at all, so they are looking forward to being home," he said.
Vince Calvi's daughter, Josie, died in the crash. He says the verdict provides no closure.
"I think with this result ... it's just not worth us being here," he said.
"I don't think it's right. I just can't, I just can't understand the system, I really can't."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/10/2184743.htm?section=justin
Mildura crash sentence due next week
Six teenagers were killed as they left a 16th birthday party in February 2006.
A Supreme Court jury yesterday found Thomas Towle not guilty of culpable driving, but found him guilty of six lesser counts of dangerous driving.
The 36-year-old will be sentenced in the Victorian Supreme Court on March 17th.
The court was told Towle had a number of previous driving convictions dating back to 1991.
They include being found guilty of drink driving, driving while disqualified, driving an unregistered vehicle, fraudulently using a number plate and identification, and driving a vehicle with ineffective headlights.
He was sentenced to two months jail in 2002 for driving offences.
The families of six children killed in the accident say they are devastated he has been found not guilty of culpable driving.
The mother of two of those killed, Kerry Prowse, found it hard to articulate her feelings about the verdict.
She said she was "numb.... just in shock."
Their uncle, Richard Prowse, says the families will return to Mildura and get a debrief from their lawyers before deciding how to proceed. He says they may work together for a change in the law.
Colin Cole, from the children's secondary college in Mildura, says the families of those killed will begin returning home today.
"Being in a strange place and having it end this way hasn't helped them at all, so they are looking forward to being home," he said.
Vince Calvi's daughter, Josie, died in the crash. He says the verdict provides no closure.
"I think with this result ... it's just not worth us being here," he said.
"I don't think it's right. I just can't, I just can't understand the system, I really can't."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/10/2184743.htm?section=justin
A few things have made me angry in the past couple of weeks. The first is the governments decision to ban the identification of a serial pedophile. From the little info available, he is a repeat offender and a danger still to the community. Yet, we aren't allowed to know who he is, what he looks like or if he will be around our kids.
The second thing that pissed me off, was in the paper today.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23800548-2862,00.html
VICTORIA'S barristers say victims' rights are not relevant to the sentencing process.
And they say more cash should be spent on making jails safer for prisoners.
The barristers also suggested judges might be more willing to send offenders to jail if prisons were safer.
The views, expressed in an editorial in Victorian Bar News magazine, have outraged victims' groups and at least one barrister.
The editorial claims the reality of sentencing is that a prisoner sentenced to eight years in jail stands a 15 per cent chance of being seriously assaulted, a 5 per cent chance of being raped and a 1 per cent chance of being murdered.
It says it is "time for those who criticise the judiciary for lenient sentences to put their money where their mouths are".
"It is hard to believe that a community can describe itself as civilised if it locks people up and then takes inadequate steps to ensure the incarcerated are safe," wrote editors Gerard Nash, QC, Paul Elliott, QC and Judy Benson.
"Yet this is precisely our society today."
Victorian Bar is the professional association for the state's 1578 barristers.
The editorial, under the headline "Rights of victims", says "all of this agitation (about sentencing) is concerned with, or stems from, a concern with the rights of victims".
"All members of the community have rights. Victims are members of the community and as such they do have rights.
"But those rights are not relevant to the sentencing process.
"In the sentencing process it is the rights of the person being sentenced -- having proper regard to the protection of the community -- that are in issue.
"Those who talk about sentences being too lenient . . . on the whole know little of prisons or how they are run.
"More importantly, they do not know -- or worse still, do not care -- that prisons are not safe."
The editorial's authors are critical of people who argue for longer confinement in conditions that "provide no adequate safety against assault, rape and even murder".
They say Victoria's prisons are staffed inadequately, and are particularly unsafe for young and vulnerable inmates.
"There is insufficient money, manpower and concern available in respect of our prison system," the editorial says.
"We need to spend the money and supply manpower to make them safe.
"If a sentencing judge knew the offender was to be incarcerated in a place where the state could guarantee his or her safety, judges might be less reluctant to impose immediate prison sentences."
The editorial said there had been many complaints about unmanned railway stations and trains without guards, but none about inadequate supervision of prisons, "even though they are much less safe than unmanned railway stations".
Crime Victims Support Association president Noel McNamara said the comments in the editorial "make you wonder if they've come from the Bar Council or the bar at the Melbourne Club".
People Against Lenient Sentencing president Steve Medcraft said the barristers' views "just go to show how out of touch and arrogant these people are", and "smack of lawyers defending their bread and butter".
"Lawyers and crooks are in the legal system by choice -- victims aren't," Mr Medcraft said.
"Who gives a rat's toss what lawyers think of prison conditions?"
Victoria's lone independent barrister, Peter Faris QC, not a Bar member, said the editorial confirmed Attorney-General Rob Hulls' criticism of barristers as troglodytes.
Mr Faris said it was simply wrong to suggest judges discounted sentences because of a lack of safety in jails, and the state's Victims' Charter acknowledged the rights of victims and their part in the sentencing process.
Obviously, these 'learned' people know more about what's best for the community than us plebs. After all, they quite often defend scum, knowing they are guilty, but still try to get them off
It's hard to believe that you people (the authors) are civilised, knowing that you are helping to defend people who violate innocent victims rights and try to allow them to beat justice by getting lenient sentences or pleading hardship etc, and allowing them back into the community with just a slap on the wrist in most cases. But then again, you are just doing your job, aren't you
The second thing that pissed me off, was in the paper today.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23800548-2862,00.html
VICTORIA'S barristers say victims' rights are not relevant to the sentencing process.
And they say more cash should be spent on making jails safer for prisoners.
The barristers also suggested judges might be more willing to send offenders to jail if prisons were safer.
The views, expressed in an editorial in Victorian Bar News magazine, have outraged victims' groups and at least one barrister.
The editorial claims the reality of sentencing is that a prisoner sentenced to eight years in jail stands a 15 per cent chance of being seriously assaulted, a 5 per cent chance of being raped and a 1 per cent chance of being murdered.
It says it is "time for those who criticise the judiciary for lenient sentences to put their money where their mouths are".
"It is hard to believe that a community can describe itself as civilised if it locks people up and then takes inadequate steps to ensure the incarcerated are safe," wrote editors Gerard Nash, QC, Paul Elliott, QC and Judy Benson.
"Yet this is precisely our society today."
Victorian Bar is the professional association for the state's 1578 barristers.
The editorial, under the headline "Rights of victims", says "all of this agitation (about sentencing) is concerned with, or stems from, a concern with the rights of victims".
"All members of the community have rights. Victims are members of the community and as such they do have rights.
"But those rights are not relevant to the sentencing process.
"In the sentencing process it is the rights of the person being sentenced -- having proper regard to the protection of the community -- that are in issue.
"Those who talk about sentences being too lenient . . . on the whole know little of prisons or how they are run.
"More importantly, they do not know -- or worse still, do not care -- that prisons are not safe."
The editorial's authors are critical of people who argue for longer confinement in conditions that "provide no adequate safety against assault, rape and even murder".
They say Victoria's prisons are staffed inadequately, and are particularly unsafe for young and vulnerable inmates.
"There is insufficient money, manpower and concern available in respect of our prison system," the editorial says.
"We need to spend the money and supply manpower to make them safe.
"If a sentencing judge knew the offender was to be incarcerated in a place where the state could guarantee his or her safety, judges might be less reluctant to impose immediate prison sentences."
The editorial said there had been many complaints about unmanned railway stations and trains without guards, but none about inadequate supervision of prisons, "even though they are much less safe than unmanned railway stations".
Crime Victims Support Association president Noel McNamara said the comments in the editorial "make you wonder if they've come from the Bar Council or the bar at the Melbourne Club".
People Against Lenient Sentencing president Steve Medcraft said the barristers' views "just go to show how out of touch and arrogant these people are", and "smack of lawyers defending their bread and butter".
"Lawyers and crooks are in the legal system by choice -- victims aren't," Mr Medcraft said.
"Who gives a rat's toss what lawyers think of prison conditions?"
Victoria's lone independent barrister, Peter Faris QC, not a Bar member, said the editorial confirmed Attorney-General Rob Hulls' criticism of barristers as troglodytes.
Mr Faris said it was simply wrong to suggest judges discounted sentences because of a lack of safety in jails, and the state's Victims' Charter acknowledged the rights of victims and their part in the sentencing process.
Obviously, these 'learned' people know more about what's best for the community than us plebs. After all, they quite often defend scum, knowing they are guilty, but still try to get them off
It's hard to believe that you people (the authors) are civilised, knowing that you are helping to defend people who violate innocent victims rights and try to allow them to beat justice by getting lenient sentences or pleading hardship etc, and allowing them back into the community with just a slap on the wrist in most cases. But then again, you are just doing your job, aren't you
ssstone said:
I don't think he has been asleep at the wheel at all. He's the one steering the wheel. Was all about justice etc when in opposition, now does SFA in government. Actually, what is scary about that article is, that's where he is going to pick the next generation of judges
I got this in an e-mail. Believe it or not?
USA JAIL - SOME INTERESTING READING
TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO, HE IS THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF (ARIZONA) AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
These are some of the reasons why:
Sheriff Joe Arpaio created the 'tent city jail' to save Arizona from spending tens of millions of dollars on another expensive prison complex.
He has jail meals down to 20 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.
He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in the jails, and took away their weightlifting equipment and cut off all but 'G' movies. He says:
'They're in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave.'
He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and city projects and save taxpayer's money.
Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel.
When asked why the weather channel, he replied: 'So these morons will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.'
He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them, 'This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back.'
He also bought the Newt Gingrich lecture series on US history that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series that actually tells the truth for a change would be welcome and that it might even explain why 95% of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.
With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record for June 2nd 2007), the Associated Press reported: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed wire surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.
On the Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were overheard chatting in the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees. 'This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace,' said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2 years with 10 more to go. 'It's inhumane.'
Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. 'Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.'
The same day he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: 'It's between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to walk all day in the sun, wearing full battle gear and get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!'
Sheriff Joe was just re-elected as Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona
USA JAIL - SOME INTERESTING READING
TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO, HE IS THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF (ARIZONA) AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
These are some of the reasons why:
Sheriff Joe Arpaio created the 'tent city jail' to save Arizona from spending tens of millions of dollars on another expensive prison complex.
He has jail meals down to 20 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.
He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in the jails, and took away their weightlifting equipment and cut off all but 'G' movies. He says:
'They're in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave.'
He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and city projects and save taxpayer's money.
Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel.
When asked why the weather channel, he replied: 'So these morons will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.'
He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them, 'This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back.'
He also bought the Newt Gingrich lecture series on US history that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series that actually tells the truth for a change would be welcome and that it might even explain why 95% of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.
With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record for June 2nd 2007), the Associated Press reported: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed wire surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.
On the Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were overheard chatting in the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees. 'This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace,' said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2 years with 10 more to go. 'It's inhumane.'
Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. 'Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.'
The same day he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: 'It's between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to walk all day in the sun, wearing full battle gear and get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!'
Sheriff Joe was just re-elected as Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona
lol at making the inmates wear pink and watch the weather channel.
Joe Arpaio would not be a liked man in those circles I would imagine.
Joe Arpaio would not be a liked man in those circles I would imagine.
Legends of 1980 said:
Shows how deceitful some lawyers are, and how out of touch they are. Making up 'facts' to back their stance, then claiming them that they are 'hypothetical' figures when caught out blatantly lying
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23810772-2862,00.html
FIGURES claiming to show the risks involved in being sent to jail were nonsense, prison authorities said yesterday.
A spokeswoman for Corrections Victoria said claims that 5 per cent of long-term prisoners were raped and 1 per cent murdered were "wildly inaccurate".
And the Attorney-General said another claim by senior barristers in a controversial magazine article was "just plain wrong".
The disputed prison-risk figures were stated as a sentencing reality in an editorial in the Victorian Bar News magazine, which has angered victims' groups.
The editorial said victims had no role in the sentencing process and more money, manpower and concern was needed to make prisons safer.
"No sentence imposed in our courts reads 'I sentence you to eight years' imprisonment, to a 15 per cent chance of being seriously assaulted during those eight years, a 5 per cent chance of being raped during those eight years and a 1 per cent chance of being murdered in those years in one of the state's prisons'," the editorial said.
"Perhaps the victims of crime would be happier if that reality were spelled out in the sentence."
But yesterday the author of the editorial admitted the figures quoted were not reality but "totally hypothetical".
Gerry Nash, QC, said his point was that prisons were not safe and interpretation of what he wrote was "a matter of semantics and logic".
He said no statistics had been available from Corrections until now, but conceded he had never asked for them.
The spokeswoman for Corrections Victoria said an average of at least five prisoners would have to be murdered every year to make the jail murder rate claim accurate.
"Our figures show we've had 13 murders in jail in 32 years since 1976, and only one in the past five years," she said.
The total number of unnatural deaths in prisons since 1976 is 116, which includes overdoses, suicides and accidental injuries.
The total unnatural death rate of prisoners in the past five years is .3 per cent.
Corrections figures suggest the risk of serious assault for long-term prisoners is about 7 per cent -- half of what the barristers stated.
The spokeswoman said authorities accepted that rapes and other sexual assaults in jail were under-reported, but the small number that were reported was "nowhere near the figure quoted".
"Victoria's prison system has a range of measures to ensure the security and safety of staff and prisoners, and great care is taken -- particularly in the placement of vulnerable prisoners -- to minimise the risk of harm."
The Victorian Bar is the professional association for the state's 1578 barristers.
Bar News editors Mr Nash, Paul Elliott, QC, and Judy Benson wrote that a civilised community would not lock people up "then take inadequate steps to ensure that the incarcerated are safe".
They also suggested that judges might be more willing to send offenders to jail if prisons were safer.
Attorney-General Rob Hulls said it was "just plain wrong to say that victims are not relevant to the sentencing process".
"Under the Sentencing Act, a court must have regard to a range of factors including the impact of the offence on any victim."
As usual, more tough talking from a judge.............and yet another pissweak sentence follows
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23911945-2862,00.html
Remember young Sudanese refugee victim, killers told
TWO men who senselessly killed a young Sudanese refugee were told to think of their victim every day as they were sentenced to at least three years' jail yesterday.
Justice Betty King said yesterday the death of Morgan Harris Morgan, 20, was a terrible waste and an example of "gross stupidity and futility".
She added: "This was a disgraceful episode. A clear example of mob rule fuelled by alcohol and aggression."
Mr Morgan was trying to act as peacemaker between his friends and a large group of youths when he was slashed to death with a broken bottle in a Southbank park in March 2006.
The Supreme Court heard the incident began when a teenager, who cannot be named, asked for and was refused alcohol by a member of Mr Morgan's group.
The court heard the youth, now 20, encouraged his friends to launch an assault and was wrestling Mr Morgan when co-offender Kristofer Simpas attacked him with the broken bottle.
Mr Morgan bled to death from a neck wound -- six years after his family fled halfway across the world to escape the violence of Sudan.
Simpas, 21, of West Preston, pleaded guilty to manslaughter and intentionally causing serious injury.
The youth pleaded guilty to manslaughter and affray.
Justice King said she was incapable of understanding why so many young people -- one aged just 12 -- were drinking outside Crown casino late at night.
"It is a reflection of our society, and not a positive reflection, that so many young people can be out on the streets of Melbourne, intoxicated, without their parents having any knowledge of their whereabouts," she said.
Justice King told Mr Morgan's family that his death was a terrible waste and no sentence could alleviate their pain.
Addressing the attackers, the judge said: "You need to think about this man every day for the rest of your life.
"Remember this, and remember where it leads -- to the totally senseless loss of another young life."
Mr Morgan's mother, Anna, said she thanked God she was alive today after falling into a deep depression following her son's death.
"Morgan was my sunshine, my baby," she said in a victim impact statement.
"Morgan's death killed everything good in the house, no more life. Everyone is very depressed, no more joy, happiness as a result of Morgan's death."
Justice King said it was "truly tragic" that the youth, who also fled to the safety of Australia from a violent homeland, was involved in the death of another refugee.
She said Simpas was a binge drinker but accepted he had remorse and good prospects of rehabilitation.
Simpas was sentenced to a maximum of four years and nine months in jail, and the youth to four years and eight months.
With time served, they will be eligible for parole early next year.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23911945-2862,00.html
Remember young Sudanese refugee victim, killers told
TWO men who senselessly killed a young Sudanese refugee were told to think of their victim every day as they were sentenced to at least three years' jail yesterday.
Justice Betty King said yesterday the death of Morgan Harris Morgan, 20, was a terrible waste and an example of "gross stupidity and futility".
She added: "This was a disgraceful episode. A clear example of mob rule fuelled by alcohol and aggression."
Mr Morgan was trying to act as peacemaker between his friends and a large group of youths when he was slashed to death with a broken bottle in a Southbank park in March 2006.
The Supreme Court heard the incident began when a teenager, who cannot be named, asked for and was refused alcohol by a member of Mr Morgan's group.
The court heard the youth, now 20, encouraged his friends to launch an assault and was wrestling Mr Morgan when co-offender Kristofer Simpas attacked him with the broken bottle.
Mr Morgan bled to death from a neck wound -- six years after his family fled halfway across the world to escape the violence of Sudan.
Simpas, 21, of West Preston, pleaded guilty to manslaughter and intentionally causing serious injury.
The youth pleaded guilty to manslaughter and affray.
Justice King said she was incapable of understanding why so many young people -- one aged just 12 -- were drinking outside Crown casino late at night.
"It is a reflection of our society, and not a positive reflection, that so many young people can be out on the streets of Melbourne, intoxicated, without their parents having any knowledge of their whereabouts," she said.
Justice King told Mr Morgan's family that his death was a terrible waste and no sentence could alleviate their pain.
Addressing the attackers, the judge said: "You need to think about this man every day for the rest of your life.
"Remember this, and remember where it leads -- to the totally senseless loss of another young life."
Mr Morgan's mother, Anna, said she thanked God she was alive today after falling into a deep depression following her son's death.
"Morgan was my sunshine, my baby," she said in a victim impact statement.
"Morgan's death killed everything good in the house, no more life. Everyone is very depressed, no more joy, happiness as a result of Morgan's death."
Justice King said it was "truly tragic" that the youth, who also fled to the safety of Australia from a violent homeland, was involved in the death of another refugee.
She said Simpas was a binge drinker but accepted he had remorse and good prospects of rehabilitation.
Simpas was sentenced to a maximum of four years and nine months in jail, and the youth to four years and eight months.
With time served, they will be eligible for parole early next year.
