Sydney CBDs new Drinking Laws

[Gnostic]

@ Spikhaza,

It is a very tough call saying that victims encourage or incite many attacks. Do you also propose that women who are sexually assaulted incite such attacks by provocative dress or even by walking alone down the street?

I'll use my own analogy to explain my position on the matter, from my first hand experience. There are predators in society. Some are sexual predators, some are child predators, some prove their heterosexuality by targeting G&L community and in this case some prove their power by attacking whoever hits their trigger/or is judged an easy target.

It is highly unlikely that victims of such random (though group/victim type targeted) would be victims but for circumstance, such as being in the wrong place at the wrong time or making poor choices. It is against the very precepts of our democratic society however to say to people that because of the risk of such attacks they should not go down the street, if they so choose, just like we should not stop people racing cars, sky diving or undertaking any other risk bearing behaviour. What I have taught my children is to make risk assessments of any activity they undertake with the predatory nature of offenders in mind. Nothing in this makes the victim responsible for the behaviour of the offenders or absolves the Government of enforcing the laws for the protection of those who do not act in a lawless manner because they choose to do so.

In my experience in every licenced premises people are still being served whilst intoxicated. That is an offence, and it is so for good reasons. Do not rail against the lock-out laws, your alternative is strict enforcement of the existing laws (which I have always called for) which will have the effect that most licenced premises will be closed permanently (or at least until they get new licencees).

The deterrence aspect of the law and sentencing is blown out of proportion to the other functions of the law, IMO, it is a myth that such an effect exists 99.9% of offenders who are recividists. These laws act to prevent opportunity for these offences by reducing the offenders access to alcohol and victims, it isn't about deterrence regardless of what the politicians like to say.

 

[Gnostic]

I agree with everything you've said up to this point but am confused by this paragraph.

Are you suggesting that sentences aren't appropriate?

We've seen a steady increase in sentence durations over the last 30+ years. The sentiment about the judiciary getting softer on crime is refuted by the statistics.

Manslaughter will invariably be the most difficult crime to effectively sentence for because the crime doesn't match the outcome. From the perspective of the victim's family, it may as well have been murder. From the perspective of the law, the crime was far less serious yet the outcome was serious (i.e. someone died).

This is a crime where the judiciary will never be able to effectively balance the impact on the victim and their family and the crime committed.

Manslaughter is indeed very difficult to sentence because in most cases the intent of the accused is the is difficult to establish (not that they didn't intend to kill or injure the victim in a manner which a reasonable person could well anticipate could result in death, which is all that is needed to prove murder as you well know). The intent has to be proved, and that plays into the reduced sentences for manslaughter when the statute provides 25 years.

No in my experience regardless of what the statistics say (which I can argue are skewed by some significant cases, statistics are always arguable depending as they do on means and significant variable from that mean), I have never seen a maximum sentence handed down in any jurisdiction excepting murder. I can tell you it has been a long time and never is a an indictment on the system that no offence (other than murder) has justified the maximum penalty. Indeed rarely has the penalty met the halfway point of what is provided for under the law.

My argument is simple, just as with licencing laws, people would be astounded at how hard the law could be if it was enforced as it currently stands, new laws are not needed. Let me say as well I dothink reform is needed as traffic offenders (excepting continual recividists) and property offenders should not be in custody. Drug Users should not be in custody. Custodial sentences should be reserved strictly for those who commit acts of violence.

Refer back to our disucssion on the Criminal Justice system thread.