Is Justice Blind or Just Stupid

[katana]

From the out set let me state that I have never been a supporter of pauline Hanson. I'm just using her as an example.

In the last few weeks I have seen some of the strangest things happening in our crime/court descisions.

Pauline is given three years for electoral fraud,something that has been going on in Australian politics for fucking years.( When we worked electoral campaigns it was common practice to go through obituaries and on polling day vote for the recently dead..and also doctor party numbers,I would call that fraud.)

Now she and her budy get three years with no bail. Fair enough they were found guilty of a "crime"

But a couple of weeks ago a bunch of fucked up wankers with their heads totally up their ase beat the shit out of a father and his baby and they get bail. They beat the shit out of him and his baby out of a mistaken identity,one suspects that the guy they are actually after is still on their list to get the shit kicked out of him.

Now who of these two do you think represents a grater danger to the community. Two dick heads with bad ideas or a bunch of dickheads who act on violent behaviours.

Also we have had 2 convicted criminals sue the government for nearly $300 000 and these fuckers have been awarded the money.

One sick fuck sued the hospital system for not locking him up when he was a threat and the other stupid fuck fell out of bed and bumped his head.

Another thing I was reminded of is why do wife beaters get light sentences and the women who kill their abuse bastard husbands get treated like shit.??

What the fuck is happening to our judicial system??????

[pleed]

Gee, you're a bit bitter.

The law has many loop holes that some people will take advantage of.
The guys who bashed the man with his baby were probably released because they could get a maximum of 2 or so years, whereas the cops probably want them for a bigger charge to get them 10 or so years. It's not worth arresting people for every charge.

[dmso12]

Stupid.

[CMYK]

Justice is blind. It has to be. Strip away all the emotion from the attack on the guy with the baby (and concede the possibility that the baby's head injury was caused by the father falling on it, not some malicious intent by the attackers) and what you have is a run-of-the-mill assualt case. Nobody was really badly physically injured. The guy got a cut up face and some bruises but didn't even break a bone. These assaults happen all the time. The judge rightly granted bail to the (alleged) assailants. Forget your tabloid beat ups of the facts.

Read this article by Richard Ackland (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/21/1061434983328.html) for the facts on the insane guy-sues-hospital-system case and this article by the same author (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050604129.html) for the Hanson case. Both make good reading and are penned by a guy with a lot of credibility and insight.

[Movius]

Monday night's Media watch referred to the coverage of Pauline Hanson's trial.

This quote sums up the situation best, "...Four Corners reported years ago that One Nation was set up with only three members, a deliberately bodgy party structure, designed to protect Pauline from challenge..."

Transcripts:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s936545.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s936541.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s936539.htm

[Asmodeus]

Perhaps in teh fraud case, since it was a government and election this "breach of the public trust" (can't think of a better term right now) might carry a stiffer penalty over a run of the mill assault.

[Fuzzy Dice]

they're in entirely different classes.

Any federal crime will warrant a much stiffer penalty than something that is a civil crime (provincial level, state level, that sort of thing) .

Try fucking with the mail. Seriously - if you were to steal a mailbox, and get caught? the fine is at least 10k. Electoral fraud is pretty serious, and when you get down to it, it's almost a more serious offense because of the amount of work that went into trying to pull it off.

Whereas any dickhead can commit assault. And the cops have nothing to do with sentencing. So that jank about letting them off so that the police can catch them doing something heavier to get them a longer sentence? No. That's all the judicial system.

but you're right about some things. A good (read - skilled) lawyer will exploit any loophole he can to get his client off. And a lot of people that should be punished severly slip through the system

[Asmodeus]

I think thats one of the main problems with the system of laws today. THeres so much of it and its so complex, theres tons of loopholes now. Instead of rewriting laws completely, we apply patches here and there to cover the leaks. Much like windows, eh?

[sortius]

just going on the thread title... justice is neither blind nor stupid... justice is there for one purpose and one purpose only:

to keep people without power from doing the stuff people with power do... :grr:

[Maestro]

Pauline Hanson and her co-accused committed a crime that deeply undermines the electoral system. By pretending that the party had 500 members when it had only three, Pauline Hanson's One Nation recieved funding. More importantly, they recieved recognition as a political party. The sentencing judge put it this way:
This fraud was upon the Electoral Commission and, therefore, (went) to the heart of the integrity of the electoral system. 79 candidates were endorsed and the name "One Nation" appear(ed) beside their names on the ballot paper, (and) that's a fraud upon other candidates. That's a fraud upon every elector in those electorates. 11 people were elected based upon that fraud. The balance of power of the ... Parliament could ... have been affected because of the fraud. It seriously undermined public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process ...

Having said that, and having read the judgements, I have a feeling that on appeal the sentence will be reduced. Not because it's unjust, but because of the publicity, and while judges will pretend that they will reach their conclusions on entirely legal grounds, the past 50 years of legal history have revealed that to be a pretense.

As to the reference to the fact that Hanson and Ettridge did not get bail, and the two kids did, they are two totally different situations. Hanson and Ettridge were found guilty, and that judgement must be seen as final. The two guys that bashed the man and his kid are presumed innocent.

[scathing]

Originally posted by katana
Now she and her budy get three years with no bail. Fair enough they were found guilty of a "crime"

But a couple of weeks ago a bunch of fucked up wankers with their heads totally up their ase beat the shit out of a father and his baby and they get bail.

The difference is:

One person has been convicted of a crime. The other has been charged with a crime.

In one case, a person has been found guilty and thus is meant to go to jail. Should someone who is guilty be able to pay their way out of jail?

The other is suspected of a crime, but apparently Australia believes in the "innocent until proven guilty" thing (just so long as you're not driving a car) and so shouldn't be punished until its been demonstrated that they are guilty......

One of these two situations should be eligible for bail. The other shouldn't. (Note, I'm not talking about the crime committed, but their legal status.)