What's your take on this whole no conviction rugby thing.

Forums › Sports › What's your take on this whole no conviction rugby thing.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1644487 3-Oct-2016 07:55

MikeB4:
dickytim:

Front page of the Herald this morning a man beat his wife with a hammer and was discharged without conviction because the punishment would have been disproportionate to the crime, however it was over turned and the new judge commented that the first judge did not take into consideration how serious the crime was.

Where is justice for the victim in all this?

The wowsers on here, you know who you are, they are going to bleat about it being revenge and basically no one should go to prison but isn't enough, enough?

Do the crime do the time.

Of course every case is identical and every outcome should be the same.

Try to debate without the insults would be good yes?

Spooky, I just made a similar comment on the Abuse thread!

thinus

34 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1644636 3-Oct-2016 12:03

tdgeek:

dickytim:

Front page of the Herald this morning a man beat his wife with a hammer and was discharged without conviction because the punishment would have been disproportionate to the crime, however it was over turned and the new judge commented that the first judge did not take into consideration how serious the crime was.

Where is justice for the victim in all this?

The wowsers on here, you know who you are, they are going to bleat about it being revenge and basically no one should go to prison but isn't enough, enough?

Do the crime do the time.

Agree, the Heralds article shows a problematic issue with convicting, but the appeal is the check on that. Time could be prison, home detention, or other penalties, but the bottom line is a fair punishment.

What would be interesting is statistics regarding discharges without conviction (especially when there is a guilty plea) and a breakdown of how many is coupled with name suppression as well. Throw in appeals as well so we can get a complete picture.

While I would agree that every case is different, shouldn't a discharge without conviction, especially with a guilty plea, be relatively rare?

It just seems that the system is being abused. The defendant enters a guilty plea, submits as many glowing references as they can get their hands on, offer to pay reparations and promises to undertake some community work just so they can weasel out of a conviction.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1644642 3-Oct-2016 12:11

thinus:

tdgeek:

dickytim:

Front page of the Herald this morning a man beat his wife with a hammer and was discharged without conviction because the punishment would have been disproportionate to the crime, however it was over turned and the new judge commented that the first judge did not take into consideration how serious the crime was.

Where is justice for the victim in all this?

The wowsers on here, you know who you are, they are going to bleat about it being revenge and basically no one should go to prison but isn't enough, enough?

Do the crime do the time.

Agree, the Heralds article shows a problematic issue with convicting, but the appeal is the check on that. Time could be prison, home detention, or other penalties, but the bottom line is a fair punishment.

What would be interesting is statistics regarding discharges without conviction (especially when there is a guilty plea) and a breakdown of how many is coupled with name suppression as well. Throw in appeals as well so we can get a complete picture.

While I would agree that every case is different, shouldn't a discharge without conviction, especially with a guilty plea, be relatively rare?

It just seems that the system is being abused. The defendant enters a guilty plea, submits as many glowing references as they can get their hands on, offer to pay reparations and promises to undertake some community work just so they can weasel out of a conviction.

Right, except that in order to get glowing references one assumes they must be at the base of it, a decent human being. Also reparations are a type of justice too. There are more than 1 way to skin a cat, and whilst I agree they should be relatively rare, I think people have a slightly "too" punitive default setting.

Esp in younger people, I believe it's important to take into account the likelihood of a better long term solution by these alternatives than automatically throw people in prison.

I am big on personal responsibility, but I DO think there are frequently times where people can take responsibility AND still have a good long-term outcome.

On the face of it, I think based on what little information I have, it seems the no conviction thing seems unfortunate in both these cases, esp the guy who attacked another with a HAMMER, but in reality it's not possible to see all the information and conclusions are based on assumptions which isn't ideal.

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#1644649 3-Oct-2016 12:19

Generally speaking, if person commits a violent act, I think a reference of their prior behaviour is still appropriate. It doesn't negate, refute or minimise what they have been convicted of. It is information on the person in a wider context that a judge can take into account.

I look at it this way: If a person has a prior conviction, the judge will take that into account in sentencing. So why not their positive prior behaviour as well? It's up to the judge to decide how much weight to place on such information.

Mike

thinus

34 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1644656 3-Oct-2016 12:28

networkn:

Right, except that in order to get glowing references one assumes they must be at the base of it, a decent human being. Also reparations are a type of justice too. There are more than 1 way to skin a cat, and whilst I agree they should be relatively rare, I think people have a slightly "too" punitive default setting.

Esp in younger people, I believe it's important to take into account the likelihood of a better long term solution by these alternatives than automatically throw people in prison.

I am big on personal responsibility, but I DO think there are frequently times where people can take responsibility AND still have a good long-term outcome.

The alternative is not "automatically throw people in prison". I am talking about a conviction, guilty or not guilty. Punishment is a separate issue. When you commit a crime, you plead guilty to the crime and then the court finds you *not guilty* because the consequences of a conviction would be disproportionate to the crime.

This has very little to do with punishment.

Also, there is the Clean Slate scheme for people who do take personal responsibility and change their behavior:

When the Clean Slate scheme applies

You’re said to have no criminal record (criminal conviction history) if all of the following are true. If you have:

had no convictions within the last 7 years
never been sentenced to a custodial sentence (such as prison, corrective training or borstal)
never been convicted of a sexual offence (‘specified offence’)
fully paid any fine, compensation, reparation or costs ordered by the court in a criminal case
never been banned from driving until further notice (indefinite disqualification)
never been held in hospital by the court in a criminal case instead of being sentenced, due to your mental condition.

So effectively, you have no criminal record if you do not offend for 7 years.

The issue here is that a judge is asked to weigh up the societal cost of a conviction against the severity of the crime. So if a minister starts shoplifting we cannot get a conviction as the societal cost of being convicted would outweigh the severity of the crime by a huge margin. This, to me, is just wrong. If you commit a crime you should be convicted.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1644659 3-Oct-2016 12:34

thinus:

networkn:

Right, except that in order to get glowing references one assumes they must be at the base of it, a decent human being. Also reparations are a type of justice too. There are more than 1 way to skin a cat, and whilst I agree they should be relatively rare, I think people have a slightly "too" punitive default setting.

Esp in younger people, I believe it's important to take into account the likelihood of a better long term solution by these alternatives than automatically throw people in prison.

I am big on personal responsibility, but I DO think there are frequently times where people can take responsibility AND still have a good long-term outcome.

The alternative is not "automatically throw people in prison". I am talking about a conviction, guilty or not guilty. Punishment is a separate issue. When you commit a crime, you plead guilty to the crime and then the court finds you *not guilty* because the consequences of a conviction would be disproportionate to the crime.

This has very little to do with punishment.

Also, there is the Clean Slate scheme for people who do take personal responsibility and change their behavior:

When the Clean Slate scheme applies

You’re said to have no criminal record (criminal conviction history) if all of the following are true. If you have:

had no convictions within the last 7 years
never been sentenced to a custodial sentence (such as prison, corrective training or borstal)
never been convicted of a sexual offence (‘specified offence’)
fully paid any fine, compensation, reparation or costs ordered by the court in a criminal case
never been banned from driving until further notice (indefinite disqualification)
never been held in hospital by the court in a criminal case instead of being sentenced, due to your mental condition.
So effectively, you have no criminal record if you do not offend for 7 years.

The issue here is that a judge is asked to weigh up the societal cost of a conviction against the severity of the crime. So if a minister starts shoplifting we cannot get a conviction as the societal cost of being convicted would outweigh the severity of the crime by a huge margin. This, to me, is just wrong. If you commit a crime you should be convicted.

Yep I see that, and that's a fair comment to make. Having said that I think 7 years is a LONG time, esp when you are young, and it's probably true that the impact is greatest when you are young for many reasons. I think also conviction is a type of punishment and for young people, probably the heaviest of the burdens, given if you were given a custodial sentence it would be for a matter of months, but a criminal conviction would be for life.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1644663 3-Oct-2016 12:38

networkn:

thinus:

tdgeek:

dickytim:

Front page of the Herald this morning a man beat his wife with a hammer and was discharged without conviction because the punishment would have been disproportionate to the crime, however it was over turned and the new judge commented that the first judge did not take into consideration how serious the crime was.

Where is justice for the victim in all this?

The wowsers on here, you know who you are, they are going to bleat about it being revenge and basically no one should go to prison but isn't enough, enough?

Do the crime do the time.

Agree, the Heralds article shows a problematic issue with convicting, but the appeal is the check on that. Time could be prison, home detention, or other penalties, but the bottom line is a fair punishment.

What would be interesting is statistics regarding discharges without conviction (especially when there is a guilty plea) and a breakdown of how many is coupled with name suppression as well. Throw in appeals as well so we can get a complete picture.

While I would agree that every case is different, shouldn't a discharge without conviction, especially with a guilty plea, be relatively rare?

It just seems that the system is being abused. The defendant enters a guilty plea, submits as many glowing references as they can get their hands on, offer to pay reparations and promises to undertake some community work just so they can weasel out of a conviction.

Right, except that in order to get glowing references one assumes they must be at the base of it, a decent human being. Also reparations are a type of justice too. There are more than 1 way to skin a cat, and whilst I agree they should be relatively rare, I think people have a slightly "too" punitive default setting.

Esp in younger people, I believe it's important to take into account the likelihood of a better long term solution by these alternatives than automatically throw people in prison.

I am big on personal responsibility, but I DO think there are frequently times where people can take responsibility AND still have a good long-term outcome.

On the face of it, I think based on what little information I have, it seems the no conviction thing seems unfortunate in both these cases, esp the guy who attacked another with a HAMMER, but in reality it's not possible to see all the information and conclusions are based on assumptions which isn't ideal.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. But getting off seems very widespread, and as quoted here by a poster who I think his wife is in the legal profession.

To me, the line gets drawn between getting drunk and giving a guy a black eye, but this was unprovoked, he wanted a fight, and saw his targets, females included and went after them, and stomped his head, leaving his life in tatters. Thats different. Convict him, then assess everything, including his first offence, but this was vicious. Prison has been mentioned many times, maybe that is or isn't the sentence, Ive got no idea, but its about a punishment that fits the crime. Travel, he can still travel so the rugby side of it is a crock. Visa, not waiver. Thats it. 17, first offence, you feel that prison would not happen, but this was severe, so massive community service instead of home detention perhaps.

I don't really think anyone is after the biggest and best punishment, its just about being fair to the law and the victims. There is a place for being discharged, but I don't feel this is it. And I'm not seeking big prison time, or prison time, but he got nothing. 150 community service is just a token thing to give him based on his so called remotes and the deal. Cynical maybe, but I don't think so

gzt

18692 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1644826 3-Oct-2016 17:37

Filipo was not given community service. Prior to the court process beginning, Filipo had apparently done 150 hours of some kind of coaching of at risk kids. I assume he was advised to do this by his lawyer and maybe some cooperation provided by his team (my speculation). This was one of the factors the judge took into account. The discharge without conviction has since been appealed. The grounds of the appeal have not been reported, but there are educated guesses here that the judge made an error of law.

That being the case it is very likely Filipo will be convicted.

Likewise the hammer guy was originally discharged without conviction. That decision was appealed on the basis the judge made an error of law. The appeal was upheld. Hammer guy has now been convicted as he should have been originally. Next will occur his sentencing.

In this case the original judge did not follow the law. Simple as that.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1644885 3-Oct-2016 19:17

gzt: Filipo was not given community service. Prior to the court process beginning, Filipo had apparently done 150 hours of some kind of coaching of at risk kids. I assume he was advised to do this by his lawyer and maybe some cooperation provided by his team (my speculation). This was one of the factors the judge took into account. The discharge without conviction has since been appealed. The grounds of the appeal have not been reported, but there are educated guesses here that the judge made an error of law.

That being the case it is very likely Filipo will be convicted.

Likewise the hammer guy was originally discharged without conviction. That decision was appealed on the basis the judge made an error of law. The appeal was upheld. Hammer guy has now been convicted as he should have been originally. Next will occur his sentencing.

In this case the original judge did not follow the law. Simple as that.

Yep te hammer guys issue was being deported, but Immigration can take a far easier line, its them who can take the effect of that on him and his family. Likewise, Filipo was still supported by the RU, his travel can happen at an inconvenience to himself as regards a visa, so again, thats not destroying his career, and thus again, the discharge was flawed.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1658543 26-Oct-2016 21:04

Reading the news today, I see the appeal has just been heard at the High Court and the Crown focused on exactly the criticisms that I made of the District Court Judge's decision. I don't particularly care about this thug or this case necessarily but as someone committed to the rule of law, a decision this poor in terms of legal reasoning needs to be reversed.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10