Aus - Bill to combat brawl deaths sets blood-alcohol level at .15 for 'intoxication'

Mandatory sentencing for alcohol violence could overcrowd prisons



NSW prisons are close to capacity, and lack the 5 per cent ''ideal buffer'' that the prisons chief has said is needed to avoid ''hot bedding'' and increased assaults.

Yes be we have a BALLOONING problem with violence... Don't we? I mean that's what we read about day after day in the newspapers, who cares if the statistics say precisely the opposite? This is the post-truth future we facts are like feelings, if I feel that violence is going up then it is an absolute imperative that we react with draconian new laws that will put even more pressure on an overstretched prison system. And future consequences be damned, I'm having feelings now and any consequences of that are future bit_pattern's problem
 
The law isn't "the ghetto" - there are many instances where causing a death is categorised according to intent. Should we just get rid of manslaughter from the criminal statutes then?

One Thousand Words said:
[video=youtube_share;K8E_zMLCRNg]http://youtu.be/K8E_zMLCRNg[/video]

tumbleweed-gif.gif
 
Outside the remit of the forum, I know, but if anyone thinks conservative state government's AREN'T goosesteping Australia down the road of complete totalitarianism :|

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/fitzgerald-crooke-queensland/5230272

Abuse of power does nothing to protect us
By Crooke and Fitzgerald

Under the new legislation, courts are required to impose grossly disproportionate sentences on "bikies" who are convicted.

Politicians who cynically misuse the power of the state for personal or political benefit are a far greater threat to democracy than criminals, even organised gangs, write Gary W Crooke and Tony Fitzgerald, who were responsible for the Fitzgerald Inquiry.

Almost all politicians, even those who care only for ideology and power and who regard both democracy and "ordinary people" with contempt, claim to represent and speak for those "ordinary people".

Politicians also commonly manipulate and exploit the same "ordinary people". Long-established tactics include populist propaganda; appeals to ignorance, emotion, fear and prejudice; untestable claims to know, and unachievable promises to provide, what "ordinary people" want; lies; half-truths; omissions; and distractions. Unpopular groups are demonised and used as scapegoats. Crises are manufactured and exaggerated and used to justify immediate action and increased state power. Deliberation and rational discussion are scorned. Critics, including moderate, thoughtful people and institutions, are falsely accused of weakness, elitism, not understanding or caring about "ordinary people", failing in their duty and even improper conduct.

"Law and order" is a favourite issue for ambitious Queensland politicians seeking publicity and political advantage. The community wants to be safe, and is understandably angry at violent thugs, organised criminal gangs, the sexual abuse of children, murder, rape and a wide range of other anti-social behaviours. A perceived "law and order" crisis allows a government to bolster its electoral support through tough talk, a feigned macho image and extreme laws.

Queensland's political system facilitates this misuse of power. Its Parliament is based on the old, flawed Westminster model but, unlike Westminster and the other Australian jurisdictions, it has no second "review" chamber to inhibit the government of the day. The Government has almost unlimited power to make whatever laws it chooses. As Queenslanders know from bitter experience, it can even enact electoral laws which favour it and enable it to extend its time in power. Indeed, according to media reports, changes to the electoral system for the Government's benefit are in the background of its present multi-faceted faux law and order crisis.

A few months ago, the imminent release of a paedophile led to the Government enacting ss 3 and 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Act 2013, which were patently invalid. At about the same time, a well-publicised "bikie" brawl on the Gold Coast provided the Government with a "bikie" crisis. Outlaw bikies and other organised crime groups have been around for years and such statistics as are publicly available suggest that bikie gangs are involved in less than 1 per cent of Gold Coast crime. Nonetheless, that brawl was used to justify ill-considered, rushed, badly drafted and inevitably controversial legislation targeting bikies. Over the same period, the Government transformed the Crime and Misconduct Commission from a watchdog to a lapdog and peremptorily sacked the independent Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee.

A Queensland Government can declare almost any conduct and any group illegal; set aside fundamental expectations such as presumption of innocence, fair trial and proof beyond reasonable doubt; and impose almost any penalty for breach. However, organised crime, which is a major international problem, won't be eradicated by local political vigilantes fantasising about "Dirty Harry" or enacting extreme laws which ignore evidence, experience and expertise; endorse anecdote-based ignorance and mindless fundamentalism; and oblige courts to act unfairly. Our criminal justice system, which has been carefully developed over many generations, balances the interest of the individual and the state and protects "ordinary people" against the exercise of arbitrary power by the state. Its principles are a cornerstone of our democracy and serve to distinguish our society from a totalitarian regime. Unjust laws are a particular concern for the judiciary which must enforce them. Lectures about the duty of other judges from ambitious junior judges whose decisions are liable to be over-ruled are presumptuous and divisive. No doubt South African judges were similarly reminded of their obligation to enforce apartheid laws. Respect for the courts is inevitably diminished if courts are instruments of state injustice.

Two of the objections that are raised to the bikie legislation are that it restricts the power of courts to grant bail to "bikies" who are charged, with those refused bail remanded in custody until they are tried and perhaps acquitted, and requires courts to impose grossly disproportionate sentences, in some circumstances an additional 25 years imprisonment, on "bikies" who are convicted. Worse, "bikies" remanded in custody pending trial who might be acquitted and bikies who have been convicted and sentenced to long periods of imprisonment can be routinely locked in their cells in solitary confinement for 22 hours a day based on untested information supplied by police to the Corrective Services Department, even if they have done nothing while incarcerated which constitutes any threat to anyone. As an eminent Supreme Court judge, Justice Applegarth, recently noted, it's widely acknowledged that solitary confinement is seriously harmful to mental health. The United Nations has called for the abolition of solitary confinement, which its Human Rights Committee describes as "a harsh penalty with serious psychological consequences and .. justifiable only in case of urgent need" and, except in exceptional circumstances and for limited periods, inconsistent with article 10 (1) of the the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory.

Having observed that its frequently deceptive bluster and boasting has increased, not dispelled, public disquiet about its law and order blitzkrieg, the government now proposes a public relations campaign paid for with public money. The purpose, according to the Premier, is to persuade Queenslanders that they have nothing to fear - that is to say nothing to fear from their own Government, a far from reassuring message. The Government obviously accepts that, although simply telling the public the truth wouldn't cost any money, it won't reassure the public and so "spin" is needed. It has not explained why, instead of wasting public money, it does not communicate its essential message by merely adopting the title of Joh Bjelke-Petersen's Memoirs, "Don't you worry about that", as its slogan.

It is incomprehensible that a modern, informed, civilised community like Queensland is unnecessarily imprisoning accused persons in solitary confinement before they have even been tried and unnecessarily incarcerating convicted prisoners in solitary confinement for years. Primitive punishment theories from the past based on the fallacy that state brutality and cruelty will deter crime have long been discredited and abandoned. Harsh departures from fundamental sentencing principles and basic notions of justice which have been developed through the collective wisdom of past generations might encourage unrealistic expectations in some voters but otherwise will do little except erode doctrines which are essential to protect "ordinary people" against the exercise of arbitrary power by the state and serve to distinguish democracies from totalitarian regimes. Arrogant, ill-informed politicians who cynically misuse the power of the state for personal or political benefit are a far greater threat to democracy than criminals, even organised gangs.

Whichever party is in government and whatever its motive, every abuse or misuse of power is profoundly wrong and every injustice in our name affects us all and diminishes us as a society. It's easy to ignore injustice when we're not personally affected, especially if we disapprove of those involved, but history shows that it's also unwise to do so. In a well-known poem, Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller, a German Lutheran pastor and theologian whom the Nazis imprisoned in concentration camps from 1937 to 1945, succinctly summarised the bleakness of popular complacency in the face of injustice to others and subtly reminded us that oppression which starts with an unpopular scapegoat need not stop there.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

Gary W Crooke QC was senior counsel assisting the Fitzgerald Inquiry (1987-89) into Queensland Police corruption. View his full profile here. Tony Fitzgerald AC QC was chair of the Fitzgerald Inquiry. View his full profile here.
 
A planet without militant socialists, unionists or zealous Jews? Where do I sign up?

Australia Über Alles
14.gif


I wonder if you're self-aware enough to understand the Judaic history of Zealotry or whether your use of the phrase is just an unfortunate slip of the tongue?
 
I honestly didn't know what a Jew was until I was about 12yr old. I didn't even have ads on Sunday television either.

The joys of living in a piss ant village under a volcano
 
OK.

OTW - Trolling aside for a moment. This kid just got exonerated by the NSW criminal justice system. Now, if he had been charged unde rhte new laws, he would be facing FIVE YEARS JAIL. Do you think this kid should have been put into jail for FIVE YEARS?

A Sydney court has found police used excessive force against a teenager in a violent arrest at last year's Mardi Gras.

Jamie Jackson Reed, 18, was accused of assaulting two officers but police have withdrawn all charges against him.

Magistrate Michael Barko told Sydney's Downing Centre Local Court that the teenager was "brutalised" by a constable who slammed his head into the pavement.

Charges against the teenager were dropped two weeks ago.

"What should I infer?" Mr Barko said. "That the Commissioner wants no further bad publicity?"

The same officer, Constable Leon Mixios, was the subject of a Police Integrity Commission investigation last year, after a separate incident involving excessive force during an arrest.

Mobile phone video footage of the arrest was shown to the court.

The footage, which was taken by onlookers, appears to show an officer throwing a shirtless man on the ground and stepping on his back.

It went viral online after the incident in March 2013, sparking claims of police brutality.

Mr Reed's lawyer Chris Murphy says his client was awarded legal costs and would consider suing for damages.

"Under new mandatory sentencing laws, the magistrate pointed out he could have faced up to five years' jail," Mr Murphy said.

"Courts tend to believe police officers and that might well have happened to him.

"At 18 years of age in the jail system, his life would have been miserable and different forever.

"He's been under a lot of stress. He's been totally exonerated today."


Police say they are conducting separate internal investigations into the two arrests.

In a statement, they say Constable Mixios is on office duties at Fairfield Local Area Command pending the outcome of the investigations.
 
I have never been mugged or been in a situation where I could be raped either.

Wow. What exactly does being "in a position to be raped" entail?
Sounds like victim-blaming to me...having your head up your arse does not make you immune to rape or any sort of violent crime.

Mandatory sentencing is a coward act.
Makes a mockery of the so-called "justice system".
 
It's more about being aware of your surrounds and not putting yourself in the situation of being punched. How come you don't see as many women getting into fights in kings cross or surfers paradise? I'm not saying it doesn't happen but if alcohol is such an uncontrollable ingredient for violence then surely it would be evenly spread between the sexes who get into trouble.
 
^^ Do you think that kid from Mardis Gras would deserve five years in the slammer?
 
Wow. What exactly does being "in a position to be raped" entail?
Sounds like victim-blaming to me...having your head up your arse does not make you immune to rape or any sort of violent crime.

Mandatory sentencing is a coward act.
Makes a mockery of the so-called "justice system".

Yup. And since when was the law based on how OTW might or might not handle a situation? Fallacies all the way down.
 
On the legal travesty of minimum sentences

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's comforting to know the Shooters Party in NSW supports mandatory sentences for gun offences. It doesn't want guns going off in a dangerous fashion, except possibly in national parks. So the party must have been disappointed at the fizzling of Premier Barry O'Farrell's plan last year that gang members caught with a shooter would get a mandatory minimum prison sentence.

Mandatory sentences are the system whereby politicians rather than judges decide the least amount of prison time for an offender. It has obvious shortcomings, because the Parliament cannot sensitively handcraft the punishment for the peculiarities of every case. Instead, the idea is to treat those truly deserving light-touch punishment as harshly as those deserving severe punishment.

As a policy, it is a block-headed approach to a problem, but probably no more blockheaded than thinking a casino on public land in a hideous building is the economic future for the state. That hasn't stopped mandatory sentencing being floated as the cure-all for a range of crises. When the Cronulla riots were in full flush, the then premier suggested mandatory minimum sentences for anyone who attacked a surf lifesaver.

Former premier Bob Carr was also in love with mandatory sentences. Naturally, the judges were horrified at this proposed incursion onto their patch, and then chief justice Jim Spigelman, now chairman of the ABC, did a good job of persuading the then government that guideline sentencing judgments from the Court of Criminal Appeal were a preferable option.

Until the intoxicated one-punch eight years mandatory minimum burst into life last week, the only other crime that attracted a mandatory sentence was the murder of a police officer, except if the offender is under 18 or cognitively impaired. You can kill other people such as judges, taxi drivers and newspaper editors, and still be sentenced at judicial discretion. The courts are also required to impose life sentences for murder where the level of culpability is so extreme the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through this sentence.

This will soon change, as the O'Farrell government has developed a passion for mandated minimum sentences, particularly for offences where drugs and/or alcohol are involved. There will be nine such offences, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm (two years), reckless grievous bodily harm (four years), assault against police in the execution of their duty (two years), affray (four years); and sexual assault (five years). It could be assumed, although it is not clear, that the aim of this policy is to deter intoxicated or drug-affected people from committing these crimes.

Unfortunately, we don't have any local studies to hand on dealing with the deterrent effect of mandatory sentences. But the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has done work on the deterrent effect of increased fines and penalties on driving offences. Fines go up, but have a limited effect in deterring recidivist offenders. In fact, the longer a driving licence is suspended, the higher the risk of subsequent offending. The bureau said this was a finding ''that runs contrary to deterrence hypotheses''. So on this basis, don't expect any improvement in antisocial behaviour as a result of the new steep increases in on-the-spot fines.

Mandatory sentences, too, are not expected to have a deterrent effect on assaults by drunken or drugged people. The solution is far more layered and complex than anything we could expect from the O'Farrell government and the psychotic bullies of the commercial airwaves.

What is intriguing is that just as the Australian states and territories are rushing to apply one-size-fits-all punishments, the home of mandatory sentencing, the US of A, is scrapping them. The US Senate judiciary committee has recommended the passing of the Smarter Sentencing Act for federal offences. Its aim is to reduce the prison population, reduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences and expand judicial discretion in sentencing. This came out of a committee jointly composed of Tea Party conservatives and Democrat liberals.

US Attorney-General Eric Holder has been urging reforms of mandatory minimum sentences because they have significantly contributed to overcrowding and racial disparities in the prisons. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is operating at nearly 140 per cent capacity and chews up about one-third of the entire Justice Department budget.

The reasons prisons fill up so quickly with this sort of crass law-and-order populism is easy to see. Chief Justice Tom Bathurst, at his annual rallying cry to the legal profession this week, pointed to other problems. What happens when the offender has pleaded guilty and offers assistance to the police? What effect does mandatory sentencing have on juries? Will there be a disincentive for early guilty pleas?

All this hastily scrambled and poorly conceived legislation was rushed through while the sentencing appeal in the Kieran Loveridge case is still pending. That could have been a useful guideline sentencing judgment, but instead we will have a ton of legal pain before the new sentencing laws can be relevantly applied.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/manda...cial-muddle-20140206-324ac.html#ixzz2scRv7uca
 
Top