Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Motorcyclist killer goes to jail

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by MissionMan, Feb 17, 2012.

  1. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...high-speed-crash/story-fn7x8me2-1226273677913

    On the up side, its great to see the offender go to jail but this kind of comment bugs me because its gives people an excuse for this kind of behaviour. I know of plenty of people who were subject to bullying and didn't get stuck into Alcohol and Drug abuse so why should that be a mitigating factor?

    "Judge Gamble said he took into account that as a teenage carpentry apprentice Gallasch was subjected to horrendous bullying that left him with ongoing psychological problems, which led to alcohol and cannabis abuse."
  2. hopefully a few bike riders inside might help him get used to his new accomodations
  3. Goodbye ********.
  4. Prepare your arsehole, sucked in
  5. "Judge Gamble said a police vehicle that had almost caught up with Gallasch was unable to avoid Mr McKean and struck him a glancing blow."

    Take note: If you're unable to avoid something that the car in front of you has fall off, throws, hits, or otherwise interacts with, you're following too closely. Would McKean have lived if the cop hadn't hit him, too? We'll never know, but it's worth thinking about.
  6. Thats a frkin disgusting sentence to a repeat offender whose so much over not just the speed limit but alcohol as well. Cant agree more with the family, how can one life be worth so little!! I hope that prick gets carried out in by the men in white..
    • Like Like x 1
  7. The thing that bugs me about a lot of these sentences is they are based on things like "remorse". To me, this should not be a factor in the sentence, other than a minor factor for those who plead innocent vs guilty.

    The only time the factor should come into play is when they have spent a large portion of their time as a model citizen and should affect whether they qualify for parole.

    To often, the rehabilitation prospects of the offender are given more attention than the actual punishment.
  8. This is what gets me. Getting your license back after one go, fair enough. Second drink driving offense, so so, should get a 5 yr license cancellation minimum. But having a license after 3 drink driving offenses? It's ridiculous, who ever gave this mug back his license the third time should be asked serious questions.
  9. This ****er should have got many more years for his disgraceful actions. 5 Years in jail is not the correct sentence for someone who (from looking at his record) should be in a mental asylum.
  10. I work in a mental asylum and this ****er should not be here. The judge who gave him his sentence should be. And we're told that we must not show contempt for the court system. Bah!
  11. Many people feel genuine remorse when the enormity of their actions finally dawns in on them, those who plead guilty do show remorse, the problem is how do you measure remorse and whether it really is genuine, but to dismiss remorse as trivial is not right either and doesn't sit well with me.
  12. confused.
    obviously there was enough evidence to put him on trial.
    then found guilty.
    5 years ???
    wtf. that's not fair and just. the bloke just killed someones father and husband.
    why does the court hold such contempt for the victims family ???
  13. Driving drunk. 50k's over the limit. Evading police. Serial offender.

    Five years? **** off.

    And I agree with the OP about the judge taking into consideration that he was bullied as a young man. Come on. We've all got problems, but that doesn't mean we're not rational adults who can take responsibility for our actions.
  14. No they are not.

    The law also allows courts to reduce a sentence if a person pleads guilty. If the court gives a discount for this reason, the judge/magistrate
    must state what the penalty would have been without the guilty plea. You also fail to consider ALL factors that must be taken into account
    in sentencing due to a lack of knowledge. Aggravating factors increase the seriousness of the offence whereas mitigating factors lessen the
    defendant’s culpability in the matter.

    S 5. Sentencing guidelines
    S 6AAA. Sentence discount for guilty plea

    See above.

  15. There are plenty of examples. That said, I prefer it if you didn't go on your own personal legal crusade every 5 minutes. Its really annoying and your attitude is extremely condescending. I understand you may have missed out on a career in law but I actually don't care.


    "He said he took into account Poole and Gregory's guilty pleas, their remorse, their co-operation with investigations and the contents of psychological reports."


    "Justice John Byrne said while he had cooperated with authorities since his arrest and had shown remorse, Dede knew his actions were illicit."
  16. Why shouldn't genuine remorse be taken in to account. Surely a sociopath showing no care or remorse for their actions is worse than someone who screwed up and is genuinely sorry for it. The law should not be only punitive but have a human perspective as well, that's why we have juries and judges.
  17. As I said, I don't believe it should be taken into account for sentencing. Its easy to pretend you are sorry or pretend to show remorse. Wouldn't you pretend to be sorry if it meant a sentence reduction for you? I've seen people "show remorse" but won't dob in their mates. If they were that sorry, surely they'd do everything they could to make it right including making sure all the offenders get punished?

    My point is, being sorry isn't good enough. Its when you go to prison and change your life by being a model prisoner that you show how you've changed and that you show you're really sorry.
  18. I take your point, it needs to be genuine remorse. There has been a recent trend towards mandatory sentencing. In my view this is a mistake. A book of rigid rules can not deal with the complexity of the human condition. Judges, prosecution and defense counsel should provide this balance.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. True, but often lawyers manipulate the complexity of the human condition to their advantage. Poor upbringing, drugs, my dad hit me, my mum called me name etc, there is always an excuse even when there isn't an excuse for it.

    If we take the case in point above, how should there be any mitigating circumstances for being caught drink driving 3 times and still killing someone afterwards? Drug and alcohol problem? "Sorry mate, you had 3 chances to learn from your mistake before this, you can't now suddenly show remorse and expect to get a reduced sentence. If you were that remorseful, you would have learnt your lesson already. It shouldn't take killing someone to learn your lesson"
  20. While it's common to the morality of most of us that when a person who has done wrong shows genuine remorse, that we then judge them differently, I certainly am wary of the ability of people, psychologists included, to judge genuine remorse versus 1)being manipulated by a psychologically clever defendant, and 2)versus our tendency to be blinded by cultural norms regarding what displays of emotion equal which internal states. But as usual, the knowledge and practice of those working in the field is a lot more sophisticated than the rest of us, outside of it, might assume. Of course, to counter that, rules and systems in law can be questionable, and they do have a history which, while approximating rather well to common sense, is built on common senses which become sometimes questionable as we expand and deepen our knowledge. Legal practices and rules reflect cultural beliefs, and so they are as questionable as the beliefs of the day are (and in our days, when trends are so theory-based and change so much, things do become rather more questionable).