Victorian justice system

[lovelyperson]

In light of this, and the upcoming election where this will more than likely be a focus of attention; what are people's thoughts? Is the Victorian justice system (or some parts of it) flawed to the extent that it can't serve its purpose? Or is it fine as it is? Is there too much emphasis being placed on rehabilitating offenders, and not enough on expressing the community's disapproval and punishing, to deter crime? Is it inconsistent in its administration of the law?

Interested to hear people's thoughts about this. Personally, I'm on the fence about it - I'm a firm believer that everyone deserves a second chance, and to be treated as a human being that can thrive to their highest potential, but when is enough is enough?

[The Special One]

Far too soft, why should murderes get a second  chance? Will the person they killed get a second chance at life? And the families of the victim will have the live with what happened for the rest of their life.

I think Murderers, hit and run maniacs, drug dealers should have the maximum sentence

Obviously it's different when people are starving and steal food to survive that's a problem with the system and I don't think it even warrants punishment. No one should be in that situation.

Of course no one is beyond redemption even murderers so while they should be punished in this life if they spent their time in jail repenting, assisting the community and helping others and they truly feel demise for what they've done I think salvation awaits them in the next life.

But until then victims deserve peace of mind knowing doesn't go unpunished.

I also disagree with the decriminalisation of drugs and I think more can be done for prison to be a deterrent. Like having prisoners  do unpaid work in building projects again.

[lovelyperson]

Far too soft, why should murderes get a second  chance? Will the person they killed get a second chance at life? And the families of the victim will have the live with what happened for the rest of their life.

I think Murderers, hit and run maniacs, drug dealers should have the maximum sentence

This is a valid point - an eye for an eye - but should our justice system really be dictated by what is in essence, revenge? Retribution for the victim should play a factor, but should it be the main/only factor?

Obviously it's different when people are starving and steal food to survive that's a problem with the system and I don't think it even warrants punishment. No one should be in that situation.

But what about the people that they steal from? Tbh, I have to disagree with you here - the harsh reality of life isn't proper justification for a crime. Their circumstances should definitely mitigate punishment to a degree, but shouldn't excuse it entirely.

Of course no one is beyond redemption even murderers so while they should be punished in this life if they spent their time in jail repenting, assisting the community and helping others and they truly feel demise for what they've done I think salvation awaits them in the next life.

But until then victims deserve peace of mind knowing doesn't go unpunished.

But isn't this dependent on whether if there is a 'next life', which may differ depending on people's beliefs?

[The Special One]

This is a valid point - an eye for an eye - but should our justice system really be dictated by what is in essence, revenge? Retribution for the victim should play a factor, but should it be the main/only factor?

For the serious crimes yes... how many rapists and murderers  put on parole have killed again?  Is it really an eye for an eye? I'm sure in the case of a murder the family would what the murdered victim back more than anything but it cannot happen which is why I think the next best thing must happen.

I'm concerned by recent left wing ideals and jurisdiction such as the killer of a young female in California walking away scot free

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/30/567625700/jury-in-san-francisco-finds-accused-killer-of-kate-steinle-not-guilty-of-murder


Retribution is important as it's all families have how would you feel if someone killed someone you knew and they were out of jail in 5 years? To enjoy the same freedoms as anyone else while the person you knew would never be back.

I personally view crimes in two categories one is a crime which is a crime wher ethe victim can never again be resorted to the date they were in before whether it's because they are deceased or have permanent brain damage or long term trauma from rape soemehing along those lines.

And the other is a category were the damage doesn't isn't irreversible such as a theft where the victim can be compensated and desired to the state they were in before the crime.

The latter category I think is when culprits should be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society as everyone has the potential to move on from what has happened

With the first category the damage has been its irreversible  and the crime is awful. The culprit must be punished, the crime detected and the victims have retribution Ian's peace of mind knowing the culprit cannot stirke again.

This is just my opinion on the issue as a law student and I know it's such a difficult area to discuss but I genuinely feel sentences are too soft.

[PhoenixxFire]

I'm so indecisive on this. I definitely don't think the criminal justice system, as it currently is, is working well. If it worked we obviously wouldn't have so many reoffenders.

I'm still very against having super harsh punishments though. It's so ridiculous when you see teens being charged as adults and spending the next 10-20 years in jail. Like I get that the victim is (perhaps) permanently affected, but I don't see ruining someone else's life as an effective way to stop this. Especially when the perpetrators are young and can be rehabilitated.

This is sort of unrelated to the justice system, but I think that there needs to be far more effort put in to prevent people offending in the first place, rather than just waiting for them to commit crimes.

In the case you mentioned The Special One, there was no way to prove that it wasn't an accident. The law says that a person must be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and there most certainly was reasonable doubt. All I know about that case is from the article, but my initial impressions are if he intended to hurt lots of people why bring a handgun rather than a more powerful weapon, which would have been fairly easily obtained in the USA? If he intended to hurt her then why? If he intended to hurt anyone then why did the bullet ricochet off the ground?

If we accept that it was an accident, then I don't see any way you can justify imprisoning him. That would effectively be ending his life (although he wouldn't actually be dead) for an accident. Whilst the victims family may miss their daughter, the mans family will also be affected if he was imprisoned.

Assuming all my above assumptions about the case were true (ie. it was an accident), and it was me he killed, I would not want him imprisoned.

Having said that some crimes definitely deserve harsh punishment, but the crimes i think of when i say that are things like child abuse/exploitation/pornography, hit men, repeated offenders of severe crimes, etc.

[The Special One]

Accident or not it shouldn't go unpunished.

[PhoenixxFire]

Accident or not it shouldn't go unpunished.

What purpose would punishing him have?

It wouldn’t deter others.
It wouldn’t stop him reoffending.
It wouldn’t bring their daughter back.

All it would do would ruin another life, and another family.

[vox nihili]

I think there's probably a case to make that some sentences recently have fallen short of community expectations and have certainly seen people who perhaps shouldn't be released into the community released. The idea that the whole system is broken is probably a bit off.

There is a strong case for rethinking our approach to justice. Mechanisms that punish people as a deterrent for crime are only so successful. This is especially the case because the punishment usually involves prison and prison is a breeding ground for crime. Thus, the idea that longer sentences will always lead to reduced crime is flawed. Punishment is effectively a bandaid solution. If someone gets a cut, sure, put a bandaid on it, that's great, but as a concept it's really stupid—we want to prevent the cut (i.e. crime) from happening in the first place. Harsher sentencing just doesn't achieve that to any great effect.

Last point, mandatory sentencing is an overreach by the legislature. It robs the judiciary of its ability to exercise discretion and effectively erodes the power of the judiciary. They also don't work in deterring crime and are extremely costly.

[The Special One]

What purpose would punishing him have?

It wouldn’t deter others.
It wouldn’t stop him reoffending.
It wouldn’t bring their daughter back.

All it would do would ruin another life, and another family.

It would punish the offender and deter others. Why wouldn't it deter anyone?

[PhoenixxFire]

It would punish the offender and deter others. Why wouldn't it deter anyone?

It wouldn't deter anyone because an accident is not a decision. You can be deterred from making a decision, not from an accident. Whilst you may argue that it would deter people who do murder others, there are plenty of other people who have been jailed for murder to act as a deterrent. I also don't see why the offender needs to be punished, as I said above it would do nothing to change his behaviour, which is the point of a punishment.

[The Special One]

It wouldn't deter anyone because an accident is not a decision. You can be deterred from making a decision, not from an accident. Whilst you may argue that it would deter people who do murder others, there are plenty of other people who have been jailed for murder to act as a deterrent. I also don't see why the offender needs to be punished, as I said above it would do nothing to change his behaviour, which is the point of a punishment.

He took a decisio to carry around a gun which is a huge responsibility. If someone is ending up dead because of his actions punishment is warranted any southern state would have thrown the book at him.

[Calebark]

He took a decisio to carry around a gun which is a huge responsibility. If someone is ending up dead because of his actions punishment is warranted any southern state would have thrown the book at him.

Fortunately for him he wasn't in a southern state

[EEEEEEP]

For everyone considering harsh punishments, I recommend you an alternative sort of punishment, which is studied and talked about in law (which I studied as an elective).. It has also been trialled in a few countries and some parts of Aus

This is called “restorative justice", where people are repaired, the harm that they did is fixed, rather than .. an eye for an eye system. While I don't have all the statistics here, countries in which there's a harsh punishment, result in ostracised people and higher levels of reoffending (aka Aus and the US).

In countries like Norway, fewer than 4,000 of the country’s 5 million people  were behind bars and the reoffence rate is low! Some jails are even empty!

I'll also direct you to SWEDEN (https://mic.com/articles/109138/sweden-has-done-for-its-prisoners-what-the-u-s-won-t#.YTMHJWz8b), which has lowered its crime rate since reducing punitive punishments and helping people get better!

Getting people in better shape: "Our role is not to punish. The punishment is the prison sentence: They have been deprived of their freedom. The punishment is that they are with us," Nils Öberg, director-general of Sweden's prison and probation service, told the Guardian in 2014.

The country has closed a number of prisons, and the recidivism rate is around 40%, which is far less than in the U.S. and most European countries.

THIS has also been tested in NSW and some parts of Australia too.

-69% reported that they had achieved their substance use goals six months after completing the program
-67% went on to pursue education and / or employment opportunities
-96% were in stable accommodation six months after completing the program

Interested to hear people's thoughts about this. Personally, I'm on the fence about it - I'm a firm believer that everyone deserves a second chance, and to be treated as a human being that can thrive to their highest potential, but when is enough is enough?

There is no enough. Countries like Norway etc.. have turned repeat murderers into successful members of society!

[spectroscopy]

Firstly an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and is not a good philosophy to have. Secondly I think talking about accidentally killing someone and debating how to punish that is quite far away from. the current issues we are facing in Victoria.

I think the issue is twofold - firstly the reformative programs in Victoria are really ineffective, if they worked then the fact judges funnel kids in that direction wouldn't be an issue. But with the fact it's ineffective in mind, the judges are still way too lenient on 16 and 17 year olds who have been convicted of multiple violent offences over a long period. I know two people whove been in youth detention and have them on Facebook and see shit etc.( They went to my school in year 7 and 8 ) and these guys really chilled out on the shit they were doing once they turned 18 because you start to face real jail time as an adult (by the way these dudes suck and I haven't talked to them in years but I've had them on FB since 2010). I just think it's crazy how 16 and 17 years olds can be caught and convicted of multiple(emphasis on the multiple) home invasions, armed robberies, aggravated assault, and get no significant jail time. I mean that guy literally kicked a cop in the head and had a criminal record too... That shit definitely wasn't a mistake. If you were in Norway with his record and you kicked a cop in the face you'd be in jail by now. Probably even without a record too. It would be a huge huge deterrent to actually punish these people since turning 18 and facing real punishments slows people way down already from my anecdotal experience. Even if the amendments to the crimes act and bail act only took effect for 16 and 17 year olds after their second violent offence, the rates of reoffence would cut down heaps. You don't hear in the news about as many 18+ year olds doing these crimes cos you get hit with 3 years minimum, so they just don't do it as ofren. At least try to do something like Sweden where IN jail they try to reform you. Alot of the types of people you see on the news robbing 7/11s and milk bars aren't just innocent kids who got peer pressured into doing something stupid one time. It's a pissing contest about whose the most hektik in the group. If you know you're not gonna get any real jail time and you have no real career or life goals, then why not go rob a house to show your mates how much of a sick cunt you are? That's how a lot of people think. A good friend of mines house got robbed in Derrimut/deer park and they stole his car and all they took from inside the house were watches and the PlayStation. Didn't look for money jewellery etc they literally took his PlayStation and stole his car and when they eventually got caught by police (they robbed a bunch of milk bars in the area and got caught by cops in the stolen car) all the 16 and 17 year olds had prior violent offences and the police officer who updated my friend on the situation told him that they almost definitely won't be getting jail time. I really think it would be better for the welfare of the youths who do this shit to go to a well run youth correctional facility that educated them, treats any mental disorders, gives them skills, counselling etc then after 3 4 years they get released and if there are no violent crimes in the next year or two out their record gets expunged. If you knew you were facing a guaranteed 3 years minimum for a home invasion if you got caught (and you probably will get caught), alot of these guys wouldn't do it, and the ones who would are gonna think twice about it. That's why you see in the media so many 15-17 year olds getting caught doing these CRAZY violent crimes, because the risk reward ratio is sooo good that it's just worth it to them. I don't believe in punitive punishment just for "justice", but the current half assed efforts to reform kids are shit house and they are still running around fucking with peoples lives.i really like the shit they do in the Scandinavian countries where the punishment is the prison sentence and then during that time they try to help the people instead of mess with them more. I think it's a great idea. But we can't let the stuff go unpunished and unfixed. We gotta pick one eventually.