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

Australia, I thought you had balls! Very sad indeed...

Mandatory sentences and zero tolerance laws are fucking bullshit! You can't legislate the cure to all of humanity's ills...People drink, and sometimes violence occurs...Leave sentencing in the hands of the people presiding over each individual case!
 
Look, OTW, I know you went to all of the effort of posting a link to a single case as reported by the tabloid media in order to refute that my argument that tabloid reporting of crime is actually a bigger problem than the crime itself. And I appreciate that, I really do. But as convincing as your anecdotal example is, I really do think it's worth looking at some actual research studies that have been conducted into this very issue - that reporting by tabloid journalism has created the false impression that sentencing is more lenient than it should be.

For example: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.a...inion-versus-public-judgment-about-sentencing

The original Myths and Misconceptions paper was designed to examine both the substantive issues in the area (what we know about public opinion on sentencing) and the methodological issues in this field (how we measure public opinion on sentencing). The ultimate goal of the project was to inform the creation of a suite of methodological tools that could be used to gauge public opinion on the wide range of issues that form the work of the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council.
Key findings from the paper were:
• In the abstract, the public thinks that sentences are too lenient
• In the abstract, people tend to think about violent and repeat offenders when reporting that sentencing is too lenient
• People have very little accurate knowledge of crime and the criminal justice system
• The mass media is the primary source of information on crime and justice issues
• When people are given more information, their levels of punitiveness drop dramatically
• People with previous experiences of crime victimisation are no more punitive than the general community
• People with high levels of fear of crime are more likely to be punitive
• Despite apparent punitiveness, the public favours increasing the use of alternatives to imprisonment
• Despite apparent punitiveness, the public believes that the most effective way to control crime is via programs such as education and parental support, rather than via criminal justice interventions
• Despite apparent punitiveness, public sentencing preferences are actually very similar to those expressed by the judiciary or actually used by the courts
• Despite apparent punitiveness, the public favours rehabilitation over punishment as the primary purpose of sentencing for young offenders, first-time offenders and property offenders
• Despite apparent punitiveness, public support for imprisonment declines when the offender makes restorative gestures
This paper presents a brief review of the research that has been published in this area since the release of the original Myths and Misconceptions paper in 2006.

Or: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.2370070106/abstract
Abstract
Opinion polls report that the pubic is increasingly critical of perceived judicial leniency in sentencing. To examine the degree and pattern of judicial leniency, Illinois judges and laypersons were asked to impose sentences on the same offenders. Contrary to the myth of judicial leniency, the sentences given by laypersons tended to be equal to or less severe than those given by judges. Explanations are offered for the divergence between myth and reality, including the availability heuristic and the impact of biased recall.

Then you get the fact that jurors - who actually are privy to all of the details of the case - tend to feel sentences are too harsh: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/401-420/tandi407.html

Foreword | is a way of investigating the views of members of the public who are as fully informed of the facts of the case and the background of the offender as the judge. Based upon jurors’ responses from 138 trials, the study found that more than half of the jurors surveyed suggested a more lenient sentence than the trial judge imposed. Moreover, when informed of the sentence, 90 percent of jurors said that the judge’s sentence was (very or fairly) appropriate. In contrast, responses to abstract questions about sentencing levels mirrored the results of representative surveys. The results of the study also suggest that providing information to jurors about crime and sentencing may be helpful in addressing misconceptions in these areas.

Replication of this study may be of assistance to policymakers and judges who wish to know what informed members of the public think about sentencing. Portrayals of a punitive public are misleading and calls for harsher punishment largely uninformed.

There is a tonne of this stuff out there. So you can continue believing that the world presented to you by people whose main interest is selling you newspapers, or you can take an evidence based approach and look at the story the data is telling in an objective and dispassionate manner and base your judgement on that - you might actually find the world isn't quite as scary as it's been made out to be.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying that a collection of statistics is more accurate than an example in my own backyard in the last 24hrs? It took me less than 30sec to show you a valid case for tougher sentencing. From the Brisbane Times. I'm pretty sure the ABC reported the same story. The reason my peers should have a say is because it is a democracy and like it or not the majority rules. The mob have spoken, we are sick of a minority of drunks blaming their habit and vices on their antisocial actions. You argue that hese laws don't allow for any mitigating factors, we are arguing that if you are too impaired by alcohol you give up any such excuse.

Watch the video attached to my link and tell me if he is the type of model citizen you want roaming the streets.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national...eet-mall-gunman-final-moments-caught-on-video
 
So you are saying that a collection of statistics is more accurate than an example in my own backyard in the last 24hrs?

Yup. That's precisely what I am saying. Woods and trees, my friend, you cannot see one for the other. That's why we *have* things like statistics, to remove the type of bias you are currently in possession of.

It took me less than 30sec to show you a valid case for tougher sentencing.

How is that "valid"? Because you have feelpionions about it? Because a prosecutor who was miffed at not getting their way said so? Nobody actually got hurt, personally it's my feelpinion that 18 months sounds about right for someone who committed no physical harm and was obviously in a high state of distress at the time. Certainly 8 years would be an extreme overkill.

From the Brisbane Times. I'm pretty sure the ABC reported the same story. The reason my peers should have a say is because it is a democracy and like it or not the majority rules. The mob have spoken, we are sick of a minority of drunks blaming their habit and vices on their antisocial actions. You argue that hese laws don't allow for any mitigating factors, we are arguing that if you are too impaired by alcohol you give up any such excuse.

.15% is "too impaired" now? It's an arbitrary line drawn by reactive politicians, it is not in anyway reflective of reality - as pointed out by the medical professionals in the OP. And anyway, these laws do NOT only apply to intoxication - minimum sentences now exist under the "one punch" law (do you get a lesser sentence if you kill someone with TWO punches, as it stands under the legislation now, yes you do!).

So what happens if you are out with your girlfriend, sober, some drunken grub grabs her arse, starts a fight, punches you, you punch back - not particularly hard - he falls over because he is ratfaced, cracks his head on the gutter and dies as a result of the head injuries. You're in jail for 20 years. Minimum. The judge can't even consider mitigating factors when he sentences you to 20 years. Would you feel that justice had been served in such a scenario?
 
Last edited:
I have drunk for over twenty years and never had the need to throw a punch. It's not how civilised people settle their differences. Pride and jealousy are the only reason someone would start throwing punches over a girl. If I kill someone I deserve the 20 yrs. The other bloke sure as hell doesn't need to die for simply being a dick.
 
I have drunk for over twenty years

Not talking about being drunk, like I said, this law is NOT restricted to people who are drinking - 20 years minimum, stone cold sober, regardless of mitigating circumstances, e.g. self-defence.

and never had the need to throw a punch. It's not how civilised people settle their differences. Pride and jealousy are the only reason someone would start throwing punches over a girl. If I kill someone I deserve the 20 yrs. The other bloke sure as hell doesn't need to die for simply being a dick.

So not even in self-defence? Never, ever? You're telling me you are so bereft of imagination that you can't envisage a scenario where this law could lead to a miscarriage of justice?
 
Never. I have boxed in a ring and know how to jab, duck and weave but I have never thrown a punch because I was pissed off with someone. Quick fists, slow wits. I see the idiots who do and really have no respect for them what so ever. I have never been mugged or been in a situation where I could be raped either. The wankers who fight believe it or not are a very small minority. If we end up locking them all up our prisons won't be over flowing but our streets will be much safer.
 
Never. I have boxed in a ring and know how to jab, duck and weave but I have never thrown a punch because I was pissed off with someone. Quick fists, slow wits. I see the idiots who do and really have no respect for them what so ever. I have never been mugged or been in a situation where I could be rapped either. The wankers who fight believe it or not are a very small minority.

Sure. OK. Well, you're clearly an angel and completely pure of heart, glad we got that straight. But, if we were all as amazing as you we wouldn't even need need laws, right? So, seeing as though not everybody can be quite that awesome, can you envisage a situation where someone else was attacked, they threw a punch in fright, the attacker falls over, bangs their head and dies? Would such an incident deserve a 20 year sentence? Are you 100% certain that these laws couldn't result in a miscarriage of justice whereby someone who was only incidentally responsible for a death are sentenced longer than someone who has wilfully murdered someone?

If we end up locking them all up our prisons won't be over flowing but our streets will be much safer.

More feelpinions or is there some kind of evidence to support this? I'm guessing the former myself but feel free to prove me wrong.
 
It's not being an angel it's not looking for trouble. You make the call to take a risk and have to deal with the consequences if you gamble and lose. Why would you punch someone in the head if you don't want to hurt them? It's not really that much of a surprise if your fight arena is a concrete jungle that someone is going to get hurt. The first rule of any battle is know your enemy. If you want to pick a fight with a stranger be prepared to face someone who can knock you down.

I think 20 yrs for someone else's life is very fair.
 
It's not being an angel it's not looking for trouble. You make the call to take a risk and have to deal with the consequences if you gamble and lose. Why would you punch someone in the head if you don't want to hurt them? It's not really that much of a surprise if your fight arena is a concrete jungle that someone is going to get hurt. The first rule of any battle is know your enemy. If you want to pick a fight with a stranger be prepared to face someone who can knock you down.

I think 20 yrs for someone else's life is very fair.

Hmm, I don't think you're quite getting it - in my scenario the protagonist wasn't starting a fight, he was attacked, frightened by something he never saw coming, he lashes out instinctively (remember, he's not a trained professional like yourself - he's not experienced at holding his nerve under fire), certainly not with any kind of conscious intent, and punches the attacker, who falls over, bangs his head and dies as a result of his injuries.

Does he deserve 20 years jail, exactly the same as someone who has stalked his ex-girlfriend and murdered her in a fit of jealous rage. Are those two scenarios comparable to you? Deserving of the same penalty you think?

Would you also then support simply removing manslaughter from the criminal statute? Make it so that anybody that causes a death, regardless of intent or any other mitigating factor, should simply be tried as though they intentionally murdered someone? I mean, why not? It's exactly what is happening here. Where do you arbitrarily draw the line?
 
Last edited:
Of course he does. Does the other guy deserve to die?

20 yrs is a just sentence. It isn't life but it is severe enough to not only punish but also deter.
 
The whole while that I preach to you about being more tolerant of other people's behavior that you may disagree with, I'm pushing for laws that will imprison the people whose behavior I disagree with...

Why?

My sense of what's right and wrong is superior to everyone else's....

Unsubscribe to thread
 
Of course he does. Does the other guy deserve to die?

20 yrs is a just sentence. It isn't life but it is

Haha. OK, Mr. Personal Responsibility. So, someone who attacks another person on the street, gets punched by the victim in self-defence, hits the ground and kills themselves, is not responsible for their injuries? The responsibility lies with the person who they attacked? Is that REALLY what you want to argue? Because that's the logical extension of what you're proposing here :D
 
Last edited:
How many mods can see Busty's IP? How many accounts does he have?
 
Haha. OK, Mr. Personal Responsibility. So, someone who attacks another person on the street, gets punched by the victim in self-defence, hits the ground and kills themselves, is not responsible for their injuries? The responsibility lies with the person who they attacked? Is that REALLY what you want to argue? Because that's the logical extension of what you're proposing here :D

It takes two people to fight. As soon as you start throwing punches you go on the offensive. Then again I don't live in a ghetto so the rules may different there.

How many mods can see Busty's IP? How many accounts does he have?

Seven or eight. At least ones a junkie, three are women and one who is confused.
 
It takes two people to fight. As soon as you start throwing punches you go on the offensive. Then again I don't live in a ghetto so the rules may different there.

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?
 
Do you remember the mental guy who caused Brisbane mall to be evacuated last year? He held a gun to his head and held the cops at bay for 4-5 hours. He then pointed the gun the police and wanted them to kill him.In the end they shot his hand and arrested him. (If it was America it would have been between his eyes). Caused thousands of people to cower in shops and untold thousands of dollars lost to businesses. Also he had a history of domestic violence.

He was sentenced last week and is due out September on parole after time already served. Are you fucking kidding me? Less than 18months for holding the CBD at ransom with a fucking gun? Not good enough in my and the majority of my peers opinion.



http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...atthew-hillier-sentencing-20140123-31b69.html

Goddamn right between the eyes in the US. If you ever point a gun at law enforcement or at a person whom is licensed to carry in the United States the protocol is at least 3 shots to the chest. You people over there fuck around too much. The fucker wouldn't see another September to look forward to getting out. Pussies!!!!
 
Never. I have boxed in a ring and know how to jab, duck and weave but I have never thrown a punch because I was pissed off with someone. Quick fists, slow wits. I see the idiots who do and really have no respect for them what so ever. I have never been mugged or been in a situation where I could be raped either. The wankers who fight believe it or not are a very small minority. If we end up locking them all up our prisons won't be over flowing but our streets will be much safer.

Never say never the ring is something different than a street or alleyway.It's easy to talk big but it's harder to walk the walk
 
Goddamn right between the eyes in the US. If you ever point a gun at law enforcement or at a person whom is licensed to carry in the United States the protocol is at least 3 shots to the chest. You people over there fuck around too much. The fucker wouldn't see another September to look forward to getting out. Pussies!!!!

I actually have a lot of respect for what the police did that day. It took incredible skill to take that guy down with a combination of non lethal and real bullets. I think they tasered him first and then a sniper actually shot his hand. Much more impressive than some arrests in the States where 4-5 officers unleash a dozen bullets into an already dying corpse like they are Wyatt Earp and his deputies. I'm sure that guys kids appreciate their efforts.
 
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.

As the NSW government prepares to pass laws for nine mandatory prison sentences for violent offences involving alcohol, expected to swell prison numbers, a report has revealed prison use has reached 96.6 per cent, after an unexpected increase in prisoners last year.

When Treasurer Mike Baird shut down three prisons in 2011 to save money, the utilisation rate was 89.8 per cent.

One of those prisons, in Berrima, is being prepared for sale to the tourism market. The Kirkconnell prison is the most likely to be reopened, should demand require it, after being ''mothballed'' in 2011.

The latest Productivity Commission report shows NSW slashed prison spending by almost $100 million last year, and cut spending on criminal courts by $27 million.

The prison population reached a high of 10,071 in the year ending June 30, 2013. More recent Bureau of Crime Statistics data show prisoner numbers have continued to climb, reaching 10,152 last December. NSW prisons have a design capacity of 10,154.

Corrective Services commissioner Peter Severin told a parliamentary inquiry in 2012 that spare capacity of 5 per cent was required as a buffer for the ''effective management of the inmate population'' and high utilisation rates had an adverse effect on assaults.

Prisons need spare capacity for transfers, segregation, protection, and health units, and to ''avoid the need for hot-bedding'', he said.

Adjunct professor with Sydney University's law school, Chris Cunneen, ran the Australian Prisons Project and published a book on its findings last year.

He said if the nine new mandatory sentences removed judicial discretion, as had occurred in the Northern Territory, this would have ''a direct impact on people going to prison''.

Northern Territory prisons are at 119 per cent capacity.

Mr Cunneen said mandatory sentencing in the US led to ''massive increases in the prison population'' but governments were starting to shift away from it to cut costs.

''It had a tremendous effect, with billion-dollar budgets being spent on corrective services, which are now under scrutiny after the global financial crisis,'' he said.

The NSW Attorney-General's Department will seek increased funding in the budget to cover the impact of the alcohol violence reforms, but no estimate has yet been made of how large the funding boost will need to be.

''Should it become apparent that additional costs will be incurred, this will be considered as part of the budget process,'' a spokeswoman for Attorney-General Greg Smith said.

NSW spends the least of any state per person on criminal courts, after cutting 22 judicial officers last year.

Magistrate positions were the worst hit, with 19 jobs lost, or 17 per cent of positions.

NSW spent $677 million on prisons in 2012-13, compared to $857 million in 2008.

Victoria, which last year introduced a mandatory sentence for gross violence, has budgeted for a 50 per cent increase in prison capacity in the next four years.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mandatory...owd-prisons-20140201-31tx6.html#ixzz2s7FO3dLF
 
Top