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.

Yes, it's been said before, but we have to share the road with idiots like this.

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by rc36, Feb 22, 2010.

  1. need harsher penalties.. thats a joke.
  2. And what worries me even more than this is that the idiot will get convicted, have his licence cancelled for a couple of years and he'll be back on the street straight away, driving unlicensed as if nothing had happened.
  3. how can you judge the penalty when it hasn't been issued yet?
  4. not necessarily. Of a vast array of friends who have lost their licenses for vairous misdeeds I can only think of two, maybe three, offhand who were prepared to risk it. One of them got pulled over 5 days before his suspension was over.
  5. lower the speed limits for everyone - increase fines for everyone - get rid of all bikes, make us all cyclists keep Rob happy save the kittens
  6. i just think people would think twice about it if they knew it wasn't just going to be a slap on the wrist.

    at least they are not blaming speed or high powered vehicles yet.
  7. My comment was based solely on anecdotal evidence of the number of drivers pulled over for RBT, defects, various offences, etc who have been found to have been driving whilst already disqualified. I don't know the stats and I certainly can't comment with certainty about the situation in the ACT, but it seems that it is certainly the case in NSW that we are sharing the roads with a much higher proportion of disqualified drivers than what we might otherwise believe.
  8. Well I just think punishments might be better left to a person qualified to interpret the law and evidence, then issue an outcome after a crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If prison terms were unbearable: people wouldn't stop or turn themselves in.

    If fines were unaffordable: people wouldn't pay them.

    Has the death penalty stopped murders happening in Texas?
  9. Actually those who are driving/riding without a licence are more likely to be pulled over because of their behaviour.

    What's come out of the figures from the community policing program here in Victoria is that there may be a higher proportion of motorcyclists unlicenced than there are drivers - many of these are a worry because they fall into the never licenced category - in other words they have had no training in riding on the roads.
  10. This is an open internet forum. He has every right to comment as do you.
    By the way are you saying we should not have juries? They "interpret the law".

    So? Most people don't now anyway. Thats why we have police.
    A prison sentence is meant to be a deterent. It's meant to say you get caught you WILL go to jail. A lot of sentences handed out now are a joke.

    See my statement above. The idea is to deter people.

    To a degree yes. An executed murderer won't kill again.
    As a deterent who knows?
    This is an old old question which neither you nor I can answer.
  11. No they don't. They interpret the facts. When necessary they are instructed in the law by the judge.

  12. They actually make a decision as to guilt or innocence of the accused according to the facts as presented to them by the prosecution.
    They base part of this decision on whether the "proofs" of evidence have been met to the standard required. This requires interpreting or deciding on legal issues.
    Thats how it works in real life.
    Judges instruct the Jury on procedure and how the law is to be applied and if need be the meaning of legal terms
    The only court that strictly speaking "interprets"the law is the High Court.
  13. Have you been on a jury? I can tell you the defence likes to play on the tactic of putting doubt in the juries mind based on stretching definitions to suit their point of view.

    Ever looked up the legal definition of assault? Its actually quite hard to draw a guilty/not guilty decision when you are convinced there was an incident but unsure whether the *exact* actions of a person constitute assault.

    So my experience is that yes, juries have to interpret the "spirit" of the law (or whatever you want to call it).
  14. Lets not forget the inevitable driving under the influence while suspended....
  15. To a degree yes. An executed murderer won't kill again.
    As a deterent who knows?
    This is an old old question which neither you nor I can answer.[/QUOTE]

    Texas is a right to carry state, could be other issues at play there than just pre meditated murder.
  16. Listen you Lefty, Pinko, Communist, you should man-up and start reading the Telegraph like real Australians. Over there you will learn to make gross assumptions and not to question the headline of the Murdoc press as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    Frankly I find you attitude un-Australian. Get an Aussie flag around you and go and bash a Musso. If you don't I'm going to have a talk to ASIO about you.