It keeps getting worse

[Jerry_Atrick]

I thought Spotlight was a haberdashery chain.. I guess there is a show there as well.

 

I know some people here feel aggrieved with the justice system, and it may well be justified (pardon the pun).  

 

But a "couple" of things:

• There are many components to the "justice" system. @red750 - what you are mainly complaining about is the policing - and it is probably without the full pictue. For example, Why is only 15 of the 350 Australian contacts only being followed up. Is it manpower? Have many moved to another country? Have any since died? Have any already been nabbed and brought to justice? A cavlier statement that only 15 of the 350 on the phone are being actively followed up is pretty meaningless without any context?
• In criminal law, the well established jurisprudence is that a person is innocent until found guilty in a court of law. Your statement he was arreested, charged, and released on a suspended sentence does not make sense. A suspended sentence would imply he has already gone to court and been convicted, and the sentence was suspended. But this was not at least echoed in your text. Assuming it is the report of Spotlight, that would seem very inaccurate. It may be that he has been released on parole.. But, if he has been convicted, he would be added to the NSW Child Protection Register, where a whole lot of protections lick in (I would have to do the research). I think it makes it untenable for the assailant to live in his original area, but would have to double check. If he is on parole, this would have been subject to an application to a magistrate at a local court. If the police or the DPP think the accused is a danger, they will present their case, and the defence will obviously present theirs. The magistrate, if satisfied that defendant is a danger will remand the defendant into custody awaiting tial. 
• The criminal law is designed to make it harder for the prosecution than the defence. This is to ensure there are inbuilt protections from state overreach and infringment on rights. While in this case, it is hard to see where that is justified, while there are still grave miscarriages of justice (wasn't there one recently), as a whole, it is considered more desirable than not. 
• Most of the justice is dispended in the court - not the police. As this is an indictable offence, it woulf have most likely gone to the district court of NSW; If it is serious enough and it was in the public interest/required declaration of law that was ambiguous and important enough, it may have gone straight to the Supreme court. If there was enough publicity that it would risk a fair trial based on likelihood of most potential jurors being tainted by publicity, then it owuld have neen heard by judges - otherwise a jury - 12 ordinary citzens - would hear the case. I would suggest that this case would have got quite some publicity across Australia, given the nature of the media.
• One of the facets of our legal system is it is adversarial - and the outcome can hinge just as much on the competency and skill/panache of the representatives as the law themselves. So, yes, this can produce some perverse results, but that is what appeals are for. Of course, the law is expensive and not really within the remit of the average person, to be honest. 

 

Everyone in the justice/judiciary system make mistakes. But, generally, at least with regards to criminal conduct, it is largely a lot better than it has been. I am not sure if this is the right video as I haven't watched it, but there is a short with Neil Degrasse Tyson where the studies show every year that people feel more insecure, more scared and more worried about being victims of crime, despite crime being a falling trend for decades. This is because the MSM (and SM) go more and more for the outrage to get viewers. Apparently, it is wired in our brain to be more converned about potential threats than nlife being great.

 

[old man emu]

10 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Your statement he was arreested, charged, and released on a suspended sentence does not make sense. A suspended sentence would imply he has already gone to court and been convicted, and the sentence was suspended.

That is obviously a journalist's mistake. I have no doubt that the person was released from custody on bail to appear in Court at a later date for the matter to be dealt with to see if the evidence would lead to a conviction. If the alleged offence was proved on the evidence, then a sentence would be imposed, and I don't think that, in matters such as these, such a sentence would be suspended.

[red750]

You can watch the program on 7plus.com.au and make up your own mind, The disgusting creep should be locked up, not roaming the street near young kiddies.

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, red750 said:

You can watch the program on 7plus.com.au and make up your own mind, The disgusting creep should be locked up, not roaming the street near young kiddies.

Red,

My post above was simply to correct what seems to have been a journalist's mistake, in saying that the preson had received a suspended sentence. Obviously the journalist has no knowledge of the initial stages of a prosecution after charging, and the laws by which a prosecution is carried out. One can readly imagine that the conditions of the bail would be such as to minimise the risk of further offending pending the completion of the prosecution process. The alleged offender might be considered to be a "disgusting crrep", but until convicted, the alleged offender is still considered innocent of the allegation under our system. 

 

The main reasons for refusing bail and requiring an alleged offender to remain in custody are the protection of the community - usually physical protection; prevention of further offending - drug dealers, and risk of flight. The first might not apply in this case, and no doubt the person's activities wuld be closely monitored. The third might no be considered applicable.

[spacesailor]

Australia has a two tier justice system. 

If your rich or higher class a person you get  ' favourable ' treatment front both the police & the court .

It happens all the time . Drunk driving,  gets a smaller fine ,plus a small suspension of licence. 

As seen on TV,

A lower class worker will loose their licence,  then their job . ( no transport ). 

Probably end up on the streets homeless. 

I personally know of two male drivers who ended up homeless  due to loosing their driving licence. Only one was ,' alcohol  ' related, the other fell asleep after  double shift ! .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

RICH Buys you the BEST Lawyers AND maybe the Best Judge if you really have the contracts. Most of the "REST of the WORLD" would be the SAME. IF you want to Know what's really going on "Follow the MONEY TRAIL" . Corruption exist where and when it CAN.  Nev

[red750]

Jacinta Allen has obtained money from China for the Suburban Rail Loop, and is pushing for more money for another rail loop.

 

Yes, public transport infrastructure is important, but selling our sovereignty to a possible enemy is not the way to go about it.

[facthunter]

WE export a LOT to them and buy a lot from them  Do you want THAT stopped?  Trump would. Nev

[nomadpete]

When large amounts of money change hands, there are always strings attached.

 

If China (or anyone else) hand over a big wad of cash, I expect there will be expectations of something to make it worthwhile for them to do so.

 

Our exports to their country are not part of that deal.

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by nomadpete
Added; The Art of the Deal

[facthunter]

Would you Prefer BLACKROCK OR a "DEAL" with TRUSTY TRUMP? Nev

[nomadpete]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

Would you Prefer BLACKROCK OR a "DEAL" with TRUSTY TRUMP? Nev

None of the above are needed

[onetrack]

Jacinta should tell Gina or Clive there's gold under Melbourne, where the tunnels are planned to run, and give the mining rights to them for the ground, and the tunnels will be dug for free!