11 Dec 07
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundWow. Effed up doesn't even begin to describe the situation in that village.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1296534,00.html
This judge should be shot....seriously 😛
I'm confused as to how a 10 year old could "probably consent" to being gang-raped. Even if she had "consented", are there not statutory rape laws or an age of consent in Australia?
The judge was a woman, too. How weird.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by darvlaySend the perps to Texas. I know a guy with a shotgun there.
Wow. Effed up doesn't even begin to describe the situation in that village.
I'm confused as to how a 10 year old could "probably consent" to being gang-raped. Even if she had "consented", are there not statutory rape laws or an age of consent in Australia?
The judge was a woman, too. How weird.
Granny.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSeems crazy at first glance but decisions made by judges follow sentencing guidelines based on the facts of the case during the trial. If you don't like the the sentence then you should question the guidelines, not the judge.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1296534,00.html
This judge should be shot....seriously 😛
Precedent plays a role and this kind of activity is widespread in the Aboriginal community according to your article. Maybe there have been similar cases with similar verdicts in the past that the judge is relying on to make her decision.
Or are you just reacting to the decision without knowing why the sentence was given?
11 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessThe Judges are the ones that are supposed to question such ridiculous precedents with their decisions. The decision was incredibly lenient.
Seems crazy at first glance but decisions made by judges follow sentencing guidelines based on the facts of the case during the trial. If you don't like the the sentence then you should question the guidelines, not the judge.
Precedent plays a role and this kind of activity is widespread in the Aboriginal community according to your article. Maybe there ...[text shortened]... cision.
Or are you just reacting to the decision without knowing why the sentence was given?
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by darvlayThe sentencing guidelines are determined by the government, with input from its Supreme Court and various legal organizations.
The Judges are the ones that are supposed to question such ridiculous precedents with their decisions. The decision was incredibly lenient.
For a judge to issue a judgement that is counter to those guidelines, the judge has to show why the sentencing guidelines are not appropriate and why any previous decisions were not tough enough either. It is difficult for any judge to go out on a limb like that especially considering we obviously do not know all the facts of this or other cases.
However, I'm just theorizing as to why the sentence could be so light. Maybe the judge did make an error. But to say all Australian judges are mad because of this decision shows a lack of understanding of how the legal system works.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessI don't think anyone is saying all Australian judges are mad. It sounds like their system needs to be re-worked pronto.
The sentencing guidelines are determined by the government, with input from its Supreme Court and various legal organizations.
For a judge to issue a judgement that is counter to those guidelines, the judge has to show why the sentencing guidelines are not appropriate and why any previous decisions were not tough enough either. It is difficult for any ju ...[text shortened]... s are mad because of this decision shows a lack of understanding of how the legal system works.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by darvlayHe did put a question mark after his "Are Australian judges all mad?" thread topic....but it is a dumb way to say you don't like a decision since obviously not all Australian judges are mad.
I don't think anyone is saying all Australian judges are mad. It sounds like their system needs to be re-worked pronto.
I did find an interesting Supreme Court case in the US regarding their Sentencing Guidelines. Be interesting to see what the case is in Australia.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200501130738.asp
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessJudge Bradley told the offenders in her sentencing remarks that it was illegal to have sex with anyone younger than 16, but that the victim in this case "was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of you".
Seems crazy at first glance but decisions made by judges follow sentencing guidelines based on the facts of the case during the trial. If you don't like the the sentence then you should question the guidelines, not the judge.
Precedent plays a role and this kind of activity is widespread in the Aboriginal community according to your article. Maybe there ...[text shortened]... cision.
Or are you just reacting to the decision without knowing why the sentence was given?
Aboriginal leaders have said the result was too lenient and they are demanding that Judge Bradley be fired
Seems to shoot your argument in the foot mate. Both the law, and the Aboriginal community seems to disagree with your premise. Just because rape is prevalent doesn't mean There should be leniency in sentencing.
11 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundTruly amazing, if it was my (I don't actually have a) daughter, the situation would turn into a 'hunt' how many of the b*stards can I get before the police get me, who knows I might even get the lot before they get me? If the law won't protect you then you have to do the job yourself.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1296534,00.html
This judge should be shot....seriously 😛
11 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by stevetoddThis was not the girl's first gang-raping apparently. According to the TV clip, she has been "sexually active" since she was seven and has also attempted suicide. I think it's pretty obvious that whoever this girl's parents are, they don't care whether she lives or dies.
Truly amazing, if it was my (I don't actually have a) daughter, the situation would turn into a 'hunt' how many of the b*stards can I get before the police get me, who knows I might even get the lot before they get me? If the law won't protect you then you have to do the job yourself.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by darvlayAbsolutely, there obviously is more to the case than was printed in the article.
This was not the girl's first gang-raping apparently. According to the TV clip, she has been "sexually active" since she was seven and has also attempted suicide. I think it's pretty obvious that whoever this girl's parents are, they don't care whether she lives or dies.
Whoa, am i the voice of reason here? Better put the "create some chaos' hat back on.
Bloody savages...BURN THEM....BURN THEM!!!!
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessI hardly see how there can be...the girl was 10 years old, what more do you need to know ?
Absolutely, there obviously is more to the case than was printed in the article.
Whoa, am i the voice of reason here? Better put the "create some chaos' hat back on.
Bloody savages...BURN THEM....BURN THEM!!!!
11 Dec 07
Obviously it's quite a shocking judgement.
But.. the offenders were under age at the time of the offense as well (I don't know how much under age, I haven't read that anywhere).
And surely a sentencing should take into account whether it was 3 eleven year olds who had "consenting" sex in an playground sort of fashion or if it was 3 fifteen year olds who talked a ten year old into sex?
I don't know enough details of the case and it does seem lenient to me, but without seeing all the details, it's hard to judge.