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.

The Australian legal system is a pie hole.

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by JAAS, Nov 5, 2010.

  1. I wasn't in the courtroom, I didn't hear all the facts of the case, I haven't read the judgement, sentencing isn't easy.

    I'm not convinced justice has failed.

    BTW - there's plenty of research that shows when people DO get ALL the information, they tend not to call for harsher sentencing.
  2. I don't think Jasmin Henley is a failure at all, I see it as (very rare) common sense from a judge!

    Lowering the alcohol limit from 0.08% to 0.05% did not reduce crashes or injuries or deaths because there is no significant impairment until above 0.08%.

    The judge obviously knew this, and it's the reason for low range offenses existing in the first place.

    What it also makes clear is the nonsense that zero BAC is somehow safer than 0.05% when the science simply doesn't support that.

    So be angry about the others but you can let this one slide ok :)
  3. And which legal system would you prefer......
  4. Simple question, simple answer, Sweden’s, it has issues as well, but its better than the one here.
  5. Moved to off topic, no motorcycle content
  6. Not a fan of juries then???
  7. Then you read the follow-ups about Matthew Butcher, and how he was tasering the boy's father who had a pacemaker, and the father was not the main protagonist in the altercation. Hands up who here would not do all that they could to stop someone close to you from being tasered if you knew if it was very likely to result in their death?
  8. Eh? Have a look at the footage again: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...t-but-fined-4000/story-e6frea8c-1111119124173

    The police attend a brawl and attempt to detain those fighting. The officer (Butcher) is trying to arrest one of the protagonists. The father comes in and grabs him from the side and punches him three times to the head. Then turns starts moving around and goes for another officer before being pushed away by his son. As he move in again, Butcher has recovered from the punches and tries to apprehend the father. The father grabs hold of Butcher's shirt pulling him down. Butcher grabs his tazer and uses it. Then is stuck by the son.

    There is no sound to the footage, but for a person with a pace maker, he is moving well, and I doubt he has notified the officer of his problem.

    I accept that the court made it's decision, even though the Prosecutors are looking at an appeal. My issue is the fact that you claim that the father was not a main protagonist, yet you can clearly see him strike Butcher a number of times and then moves towards another officer. It would be great if drunk brawlers conceeded when the police attended but it doesn't happen. They attended and attempted to deal with it.
  9. That video shows from after the earlier incident that sparked it all off.


    Allegedly the father started punching the cops after they started attacking his son. His son was involved in some altercation earlier for which he claims he was not the instigator.

    What is the real truth here? You can always incite someone to react violently and then start filming them...

    Shitty situation all 'round, with tragic consequences.
  10. Robert McLeod should have stood back and let the police do their job, then none of this would have happened. Instead he engaged the police. He could have walked away at any time when he was removed from the altercation but instead returned to attack the police.

    And the defense that taser could cause a heart condition, I am sure his keen intellect mixed with drinks managed to put that together in the few seconds the taser was active.
  11. As somebody who's seen the Australian justice system from the inside for a while, I can tell you it isn't perfect, but it is getting better, and I doubt you'll find many better in other parts of the world. That isn't to say we should all sit back and congratulate ourselves, but we're not doing too bad.

    Churchill once said that one of the key indicators of how enlightened and advanced a society was, was how they treat their prisoners.

    People who advocate harsher sentencing and harsher conditions for prisoners forget that one day those people will be let go, and giving them a perfectly good and justifiable reason to have a chip on their shoulder may not be the smartest thing to do.
  12. I think think the Butcher one is the most most important of them. A jury looked at the evidence and in the end didn't believe the filth.

    If I remember rightly the defence was the cops showed up one of them (I don't think Butcher) was spoiling for a fight and escalated the situation...

    The jury went yep the sounds plausible and acquitted, I think rather than whining the filth should take a long hard look at themselves to work out why when presented the facts by two piss heads and some cops they choose the piss heads???
  13. meh, at least we have a legal system.

    I was pretty content when skaff got 50 years, even though it has been reduced since.
  14. The butcher footage is also edited, because the painters who instigated the fight happened to have a person in the witness protection system amongst them, thus only the jury were shown the complete earlier footage of the start, so as to protect that persons identity
  15. I'll take Edmund Burke over Churchill thanks -
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

    I do however totally agree with the rest of your post.
  16. One where the executive is separate from the judiciary.

    Where justice is according to evidence and truth, not votes, reelection or a bread & circus routine.

    Where the court has a full time reporter who releases exclusive press-releases regarding cases approved by the presiding judge, so f***wit journalists can't get away with inciting idiots with misinformation.

    Where you are innocent until proven guilty, with the right to face your accuser, seek & receive legal advice, and hear all evidence against you.
  17. Fair enough, but Churchill, functional alcoholic and thoroughgoing a*&ehole though he was, was far from stupid when it came to a realistic view of how society functions.
  18. Don't forget bi-polar...
  19. Oh Bonk - you're a man after my own heart.

    There are two ways to handle the court and the press. One is to allow open slather, like the yanks. There are pros and cons, but the system is not fundamentally unfair.

    The other is to shut everybody up like the poms. The court will hear the evidence, then decide, and then the media may say what it likes.

    What happens in Australia, is that the prosecution can say pretty much anything, and be taken at face value by the media, but the defence can't say Jack. About the only upside is that in a high profile case, there's an argument that a fair trial is impossible because the media has whipped up a frenzie. Of course, it can be a slow process to get that taken into account - ask Lindy Chamberlain.

    As I said - I like our system, but it's not perfect, and when you've sat in a cell for a couple of years you start to see a lot of people who have not been well served by it. (Of course, you also see a lot of people who will tell you that, but probably should have been smacked a lot harder.)