Don’t ever go round this ladies house for dinner!
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Yeah, forgiveness after that... goddam.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,457
- Location
- Around Town
Dishwasher
Australian prosecutors appealing the sentence (life without the possibility of release for 33 years) for being too lenient.
Wasting public money is what the Victorian government excels at.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,770
- Location
- Auckland
Whose time and money?
One of the most high profile litigations in Australian history and you're going for the "oh but the guv a ment" angle? Welp.
Did you read the BBC article above? She is 50 years old with a minimum 33 year sentence.
Presumably the Australian government.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,770
- Location
- Auckland
Yes. The appeal seems to allow for a longer sentence. One of us may have misunderstood this and if that is me then let me know.
Factually, not presumably and with cause.
No there's no misunderstanding. I don't think such appeal is necessary or even in the public interest.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,770
- Location
- Auckland
Understood. The Prosecutors do think the sentence is "manifestly inadequate" and will be ruled on.
Why is an extension not either of your points?
Manifestly inadequate implies the sentence being over lenient or sufficiently short that it undermines public confidence in the judicial system. Finding a 50 year old guilty by a unanimous decision and jailing her until she is a minimum of 83, should she live that long, is neither of those things.
On top of that, given the current climate of crime in Victoria and the perceived leniency of the bail laws which is leading to repeating violent offenders I'd say efforts to satisfy public confidence in the justice system in this case are misplaced and those resources are better directed elsewhere.
On top of that, given the current climate of crime in Victoria and the perceived leniency of the bail laws which is leading to repeating violent offenders I'd say efforts to satisfy public confidence in the justice system in this case are misplaced and those resources are better directed elsewhere.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,770
- Location
- Auckland
I disagree on your first point - and stated so won't bore you again - but will give you a nod on "given the current climate of crime in Victoria and the perceived leniency of the bail laws which is leading to repeating violent offenders I'd say efforts to satisfy public confidence in the justice system in this case are misplaced". Not easy times, right?
Discrete cases should be read as such, though.
Discrete cases should be read as such, though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,334
- Location
- Woking
I would just like to point out that the title is grammatically incorrect and that I can't believe it's survived this long
But what cause? It may be lenient, I couldn't judge. But what would be the functional result of extending the sentence?
Is the action intended to just make it 'look better'? That seems a weak justification.
Is it to make a difference to the actual impact on this woman? Because given the existing length and her age, that seems unlikely to happen.
It just seems like this is going to take up prosecutor and court time which could be used for something which would make an actual difference.
I think it is more about setting a precedent. Let’s say a 25 year old decides to copy her. Would 30 served before being considered for parole still be an acceptable punishment? Should parole even be an option for someone like that?
Yeah Probably not. Judge showed leniency in this case by giving her a parole option partly due to her age, assume that is the part they appealing against. If she was 25 then likely no parole and then no appeal.