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.