Thanks: 0
Needs Pictures: 0
Picture(s) thanks: 0
Results 1 to 15 of 66
Thread: The courts are failing us
-
11th September 2014, 10:50 PM #1
The courts are failing us
Today in Australia a NSW man was sentenced to at least 3 years jail for sexting while a Tasmanian man who has four prior convictions for drink driving and was driving a car unlicensed when he hit and killed a cyclist was given a suspended sentence of 4 months prison, 150 hours community service and lost his license for 18 months.
It's ok to kill someone but don't send a picture of your junk... how the hell does that even make sense?It's only a mistake if you don't learn from it.
-
11th September 2014 10:50 PM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Age
- 2010
- Posts
- Many
-
15th September 2014, 01:01 PM #2GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 1,224
Because in my opinion the laws are neither Fair or Just.
-
15th September 2014, 02:29 PM #3
As has been said the "law is an ass" and I think all donkeys should take out a class action for the implied insult.
Hugh
Enough is enough, more than enough is too much.
-
15th September 2014, 02:49 PM #4
I've heard people say that these cases go the way they do because judges and everyone else involved drives cars themselves and can easily see themselves in a situation like this where they might knock a cyclist down and end up in gaol. I don't know about that but I think it does have a fair bit to do with the attitude of the whole system in the country towards cyclists.
Typically in a case like this the guy will have relied on the defence of SMIDSY (sorry mate I didn't see you). Easy to say that you were driving along minding your own business and you didn't even see the cyclist. Very sorry about that but nothing I could have done. I didn't mean it your honour. In some countries, the driver of the car is automatically at fault due to them being in charge of the 2 tonne lump of steel. Not seeing something you subsequently hit is not considered a defence.
Basically the defence comes down to admitting you were in charge of a motor vehicle but not taking due care over where you pointed it. How that gets anybody off anything I will never know, but there you have it.
But check this quote from the sexting article: "Just imagine the outrage of the victims if he wasn't jailed."
Evidently sexting is more outrageous than killing someone.
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
15th September 2014, 04:15 PM #5
its because the sexting was premeditated, planed and executed. The drink driver did it by accident.
-
15th September 2014, 04:16 PM #6
-
15th September 2014, 04:25 PM #7
Sorry I didn't express it very well. It is called strict liability. By 'at fault' I mean that the driver of the car is held responsible for the damage that occurs in a collision unless it can be proven that the cyclist was at fault, in which case they are held responsible for at least 50% of it.
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
15th September 2014, 04:28 PM #8
-
15th September 2014, 04:45 PM #9.
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Perth
- Posts
- 27,814
I notice you chose to reveal the drivers previous record but not the pervert's?
Was this deliberate or accidental ?
-
15th September 2014, 05:04 PM #10
I think the point being made is that the sentence given does not appear to reflect the severity of the situation and the pain and suffering that has been caused to the family of the person who was killed.
The other case is mentioned just to provide an example of situation where a much more severe sentence was given for what, in the scale of things, is an event of far less gravity. Not to detract from the suffering caused by that kind of thing, but I hope we can agree that causing the death of a person is a more serious matter than texting them rude pictures.
So for outside observers, which is what all of us here are, it may appear a bit strange to some of us that someone would go to gaol for three years for that when another person who has killed someone is basically let off.
Now if you want to argue that for this reason or that reason both sentences are appropriate, you'll need to drill down into nitty gritty that you may not have access to, unless you can find a copy of the judgements. Just remember that you are talking about a person's life and the person who killed them has not exactly an unblemished record. What the pervert may or may not have done has no bearing on that."I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
15th September 2014, 05:14 PM #11.
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Perth
- Posts
- 27,814
I agree. I'm not saying either of the sentences are necessarily correct but it looks to me to add emphasis to a point of view, the OP chose to (accidentally or otherwise) reveal the record of one and not the other. If you look up the record of the pervert, the sentence is much closer to the ball park than the OP makes out. I'm not saying the sentence in the other case is right. SO the law to me may in these two cases be just half an ass.
-
15th September 2014, 05:21 PM #12
OK. I can't speak for corbs. I've seen similar comparisons made before, and I just take it as juxtaposition. There's always more to any story than you get in the media. It just seems to me that a person who can repeatedly put others at risk by driving drunk and then winds up killing someone has forfeit their right to be a free member of society. As far as I am concerned he can join the pervert and let them rot.
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
15th September 2014, 09:31 PM #13
I think the two sentences were right but applied to the wrong cases.
I'm a big fan of the concept of strict liability too and that's to apply to all vehicles. The heaviest vehicle in the accident is to be assumed at fault until proven otherwise. Truck V Car, Car V Bike, Bike V Pedestrian. We also need minimum passing distances for cyclists nation wide too. Qld are trialling it now and Tas look like they're getting pretty close as well. I don't think ACT will be far behind and there has been some debate on strict liability here too.
I ride everywhere now with a rear mounted camera and just picked up another which I will either put on my helmet or handlebars. There are too many a$$holes out there to not protect myself.
kill_with_gun_vs_car_col_fade.jpgIt's only a mistake if you don't learn from it.
-
15th September 2014, 09:47 PM #14.
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Perth
- Posts
- 27,814
-
15th September 2014, 10:53 PM #15
Do you know the pervs record? How about we look at the two cases without the history then...
Case 1: Perv uses carrier service for sexting (assuming without permission) - At least 3 years jail
Case 2: Unlicensed driver not operating his vehicle safely for the conditions hits and kills a cyclist - 150 hours community service and loses his license 18 months.
The history is irrelevant, the sentences are terrible.It's only a mistake if you don't learn from it.
Similar Threads
-
Failing Vision
By beer4all in forum WELDINGReplies: 6Last Post: 15th October 2013, 01:26 AM -
A question regarding failing vision
By Grandad-5 in forum WELDINGReplies: 30Last Post: 29th July 2011, 12:57 AM -
Failing CA
By brendan stemp in forum WOODTURNING - GENERALReplies: 21Last Post: 6th July 2011, 01:56 PM -
Delta saw failing
By Treecycle in forum TABLE SAWS & COMBINATIONSReplies: 0Last Post: 29th October 2009, 10:01 PM -
Eye Sight Failing...Getting Old
By stevew in forum METALWORK FORUMReplies: 7Last Post: 10th December 2006, 09:32 PM