You obviously haven't been inside a prison before - I can assure you, they are not homes away from home. It's an incredible shock to discover such a huge concentration of drug-addicted, brain-injured psychotic people all in one spot... they're very disturbing places.

Did you say prison or parliament?

Did you say prison or parliament?

Boom tish!

You obviously haven't been inside a prison before - I can assure you, they are not homes away from home. It's an incredible shock to discover such a huge concentration of drug-addicted, brain-injured psychotic people all in one spot... they're very disturbing places.

He obviously got his brain for $2 with the coupon in the Herald Sun.

He obviously got his brain for $2 with the coupon in the Herald Sun.

Obviously you didn't even get the coupon.

Like the Lindt Cafe you mean? If the judiciary had performed none of this (and a million other cases of one sort or another) would have ever happened ...
...The time is long overdue for the courts and governments to stop playing Russian Roulette with community safety.
How many crimes are committed by people on bail or parole? ...  

Regarding Lindt, even if he was in gaol, one day he would be out and probably more angry at a country, media and government which he is convinced is attacking his faith. What’s the crystal ball (shock jocks ) predicting then?

For your prejudicial system to ‘work’, there would be no presumption of innocence, being charged would assume conviction, no judicial discretion as the system would need to assume worst possibilities. Anyone who is charged with speeding, dangerous driving or DUI is a potential threat to other motorist lives. Let’s throw them in goal because death by car is still killing someone.

Although it’s far from perfect I’d hate to live under your alternative however personally comforting it is. Sorry but democracy isn’t meant to be easy. Big Smile

For your prejudicial system to ‘work’, there would be no presumption of innocence, being charged would assume conviction, no judicial discretion as the system would need to assume worst possibilities. Anyone who is charged with speeding, dangerous driving or DUI is a potential threat to other motorist lives. Let’s throw them in goal because death by car is still killing someone.

Although it’s far from perfect I’d hate to live under your alternative however personally comforting it is. Sorry but democracy isn’t meant to be easy. Big Smile

I do agree that we walk a fine line with the judicial system, but in this case he was on parole for attempted murder. The judge cited as a reason for allowing parole that the only person he was a threat to was his dead wife. in other cases, the man who murdered Jill Meagher was on parole and in Sydney the man who was involved in the Police pursuit which ended in the death of a 17 month old child was on parole.

I appreciate that there is a fine line the judiciary has to tread but when the end result of a person being on parole is so lethal in at least these cases then it is reasonable to question things.

Craigw

Do we never learn.
ISIS (whatever) supporter person charged with theft, possession of a gun, threatening police, politicians and the US President by some electronic means or other is out on bail in Victoria.
Magistrate said she could not decide whether he was a threat or not so let him out on bail..............

And in South Australia we recently bailed Keogh... I am a fan to a general extent of the bail system, but that's just not clever.

If the judiciary granting bail (or parole board granting parole) were liable (criminally and financially) for any major offences by bailees or parolees, the judiciary or parole board would be considerably more circumspect in who they took risks with!

In this country, the judiciary and legal fraternity is the only institution that can be completely and utterly negligent, with fatal and life destroying outcomes and be totally immune from any consequences, including any public repercussions, as they are unelected and totally unaccountable, to the extent of refusing to enact and enforce laws legislated by our democratic parliament (as is their job) claiming "judicial separation" gives them some form of status and power above the law (which I don't think is intended). Hence the legal system may not be corrupt in the traditional financial bribery sense, but morally, the Australian legal system would be one of the most corrupt in the world.

You want a corrupt judiciary - elect them.

The legal system we have is not perfect, but it's pretty good.

Electing your legal representation is not a great way to run a system. In Australia we run cases to get the right outcome, not to be popular. Leave the glorified popularity contests to the pollies and leave running the judiciary to those eminently qualified and suited to the roles.

The Australian legal fraternity is not above the law, but they are separated from the state, and that's necessary, otherwise we have people trying to be popular forcing cases that shouldn't be taken. - Not all cases should be taken, and that is why sometimes a case will be nolle prosequi, others are 'dropped'.

Agreed, Aaron.  It may not be perfect. but no man-made system is. The parole mob needs a bit of smartening up, and a few judges need to take "priors" into account when passing sentence.  But; heaven forbid that we start electing judges; we could end up with something like America. One of the world's greatest oxymorons is "American Justice System".

As Martin Place showed the police are capable. They were restrained until the first shot made intervention automatic. That's what we do.

Capable? The police have blood on their hands. They should have taken him out the first opportunity they got (and I'd be very surprised if they didn't have several).

I'd also like to mention that most of the hostages were gutless. That crowd of people could have easily overpowered one "man". But not only did they choose not to do that, men ran off and left women inside. Pathetic.

Capable? The police have blood on their hands. They should have taken him out the first opportunity they got (and I'd be very surprised if they didn't have several).

I'd also like to mention that most of the hostages were gutless. That crowd of people could have easily overpowered one "man". But not only did they choose not to do that, men ran off and left women inside. Pathetic.

You may have the $2, but do you have the coupon?

You want a corrupt judiciary - elect them.

The legal system we have is not perfect, but it's pretty good.

Electing your legal representation is not a great way to run a system. In Australia we run cases to get the right outcome, not to be popular. Leave the glorified popularity contests to the pollies and leave running the judiciary to those eminently qualified and suited to the roles.

The Australian legal fraternity is not above the law, but they are separated from the state, and that's necessary, otherwise we have people trying to be popular forcing cases that shouldn't be taken. - Not all cases should be taken, and that is why sometimes a case will be nolle prosequi, others are 'dropped'.

An elected judiciary is an accountable judiciary. Any corruption from that is a corruption of the electoral process. An elected judiciary is accountable in that repeated unjust rulings and judicial negligence can be punished by loss of position. What is the consequences now to a judge found making unjust rulings? A successful appeal, may "fix" the screw up, but what is the consequence to the judge? Nothing. What does it take for an incompetent judge to be sacked? The Gov't can't as far as I know. Maybe only the legal fraternity itself can, but their first instinct is to protect their own.

Of course those involved in our present legal system would claim it is perfectly fine - perfectly natural to defend their corrupt and unaccountable self-interest!

Who defines the "right outcomes"? The legal fraternity of course! If the "right outcomes" are not popular, are they "right"? Well I suppose the legal fraternity arrogantly assume they know better than anyone else, so in their view they are and stuff everyone else, especially the victims of crime!

How can a legal system that takes an invariably hard line on financial crime (substantial jail in many cases) yet a sickeningly soft touch on violent crime (suspended sentences, minimal jail terms) be considered anything other than  complicent as virtual accessories in many of the criminal outrages in the country? (Meagher, Monis, etc.)

The justice system has shown time and again that it isn't capable of identifying who is dangerous and who isn't.

Jill Meagher's killer - Adrian Bayley - had been raping prostitutes in and around St Kilda in the late 1990's but that situation was not taken seriously by the police who didn't think crimes against working girls warranted a lot of their time. If it wasn't for the actions of a couple of social workers counselling prostitutes who put political pressure on the police to solve the crime, Adrian Bailey might never have been caught and sentenced in 2000 and probably would have killed a victim earlier.

Because Bayley had shown remorse and had successfully completed his sex offender rehabilitation programmes, he wasn't considered as much of a danger and got parole fairly easily. In retrospect it shows just how easy it was for a psychopath like him to fake his way through that program; so you have to ask the question what value do those programs have if they can't identify who is at risk of re-offending.

An elected judiciary is an accountable judiciary. Any corruption from that is a corruption of the electoral process. An elected judiciary is accountable in that repeated unjust rulings and judicial negligence can be punished by loss of position.

Yes, of course. Put the ability to elect judges in the hands of the moronic public who have no idea what they are voting on. As has already been said, this is one of the more ludicrous parts of the American legal system, we don't want that here.

Capable? The police have blood on their hands. They should have taken him out the first opportunity they got (and I'd be very surprised if they didn't have several).

I'd also like to mention that most of the hostages were gutless. That crowd of people could have easily overpowered one "man". But not only did they choose not to do that, men ran off and left women inside. Pathetic.

You are a dangerous person!

In situations like this the first aim is always a peaceful outcome, the safety of everyone involved is always the top priority. If you had been reading this thread and watched the hundreds of hours of tv devoted to it you would know the reason the police didn't take him out straightaway was because the faux sheikh was claiming to have a bomb in his backpack and had rigged the place with explosives. Suppose they capped him because they could and he released a dead man trigger and took out the whole cafe with a few hundred grams of an explosive? You'd feel pretty good about that huh?

I'd like you to go and stand in front of all the hostages and call them gutless to their faces, I reckon their reaction to you might recolour your underwear. They were likely all terrified, I'd like to think I'd stick around and/or funnel the women out first, but suppose the dude with a gun is deliberately taking steps to secure more of the women more securely, after all they are easier for him to manage... My first hope is to never be in a situation like this, if I am, my second hope is that everyone survives, my third hope would be that I could all the women out as early as possible and my fourth hope would be to get myself out of there. What would actually happen in this situation? If the other hopes were not possible, I'd leave by any means available to me asap, and that's the honest truth.

An elected judiciary is an accountable judiciary. Any corruption from that is a corruption of the electoral process. An elected judiciary is accountable in that repeated unjust rulings and judicial negligence can be punished by loss of position. What is the consequences now to a judge found making unjust rulings? A successful appeal, may "fix" the screw up, but what is the consequence to the judge? Nothing. What does it take for an incompetent judge to be sacked? The Gov't can't as far as I know. Maybe only the legal fraternity itself can, but their first instinct is to protect their own.

What a load of stuff from a male bovine's backside!

Elections DO NOT generate accountability at the polling booth, governments may get changed from time to time, sitting members may get changed from time to time, but by and large electors in Australia (and around the World incidentally) generally blindly vote along party lines and they have no idea who they're actually even voting for. 99% of Australia have never actually met their elected officials, and 90% of the 1% have never met their official beyond bumping into them at a shopping centre and being handed a flyer usually within about three weeks of polling day. This is not how we want our judges being picked. This is not how we get accountability in courts.

Of course those involved in our present legal system would claim it is perfectly fine - perfectly natural to defend their corrupt and unaccountable self-interest!  

I take issue with this statement too. I would be VERY surprised if you someone involved in our present legal system would claimed it was 'perfectly fine', I'd be surprised if you found any admitted person that would say that.

I can't even be properly bothered replying, cite some cases and I'll see if you can be interesting enough to cause me to look at them and comment.

20/20 hindsight is a truly amazing gift! Yes people on parole kill people. People who had driving offences kill people.

Either teach the judiciary how to predict the future with certainty or lock up anyone who may commit a crime and never let them out. So simple

Back to Martin Place and reflecting on the terrorist assaults in France.

What was this guys plan? Did he have an end game? Why didn’t he start throwing bodies out straight away? Did he even intend to shot anyone? Who uses a sawn off shot gun when you’re taking a large number of hostages and the police have automatic weapons?
Does this sound like a nutter or what! However traumatic, compared to the events in France calling him a terrorist seems a bit like “me too”.

Regardless anyone who picks up a gun to commit a crime crosses a line and our police (IMHO) acted professionally.

20/20 hindsight is a truly amazing gift! Yes people on parole kill people. People who had driving offences kill people.

Either teach the judiciary how to predict the future with certainty or lock up anyone who may commit a crime and never let them out. So simple

Minority Report.

Groundrelay, don't you think it might be good idea to study a person's prior offences?  Only last week it was reported that a bloke has been sentenced to community work. He had previously been sentenced to community work on no less than four occasions for the same offence. Something seems to be not working.
Nobody expects the judiciary to predict the future, but taking considerably more note of the past would be a good start.

I am yet to be convinced that a person's past transgressions should be considered when punishing for current ones. We convict and sentence on the basis of the deeds currently before the court. Having fulfilled the penal phase of prior cases is having paid the debt, I don't see a need to re punish for an already punished thing. It's a variation of the so called 'double jeopardy' thing for me.

A bank will charge you a flat fee each month for a missed credit card payment, they don't say 'Oh two months you didn't pay either, you've not learnt your lesson, now you have to pay the standard fee plus some arbitrary extra percentage'.

I am yet to be convinced that a person's past transgressions should be considered when punishing for current ones. We convict and sentence on the basis of the deeds currently before the court. Having fulfilled the penal phase of prior cases is having paid the debt, I don't see a need to re punish for an already punished thing. It's a variation of the so called 'double jeopardy' thing for me.

I tend to agree with one exception. If a person is a repeat offender, then the punishment should be incremental. I believe its California that has 3 strikes and your out. This I think is fair. At some point mistermeaners need jail time as a wake up call anf to protect society.

Same applies to juveniles, just because they are sub 18yrs doesn't mean the rest of us should put up with their ongoing repetitive disrespect for society. Casting my mind back to my teenage years I think these guys are less likely to learn if they are repeat offenders. Jail for minors is probably not the right place, but work farm or similar is.

There was a time when the option of joining the army may have kept you out of prison. Not sure if the army is a suitable place to be a dumping ground for societies misfits, but I support options for those who want to try.

Groundrelay, don't you think it might be good idea to study a person's prior offences?  Only last week it was reported that a bloke has been sentenced to community work. He had previously been sentenced to community work on no less than four occasions for the same offence. Something seems to be not working.
Nobody expects the judiciary to predict the future, but taking considerably more note of the past would be a good start.

Like it or not, we have to trust our Judges and their discretion. They'll get it wrong probably more often than right. So be it -
we're not an authoritarian country where trials are merely for show.

As for all this Martin Place hindsight, if the FBI acted on all the threats against JFK, would they have stopped Oswald?

But was Oswald the actual killer though or the scapegoat that was going to take the blame! This question cannot be answered now because Jack Ruby shot him. Most probably to silence him from dobbing in those that did shoot JFK. No conspiracy theories here though the shots were too close together to be from the rifle Oswald had, not even a expert marksman could do it this has been proved!

But was Oswald the actual killer though or the scapegoat that was going to take the blame! This question cannot be answered now because Jack Ruby shot him. Most probably to silence him from dobbing in those that did shoot JFK. No conspiracy theories here though the shots were too close together to be from the rifle Oswald had, not even a expert marksman could do it this has been proved!

I think you've been reading too many conspiracy theories. What's an expert marksman? Expert in shooting is the rank above sharpshooter and that is the rank above marksman. Oswald qualified as... Sharpshooter, above marksman, presumably expert marksman is only the best marksman.

That is all moot, you are presuming the marksmen testing the quick reload time had practiced and practiced and practiced and practiced as much as LHO had in order to get the shots off quick. Human factors are an interesting 'science', and they're not always repeatable, humans can do some pretty amazing stuff when they absolutely have to, but can't do it again when there is less importance and impetus on the task.