This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

"The Law is a Ass - a Idiot"

Jump to new

Calliope

Joined
2 July 2008
Posts
7,102
Reactions
6
Mr Bumble certainly got that right. Our judicial system is so full of contradictions, inequities and stupidities that I thought it was worth a thread. Every day provides us with a new example.

(my bolds)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...r-of-joan-ryther/story-e6freoof-1226654913835
 
Totally agree. I can understand that they wouldn't release his name at the victims request if it was going to cause embarassment etc to the victim. But as that is clearly not the case and everyone knows who the victim is, I fail to see the reasoning
 
What's the issue?

The law may work on the principle of innocent until proven guilty but people don't.
 
Whilst, this is more a general comment, and probably not 100% relevant, I read the text Calliope posted, and I, without really making any logical connections, or using any real thought processes, assumed the guy was innocent.

I'm not really sure why I came to this, admittedly, superficial conclusion, but is it a pre-conceived bias? Is it due to the way the article was worded? Is it something else from my previous experiential database? These are probably interesting questions that form part of the doubt that we can have in the judicial process in this country.
 
Ves said:
Whilst, this is more a general comment, and probably not 100% relevant, I read the text Calliope posted, and I, without really making any logical connections, or using any real thought processes, assumed the guy was innocent.
Click to expand...

He is innocent.
 
Ves said:
... as in until proven guilty or has he actually been cleared?
Click to expand...

Until proven guilty. I can certainly understand why they don't release the name of people accused of certain crimes. There would be a sizeable minority of the population that don't delineate between accused and guilty.
 
McLovin said:
Until proven guilty. I can certainly understand why they don't release the name of people accused of certain crimes. There would be a sizeable minority of the population that don't delineate between accused and guilty.
Click to expand...
I agree. The world is full of preconceptions and biases, as my own thoughts demonstrated, we don't really need to make everything public until there is a need.
 
McLovin said:
Until proven guilty. I can certainly understand why they don't release the name of people accused of certain crimes. There would be a sizeable minority of the population that don't delineate between accused and guilty.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence as you well know. It will be interesting to see if they will release his name after he has been formally charged on Monday.
 
Calliope - I know you deleted your post, but to answer the question, rape cases give anonymity to the accused because the % of convictions in sexual assault cases is very low. There was plenty of debate on this in the UK a few years ago when they were legislating the "rape shield" laws. Lots of backlash.
 
Calliope said:
It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence as you well know. It will be interesting to see if they will release his name after he has been formally charged on Monday.
Click to expand...
Why do you say it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence?
To release his name before he has been convicted would be a travesty imo.

Aren't you equally saying that if the police rocked up and charged you with an offence, you would be happy to have this accusation - naming you - splashed all over the media even if you know you are innocent?
 
Calliope said:
It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence as you well know. It will be interesting to see if they will release his name after he has been formally charged on Monday.
Click to expand...

And until he has had his charges presented before a magistrate or (I'm assuming for murder) judge, his name should continue to be suppressed. At that point a judge can either issue a suppression order or allow him to be named.

I still don't see what the issue is? Assuming that the bolded bits of your OP are what you object to.
 
Julia said:
Why do you say it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence?
To release his name before he has been convicted would be a travesty imo.
Click to expand...

Melbourne man Adrian Ernest Bayley was charged with the rape and murder of ABC staffer Jill Meagher and he has not been convicted. Do you really think that the fact that we know his name is a travesty? Very few people go to trial with their identity concealed as you well know.

From the police point of view the main benefit of naming these people is so that other people who have information can come forward.
 
For those who think the law is not an ass, consider this;

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Calliope said:
Melbourne man Adrian Ernest Bayley was charged with the rape and murder of ABC staffer Jill Meagher and he has not been convicted. Do you really think that the fact that we know his name is a travesty?
Click to expand...
No. Because he confessed.

You have not responded to my hypothetical about whether you'd think it was just quite fine for your name to be splashed across the media if the police took it into their collective heads to charge you with something you did not do.
 
Julia said:
No. Because he confessed.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake. I thought you said;

"To release his name before he has been convicted would be a travesty imo." when obviously you meant:

"To release his name before he had confessed would be a travesty imo."

As for your hypothetical. I don't walk into traps; and what did you mean by "if the police rocked up?"
 
Calliope said:
For those who think the law is not an ass, consider this;
Click to expand...

Perhaps the former policemen and his connections would prefer this bloke be free so they can deal with him in a more personal manner.
 
MrBurns said:
Perhaps the former policemen and his connections would prefer this bloke be free so they can deal with him in a more personal manner.
Click to expand...

He pleaded guilty of course and got the plea bargain...hence he got a rap over the knuckles for an offence that was apparently attempted murder. As the victim said, this guy was using his vehicle as an offensive weapon.

This thug, Edward Sulivan has previous form.
 

This Edward Sulivan guy, what a goose. Just imagine this thug behaving like this to your mum/dad or even a elderly lady/man? He should have had his license suspended for more than 6 months.

Another thread title says it all - 'Sentencing in Australia is a joke'
 

In the UK or USA he would have got substantial jail time.

We are so weak it's not funny and the consequence is we have more than our fair share of nut jobs roaming the streets.

The mafia dispense their own justice, I know why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sentencing in Australia is a disgrace
26 27 28
Replies
559
Views
101K
farmerge
R
Grim world of new Iraqi torture camps
Replies
3
Views
4K
RichKid
R
IRAQ: the Big (neo) Con
Replies
1
Views
6K
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...