Drug sentencing vs. Other Crimes

[angus smart]

Is it just me or does there seem to be some serious issues in the way in which the courts sentence for crimes in this country?

Whilst clearly in the eyes of the wider community drugs are generally frowned upon, it is very rare that they are bought by unwilling consumers. I would argue generally the opposite even. It is not uncommon however for mid-level dealers to get sentences in the 10+ year range.

Then for a a variety of violent/sexual crimes where there is a conscious effort to maliciously cause harm to another human being the sentences (in my opinion) are often severely inadequate. Take for example this disgusting man. Abuses not one but three boys over an extended period of time and gets a likely sentence of 4.5 years.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/developer-in--sydney-child-sex-ring-jailed-20111124-1nw3e.html

Whilst I'm aware that I may be generalising, in my every day reading of the news time and time again this is what I see. Now I'm not necessarily calling for no jail time for drug dealers or anything like that, but just commenting on the apparently disproportionate sentences that seem to be dished out.

I'm just interested to hear other people's opinions on the subject...

 

[bluelighttt]

I have nothing but Good things to say about drug crime sentencing when the crimes are small, like possession of a couple ounces of weed, small scale growing or a couple dozen pills for example. Regarding these sorts of crimes our legal system has far less harsh penalties than most other places. Infact I feel blessed to have grown up here, In a place where cops and our legal justice system in general will always treat you right if they find you to be a good bloke and not just some scumbag.

like watch a couple episodes of Cops for some laughs man

 

[Mr Blonde]

I agree with the OP. It does seem that if sentencing for selling a product that people are willingly buying nets you that much time, intentionally causing harm to another person whether it be assault, sexual assault or a myriad of other crimes should also receive high sentences. I too hate reading about heinous crimes that have received very low sentences, then reading about a drug dealer or importer sentenced to a long stretch in prison.

 

[drug_mentor]

This drives me nuts, I saw last week some bitch pimped her 12 year old daughter out to tens of men (the figure may of been over 100, not 100%) and she only got 10 years! Import a good few kilos of hard drugs and you have a good chance of doing more time than that... Its total bullshit how light they go on assault, rape, sexual abuse, robbery, etc. but then for a high level drug crime they hand out harsh as sentences a lot of the time. I admit you usually have to be fucking with some decent weight before you are going to be looking at one or two decades in the slammer, but it does happen quite often and its CRAZY to me that crimes like rape and manslaughter rarely command such sentences.

 

[Big B]

Interesting thread. I can talk with a little experience here as I have personally served a couple of years for possession with intent going back to the early 2000's.

Even with my past I disagree with a few of the comments already.

To the OP: I don't know any 'street level drug dealer' who has received a sentence of 10+ years. I recall in the media recently Fabian Quaid was sentenced to 17 years with a minimum 10. But he was busted with 44kg of MDMA. That is no street level dealer. However I totally agree with you about rape offences. 4.5 years is pathetic.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...-appeal-convictions-in-wa-20110208-1alh2.html

Mr Blond: Your comment about a product people are willing to buy. You have to remember people who take drugs are willing participants to an illegal activity. However, so are the people who buy, watch and distribute child porn. These people who are involved in this shit who once again are willing participants and in their fucked up sick little minds are doing nothing wrong. Just like how we see smoking a joint and having a line of coke as doing nothing wrong. Yes I can see the difference and people involved in child porn should be locked up for a long long time then get their nuts cut off when they are released as old men.

I'm not saying drug dealers shouldn't go to prison they should just like anyone else who breaks the law. Believe me there are people in prison for being caught driving pissed without a licence and not paying fines. You meet all sorts of people who are in for different reasons.

One thing I will say. Anyone who is a dealer and gets caught knows the rules. They face the possibility of going to jail. Fabian Quaid must have known the risks if he got caught and now he is paying a very big price. I do agree sex pests should be locked up for longer than they get.

Jail is not a place to call home.

 

[Jakeperson]

I bet there are thousands of people in Australia in jail for driving offences.

 

[festivalfun]

I once went to court and simply sat in the stands earlier this year. I watched 2 cases. One was the case of a woman who was being accused of manslaughter. (this was reported in the advertiser only 6 months of so ago). She was addicted to methamphetamine and her supplier had been refusing to sell to her because her addiction was out of control, her solution was to stab her supplier in the face with a screwdriver multiple times. She was facing 8 years imprisonment based on the fact her addiction had forced her to result to murder so she could sustain her addiction. The other case was of a male who was facing 5 years imprisonment for importing methamphetamine with intention to sell. (can't recall the exact amount he had tried to import.)


I obviously couldn't stand up and say anything as I was simply a bystander for these cases but I was absolutely stunned by the fact they were sentencing a woman with more jail time for being addicted to a substance which resulted in the death of a supplier but were sentencing an importer of the substance in question with less of a punishment.

I don't know if I'm just a bit ignorant on the current laws but it made me so angry witnessing 2 cases which literally came one after the other and seemed to have punishments which should have been swapped around!



Edit: I apologise of this post doesn't make much sense, i've drunk a lot of goon and can't seem to say/write exactly what i'm trying to say! Will double check tomorrow with a clear kind and. Correct anything I have failed to not fuck up.

 

[festivalfun]

Shit that last sentence makes not much sense! Goodnight my friends!

 

[Busty St Clare]

It would be a sad day if a murder/manslaughter charge received a lessor sentence.

Better being a drug criminal in Australia than Indonesia, Singapore or even America.

 

[footscrazy]

Mr Blond: Your comment about a product people are willing to buy. You have to remember people who take drugs are willing participants to an illegal activity. However, so are the people who buy, watch and distribute child porn. These people who are involved in this shit who once again are willing participants and in their fucked up sick little minds are doing nothing wrong. Just like how we see smoking a joint and having a line of coke as doing nothing wrong. Yes I can see the difference and people involved in child porn should be locked up for a long long time then get their nuts cut off when they are released as old men.

You say you see the difference but I don't see the value of this analogy on any level. The huge difference between drug users and people involved in child porn is that drug users are choosing to be involved. People involved in child porn are satisfying their desires through the exploitation of kids, who haven't chosen to be involved. Completely different scenario.

I obviously couldn't stand up and say anything as I was simply a bystander for these cases but I was absolutely stunned by the fact they were sentencing a woman with more jail time for being addicted to a substance which resulted in the death of a supplier but were sentencing an importer of the substance in question with less of a punishment.

I find it interesting how you've worded this. Her addiction resulted in the death of a supplier? Her addiction didn't do anything, she did - her addiction may have been the driving force, but she caused the death of her supplier. Lets not hide behind terms like 'addiction' to absolve people from personal responsibility. She killed someone, and I surely wouldn't be calling for a lower sentence for any reason. While I think importing an addictive substance can be morally questionable, any negative consequences that come from people using that substance are ultimately their responsibility, not the importers.

 

[Jakeperson]

^^ Footsy, you don't know that.. the kids probably got lollies.


I agree with the whole addiction thing, I don't think she even deserved manslaughter. She straight out killed him. Wonder what the circumstances were, musta been a bit of a fuckhead dealer if he sold her drugs until she got addicted and then refused her any. Things would have worked out better for every one if he said something earlier than that.

 

[Mr Blonde]

^^ Footsy, you don't know that.. the kids probably got lollies.

Ha ha, Jake you are a funny motherfucker. :D

I get off on the most inappropriate humor. If people heard some of the jokes I make to friends they'd think I was the most racist, bigoted, sexist person on the planet.

You say you see the difference but I don't see the value of this analogy on any level. The huge difference between drug users and people involved in child porn is that drug users are choosing to be involved. People involved in child porn are satisfying their desires through the exploitation of kids, who haven't chosen to be involved. Completely different scenario.

You've said what I wanted to say. People who buy/view child porn are actively watching and de facto supporting the abuse of another human being. People who buy drugs know they are taking part in a crime, but the only person whose suffering they are supporting are themselves. You could make the argument that proceeds of crime often go to gangs with reputations for violence, but this is because the system has been created by the Government to be like this; with child porn, there is no getting around the fact that a child is being horribly abused.

I find it interesting how you've worded this. Her addiction resulted in the death of a supplier? Her addiction didn't do anything, she did - her addiction may have been the driving force, but she caused the death of her supplier. Lets not hide behind terms like 'addiction' to absolve people from personal responsibility. She killed someone, and I surely wouldn't be calling for a lower sentence for any reason. While I think importing an addictive substance can be morally questionable, any negative consequences that come from people using that substance are ultimately their responsibility, not the importers.

Again, you have said what I wanted to say and probably better as I am not really with it this morning. She murdered a man; you can't blame the addiction for that. Maybe if she was psychotic then there would be mitigating circumstances, but the fact that the dealer was trying to help her out and in return she took his life? Absolutely despicable.

 

[mushi mushi 88]

I think you have to take into account the crime caused from a large scale distribution of drugs, if drugs were not around other crime rates would drop and hence a better society would exist... Unfortunately we all know there is big money to be made in manufacturing/distribution of illicit drugs so it will NEVER be abolished.

You also have to think about the people who have died from partaking in the consumption of these drugs; say if you imported 100kg of heroin and it all reached the street, how many people would die from this or need to be admitted to hospital from overdoses...? Okay, so you could argue a drug like heroin should be more prone to larger sentences but take into account drugs like meth and mdma which will effect the user in the future through possible psychological and physical ways.

I do have to agree though that the sentences are sometimes a little bit to much, but if you have the money you can pretty much get away with most things or get drastically minimised sentences... This is all good and fair for the bigger players but the street players usually don't have the coin to pay for a good lawyer/pay off judges etc so get stuck doing around 36 months.

Finally, the law is a tricky one, there are so many loopholes and ways to get certain charges dropped so it comes down to how good of a lawyer you've got and what mood the Judge is in at the time.

 

[Big B]

Footscrazy and Mr Blond: Sorry I'm not very good at explaining myself sometimes. I mean it's the sick fuckers who watch, make and distribute that disgusting material. Of course those kids are getting abused have no say. I agree 100% People involved in child porn are satisfying their desires through the exploitation of kids. As I said I'm not good at explaining myself. Those sick fuckers that watch that shit honestly believe they are doing nothing wrong. Some sex offenders actually try and justify themselves.

Mr Blond: I totally disagree with your comment Quote 'People who buy drugs know they are taking part in a crime, but the only person whose suffering they are supporting are themselves.'

Sorry mate I respectfully disagree. When looking at the big picture there are so many people effected by drugs, not just the consumer. Do you think the poor peasant in Columbia/Bolivia enjoys picking Coca leaves for some cartel who have threatened to kill his children if he does anything else? Do you thing the poor Vietnamese farmer who needs money so badly they agree to smuggle a couple of Kg's of Heroin into Australia? Or that Australian / Vietnamese kid who got hung in Singapore for smuggling Heroin to pay off a gambling debt to drug dealers. What about the poor addict (and I say poor addict, because I genuinely believe they have a sickness) who breaks into someones home or robs some pharmacy worker who now suffers anxiety from when someone held a knife to their throat.

The user may be the only person 'committing the crime' at the time. But think of all the possible people who have been exploited manufacturing that drug, bringing the drug into Australia and how they got their money to buy the drugs.

Sentencing 'big' drug dealers I can't see an issue with. I agree maybe all rape, child abuser, violent offences also need to have there sentences increased.

For christ sake everyone stay safe out there. Don't come into possession of that much drugs that if you get caught you will go to prison. Don't be that person who agrees to buy the gear for everyone before new years in bulk to save cash. If you are the one who gets caught with that 1/2 oz of gear and 30 pills (for example). Well I have some news for you. You will go to prison. Your life goes on hold and you sit there wasting away some years of this short fantastic life. Forever wondering what your missing out on outside. Prison is the last place you want to be. No Freedom = No life.

Work hard/play hard but play safe.

 

[AFA]

I have nothing but Good things to say about drug crime sentencing when the crimes are small, like possession of a couple ounces of weed, small scale growing or a couple dozen pills for example. Regarding these sorts of crimes our legal system has far less harsh penalties than most other places. Infact I feel blessed to have grown up here, In a place where cops and our legal justice system in general will always treat you right if they find you to be a good bloke and not just some scumbag.

like watch a couple episodes of Cops for some laughs man

cannot disagree more with the experiences iv had.

 

[spacejunk]

@festivalfun - i don't think importing drugs is anywhere near as bad as killing someone by stabbing someone in the face with a screwdriver. i'm kinda bothered by the fact that the sentence is only 3 years more for the manslaughter! but obviously i don't have all thedetails.
this idea that you can blame a drug for not only your addiction to it, but your actions whilst on or trying to obtain it can stretch credibility. especially as a legal defence - we are individuals with some degree of free will.

drug smugglers are obviously committing a crime knowingly. often for profit, often with a great deal of criminality involved (fraud etc). not angels, but merely fulfilling a function in the black market that would exist whether or not they personally took part in it. the law dictates that they are warned, punished, 'reformed' or whatever measure of 'justice' is imposed by the legal system if found guilty.
but the face-stabber? obviously a violent, unpredictable and/or dangerous person. someone that is a threat to the safety to the people around her.
now, i'm strongly against the so-called 'war against drugs' so i think people going to jail for drug offences something we need to question and debate as a society. they cause harm and suffering, but so do tobacco and alcohol, so do prescription medicines, so do gambling outlets like the TAB and casinos - all capable of producing addiction and desperation.
violent crimes, on the other hand, are a bit more straightforward. some people are so unable to control their emotional responses or violent urges that they are a danger to the community. simple as that.
they need help - and if they don't get that, and they end up hurting somebody, the current recourse our social structure has is to lock them away.
this may be pointless, counterproductive, brutal but it's how society sets its boundaries.

as for claiming "the drugs/addiction made me do it"? this is a legal defence ploy. i don't know the legal terms, but if you can indicate that you weren't in full control, perhaps you can get a lesser charge or sentence? diminished responsibility. hell, she got charged with manslaughter for a clearly deliberate violent act. a pretty fucking nasty one. she killed a drug dealer, but drug dealers are people too!

blaming methamphetamine plays into the hands of the propagandists, the anti-drug establishment. the same people that say drugs should be illegal because...they make people stab each other in the face with screwdrivers.
saying the drugs made you do something horrific is attempting to deny free will. addictions make you do things you wouldn't otherwise even consider, but we all have choices. remember, correlation is not causation. plenty of meth users don't kill people - in fact, the vast, vast majority of meth heads have never committed a murder.

anyway....i'm pretty much repeating what footsy and blondey have already said, but this really stood out to me. the reasons for different sentences are complicated and contentious and guided mainly by precedents from what i understand. not just the whim of the judge or magistrate residing over the case. but i think the idea is that sentences reflect community standards regarding how serious various offences are. not a simple proposition, but i have very little sympathy for violent criminals when it comes to imprisonment.
people in jail for drug offences are a different story though.

 

[angus smart]

Mr Blond: I totally disagree with your comment Quote 'People who buy drugs know they are taking part in a crime, but the only person whose suffering they are supporting are themselves.'

Sorry mate I respectfully disagree. When looking at the big picture there are so many people effected by drugs, not just the consumer. Do you think the poor peasant in Columbia/Bolivia enjoys picking Coca leaves for some cartel who have threatened to kill his children if he does anything else? Do you thing the poor Vietnamese farmer who needs money so badly they agree to smuggle a couple of Kg's of Heroin into Australia? Or that Australian / Vietnamese kid who got hung in Singapore for smuggling Heroin to pay off a gambling debt to drug dealers. What about the poor addict (and I say poor addict, because I genuinely believe they have a sickness) who breaks into someones home or robs some pharmacy worker who now suffers anxiety from when someone held a knife to their throat.

In all those situations you have listed except the addict, it is not the drugs that is the source of the problem. It is poverty. Unless they are literally held as slaves (which i'm sure happens) people who manufacture drugs like cocaine and heroin at the source couldn't give a rats ass if it was cocaine or cricket bats that they are producing. What they do is driven by a desire to put food on the table, not some need to produce drugs. While no doubt there are so many situations where drug dealers do highly immoral acts, there is nothing inherently immoral in them except for the fact that they are illegal.

 

[Divine Moments]

What about the thousands of people killed each year by drug gangs/cartels? I'd say it's pretty far fetched to not include those in the chain of drug suffering - definitely for cocaine at least.

 

[angus smart]

Oh for sure. I definitely recognise how fucked their behaviour is and am in no way excusing it. I guess it is hard (if not impossible) to separate the violence from the drugs, but this is more to do with drug's illegality rather than the product itself. This violence would not exist without the government prohibitions. It is a climate created by governments, then exploited by criminals as a result. I just think that sometimes people too far removed from the violence/bad shit may be punished excessively, at least compared to other more inherently violent crimes (manslaughter etc.). People use products all the time that have been produced in inhumane conditions (check out the video below), it's just that unfortunately the massive profits made from drugs often bring out the worst in people. Governments highlight this violence as a natural consequence of the drug trade, but neglect to mention the root cause (prohibition).

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia/2011/11/2011112322513549768.html

 

[Divine Moments]

I guess it is hard (if not impossible) to separate the violence from the drugs, but this is more to do with drug's illegality rather than the product itself. This violence would not exist without the government prohibitions. It is a climate created by governments, then exploited by criminals as a result.[/url]

I don't think anyone here will disagree with that. When the most dangerous thing about (some) drugs is simply the fact that they're illegal, something's wrong