We have just had here in Vic, a court case involving a speeding driver who's actions resulted in the deaths of FIVE people. What was the sentence? 3yrs,3measly years for killing five people.

How long do we have to wait and have more deaths, before mandatory sentencing is introduced for these crimes? Surely it is obvious that those who are administering these penalties have no bloody idea what they are doing? Five lives lost and five families devastated.It's a travesty of justice.

This sentence is blatantly inadequate, bordering on negligence.

I thought he received a sentence of five and a half years. He will be eligible to be considered after three years.

I am sure that if the Director of the DPP feels the sentence is inadequate an appeal will be forthcoming.

I understand the maximum penalty for this offence in Victoria is 10 years.

DMaxer can you explain to me please why they can get out after three years when the sentence is five?. What is the reason for the reduction? It has long since baffled me as to why this is so. Surely if the sentence is five then five years should be served. Hope that you can shed some light on this.

Not knowing the full story but I assume that:

The 5yrs is the total sentence time. 

The 3yrs is the time that they can apply for parole.

Bicyclecamper wrote:

---

Agree should have been 5 life sentences so 125 years, if people were getting that type of sentence, their would be a lot less crime.

---

 While no amount of prison time will bring back the deceased atleast they perpetrators would not be a danger to the community.

Hi Jeff, in my opinion there are some crimes that do not deserve parole. It's a similar situation here in Vic we have teenagers running riot and woke Magistrates giving them bail. We had one little turd who had been bailed seven times only to continue his rampages every time.They use the system in the knowledge that basically, all they will get is a rap over the knuckles

It's a pity that they cannot these days be taken to the rear of the station to have a friendly chat with a big copper and a close look at the telephone book. If they knew that that was on the cards maybe they would think twice and prevent weak magistrates making the wrong decisions

Apologies for going 3deg off course to starboard.

Did you get the nuance in the last sentence Rgren????

I will try Magnarc. When sentencing a defendant, the court has to take into account the maximum sentence for an offence and any mitigating circumstances.

If a person pleads guilty to an offence at the earliest or near earliest opportunity then the intended sentence is discounted. If a person elects to go to trial and is found guilty then the sentence is not increased, the defendant just loses the discount usually allowed. This is one of the fundamentals in sentencing and has been the case for hundreds of years.

When sentencing, the judge is also bound to consider such things as the age or youth of the defendant, his or her criminal record and the likelihood of rehabilitation. A recidivist is costly to a community so rehabilitation of younger offenders is not only front and centre but also a requirement. The younger the offender the more weight is placed on rehabilitation. That has also been the case for hundred of years.

I don't know much about the case in question, only what I read in the news. Given that the maximum sentence is ten years, the court would need to consider how the facts in this case would compare to the worst possible scenario that would attract the whole ten years. The court has to determine the circumstances of the particular dangerous act and equate that to a worst case scenario.

When the head sentence is then determined, the court must allow certain discounts as mentioned above. An early plea usually equates to about 20-25% discount, youth, no prior record and good prospects of rehabilitation could well attract another 10%. This is not at the whim of the court, it is legal principle in the various sentencing legislations of states.

I read that he was sentenced to five and a half  years. Given the discounts the initial sentence would have been somewhere around the 8-9 year mark against a maximum set at 10.

In relation to the non parole period, after a certain percentage has been served,, (in this case three and a half years) the defendant becomes eligible for parole. This is not a given. A parole board chaired by a judge considers whether the defendant is allowed to complete the remainder of his sentence in the community. If granted, there are conditions such as residence, associates, employment and restrictions on alcohol and drugs as well as no offending. Breach parole the board issues a warrant and back inside you go. What steps the defendant has taken to rehabilitate himself whilst inside is also considered. It is not a freebie but an opportunity to rehabilitate and also save the community the costs of incarceration. 

The sentencing is not about what a life is worth but about the wrong committed. Imagine if a carload of escaped criminals was hit by a car coming through a stop sign. That does not decrease the liability or the illegality of what has happened. You are still just as guilty as if car contained the country's most popular people.

The judge can only sentence according to legal principles and the legislation. He can't give life sentences for a crime that attracts 10 years.

It was a very sad and dreadful event. Although it does nothing to help the victims' families, this bloke will carry this with him for the rest of his life. That in itself will be no light burden.

Hope that explains your question.     

No problem at all Magnarc.

The problem with mandatory sentencing is that is places control and sentencing outside the sphere of the courts. If we have a "one size fits all" and a specific penalty is imposed on a defendant with no consideration being allowed for particular circumstances then the law is then placed in the hands of politicians and public servants.

Judges are not fools and have years of experience in the law before being appointed. Every case and every defendant is entitled to have his matter judged and determined on the specific evidence applying to his or her matter and his or her own special circumstances pertaining to the commission of the offence.

Some judges are more lenient than others whilst some are much too severe in their sentences. If a judge is too lenient or too severe the appeals court sorts that out when either the defence or the prosecution appeal.

I think one of the biggest issues with sentencing is that the various state and or federal parliaments don't always move with the times when legislating what some penalties should be. I recall a time when people convicted of murder were out after about 7 -10 years after receiving a life sentence and people convicted of smoking cannabis were getting 6 months. Another issue is when people are convicted of historical offences and given a paltry sentence, not because the courts are weak but because that is what the penalty was at the time the offence was committed all those years ago. Sexual offences against children is a prime example.

No system is perfect and from time to time there are some judicial appointments did not quite meet expectations but overall it is pretty good. Who wants justice North Korea, Iran or Chinese style.

I can understand why Magnarc may have posted this question and it often pops up in general discussions elsewhere.

Thank you Dmaxer for an excellent response.

It is good to have a detailed understanding of just how the sentencing system works.

I have copied your response to keep as a personal reference.

Magnarc wrote:

---

Hi Jeff, in my opinion there are some crimes that do not deserve parole. It's a similar situation here in Vic we have teenagers running riot and woke Magistrates giving them bail. We had one little turd who had been bailed seven times only to continue his rampages every time.They use the system in the knowledge that basically, all they will get is a rap over the knuckles

It's a pity that they cannot these days be taken to the rear of the station to have a friendly chat with a big copper and a close look at the telephone book. If they knew that that was on the cards maybe they would think twice and prevent weak magistrates making the wrong decisions

 

Apologies for going 3deg off course to starboard.

Did you get the nuance in the last sentence Rgren????

-- Edited by Magnarc on Friday 24th of January 2025 01:52:58 PM

---

 I agree with you 1,000%.

The stories I could tell you when I lived in Taree with several aboriginal families living across the road from me.

My simpathies go out to the police. The do all the hard work of collecting evidence only for the courts to dismiss the cases because of some biases/political agenda.

They had better make sure that his "solitary" is water tight.

Jeff-2025 wrote:

---

Magnarc wrote:

---

Hi Jeff, in my opinion there are some crimes that do not deserve parole. It's a similar situation here in Vic we have teenagers running riot and woke Magistrates giving them bail. We had one little turd who had been bailed seven times only to continue his rampages every time.They use the system in the knowledge that basically, all they will get is a rap over the knuckles

It's a pity that they cannot these days be taken to the rear of the station to have a friendly chat with a big copper and a close look at the telephone book. If they knew that that was on the cards maybe they would think twice and prevent weak magistrates making the wrong decisions

 

Apologies for going 3deg off course to starboard.

Did you get the nuance in the last sentence Rgren????

-- Edited by Magnarc on Friday 24th of January 2025 01:52:58 PM

---

 I agree with you 1,000%.

The stories I could tell you when I lived in Taree with several aboriginal families living across the road from me.

My simpathies go out to the police. The do all the hard work of collecting evidence only for the courts to dismiss the cases because of some biases/political agenda.

---

Absolutely correct there Jeff. 

DMaxer wrote:

---

What authority can you quote to support your assertions Aussie. Poor Jeff couldnt. Talk back radio or one of the fruit loops on SKY are not authorities my friend.

---

Unfortunately for your goodself I do not answer to you.

I simply post my opinions. As does Jeff, who also has no need to answer to you. This is not a court room, it is simply those expressing their opinions.

Just like when we vote at an election.

Don't like our point of view, may I suggest you simply ignore our posts rather than having the illusion that what you ask or post is of any interest to us.

Such terms as "fruit loops" is evidence of a very weak response. But maybe it's  another bit of legal jargon   

Cheers Cobber.

DMaxer wrote:

---

What authority can you quote to support your assertions Aussie. Poor Jeff couldnt. Talk back radio or one of the fruit loops on SKY are not authorities my friend.

---

 What an absurd position to take.

People are talking through experience and observation.

The law has never been 'far'. If you have load of money and influence then the sentencing to going to be much lighter that the average Joe.

rgren2 wrote:

---

The wealthier the better legal representation you can afford. The better your chances will be of getting a more favourable result.

---

Well said and very correct.

DMaxer wrote:

---

Well put fellows. Just an opinion not supported by any factual evidence. It is because, duh, cause it just is. Everybody knows, just ask my mate at the pub, he knows.

---

Expected response from Perry Mason, or more than likely Hamilton Burger. Who never won a case 

DMaxer wrote:

---

If what you and your new bestie Jeff say that there is one law for the poor and one for the rich, how do you explain people such as Alan Bond, Terence Lewis, Justice Einfield, Eddie Obeid and numerous other politicians being gaoled for lengthy periods. I think the Aussie Jeff effect may have overtaken Dunning Kruger. What allegedly happened to that motor cyclist was terrible. Poor bloke was just riding his bike. I dont think anyone would defend the actions of those three on this forum or anywhere else. They will have representation when they go to court. If they became ill they would also receive medical treatment. Do you suggest otherwise?

---

Please re read, I will repeat myself, these are opinions, if you don't agree, I couldn't give two knobs of you know what.

Now chill Perry and a bit less of the  Blah, Blah, Blah.

Here's an another one for you to try and convince me otherwise. I would support capital punishment.

Cheers.

There isn't too many Joe Blows that can afford a $1000 (or more)an hour for a slick mouthpiece. I fail to see how anyone can say that the law is for everyone, because it blatantly isn't.