How to kill and get away with it...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by JACK250

And yes deterrence is a factor, but I don't know if it's a big enough one to sentence someone to time in gaol. A lot of people would have a different opinion of gaol if they'd been in there or seen the conditions of most of them (not claiming I have, but have seen a few docos at school).

You obviously have not been to some of the prisons. I have seen inside the ones here when we pick up prisoners and talked to lots of corrections officers whilst transporting those prisoners, the information I have gained is the standards are quite good. Would I want to be there, no way, I value my freedom but they are not neglected.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

And so he should, he knew he was an epileptic, he knew he had not taken his meds, he knew he is not legally allowed to drive in this situation.

If we attend an epileptic who has a seizure, they have to be taken to hospital or our medical director has to be contacted if we believe they were in control of a motor vehicle. The department of transport has to be notified of their uncontrolled epilepsy and their license suspended.

Therefore, not specifically referring to the above case, should someone who is Bi-polar and on a high control dose be in the same situation.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GTP006

Like being banned for 3 years and having to live with it for the rest of her life? I cannot imagine trying to sleep without having that moment flash before your eyes - how long does being responsible for killing someone hang around? A lot longer than a few months in jail I would bet.

I think about it as if me, a friend or family member was the one on trial - how would I like it if my morally upstanding, honest, caring, die-for-her-family mother had made this mistake?

I know she'd be destroyed over it and I would be there to help pick up the pieces. No-one means to make a mistake, humans are human and at some point it must be accepted that being human is reason enough not to be stuck in a cage to ruin your already shattered existence.

I do see your point, but who says she really accepts what she has done and that her life is shattered. Many in her position do not see it as their fault, it was "just an accident".

I guess my view is different for two reasons. The first is I have a job where I am not allowed to make a mistake, why should others get that luxury? The second is you still have faith in humanity, my faith got crushed years ago as I have seen so many examples of humanity failing. Humanity is not a common as you think.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

You obviously have not been to some of the prisons. I have seen inside the ones here when we pick up prisoners and talked to lots of corrections officers whilst transporting those prisoners, the information I have gained is the standards are quite good. Would I want to be there, no way, I value my freedom but they are not neglected.

Yeah, unless its port phillip bay prison. Privately owned prison with horrible conditions for all involved.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I do see your point, but who says she really accepts what she has done and that her life is shattered. Many in her position do not see it as their fault, it was "just an accident".

I guess my view is different for two reasons. The first is I have a job where I am not allowed to make a mistake, why should others get that luxury? The second is you still have faith in humanity, my faith got crushed years ago as I have seen so many examples of humanity failing. Humanity is not a common as you think.

I must agree with you here, I have interacted with many, many people both inside & outside who always blame the 'victim' for the issue/act/offense at hand.
"De-nile" is not always a river in Egypt.

"I wouldn't have knocked her off if she hadn't been in the park" was one I heard a few years ago.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Burnout

Therefore, not specifically referring to the above case, should someone who is Bi-polar and on a high control dose be in the same situation.

Depends on their meds and their other conditions. For example, many bi polar are well controlled with lithium which will allow effective use of a motor vehicle. I think at some doses lithium can get sedating so this would preclude motor vehicle use. Sometimes at periods of mania, they will be on sedatives which will not allow use of a motor vehicle.

Other conditions come into it as well, Bi Polar by itself is quite controllable but the problem is it is often not the only mental health issue present. Often there are psychoses, personality disorders, schizophrenia etc. All of these can change the persons ability to drive.

I would suggest, by the fact that she has a license (doctor has a legal responsibility to report medical illness that precludes driving), her condition was controlled. This assumption seems to be backed up that it was not reported that she has been ordered to any mental health assessment after the verdict was given (a justice examination order would have been applicable).

Seems to me she was giving the "woe is me I have bi polar", in order to get a light sentence. Without making generalisations, there are a few conditions that can on occasion, make the person prone to using their condition to their advantage when it suits them.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Yeah, unless its port phillip bay prison. Privately owned prison with horrible conditions for all involved.

I would not base my opinion on that one prison, let me tell you the newer prisons are much different.

Also, a person with the charges this lady faced would not go to a maximum security males prison with mental health facilities.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Depends on their meds and their other conditions. For example, many bi polar are well controlled with lithium which will allow effective use of a motor vehicle. I think at some doses lithium can get sedating so this would preclude motor vehicle use. Sometimes at periods of mania, they will be on sedatives which will not allow use of a motor vehicle.

Other conditions come into it as well, Bi Polar by itself is quite controllable but the problem is it is often not the only mental health issue present. Often there are psychoses, personality disorders, schizophrenia etc. All of these can change the persons ability to drive.

I would suggest, by the fact that she has a license (doctor has a legal responsibility to report medical illness that precludes driving), her condition was controlled. This assumption seems to be backed up that it was not reported that she has been ordered to any mental health assessment after the verdict was given (a justice examination order would have been applicable).

Seems to me she was giving the "woe is me I have bi polar", in order to get a light sentence. Without making generalisations, there are a few conditions that can on occasion, make the person prone to using their condition to their advantage when it suits them.

This then proves the difficulty the sentencing authority is placed under when adjudging these cases.
There is still the possibility the 'scribbler' in this case pushed the 'woe is me' case to sell the medium. However I think you may be right. Still it could have been the 'left leaning' judge appointed by the 'left leaning' government, all depending upon your environmental upbringing or political leanings/loyalty or whatever.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Yeah, unless its port phillip bay prison. Privately owned prison with horrible conditions for all involved.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I would not base my opinion on that one prison, let me tell you the newer prisons are much different.

Also, a person with the charges this lady faced would not go to a maximum security males prison with mental health facilities.

Port Phillip is a relatively new facility in the scheme of things, it has a certain reputation though. Hard for me to comment as I have no experience of the place other than to have read some reports from here & there. It has had its problems, I would not judge the whole system, in that State or any other by the difficulties of one goal.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Burnout

This then proves the difficulty the sentencing authority is placed under when adjudging these cases.
There is still the possibility the 'scribbler' in this case pushed the 'woe is me' case to sell the medium. However I think you may be right. Still it could have been the 'left leaning' judge appointed by the 'left leaning' government, all depending upon your environmental upbringing or political leanings/loyalty or whatever.

You are right, but the judge does not need to make the decision about the effect of mental health in these cases. He is at the end of the day a lawyer, not a doctor. If the bi polar, depression, suicide risk was such an issue, why was an order for examination not given, it should have been.

I think there is a lot of freedom taken with the facts on the part of the media in the writing of this article.

[Burnout]

True enough - the Court Reporter is usually the last copy boy/dogs body at the office and is always on the lookout for the next big case in the courtroom next door or in the District Court upstairs.

[Spudz27]

Our justice system sucks, and you can use any excuse these days to get off light. I read today about a guy who raped 4 people, 1 person jumped to their death to escape, another seriously injured also jumping off building to escape. You know what the judge said? He or she (can't remember) said, he went with the intent to rob the place and wasn't to know 4 people were inside and the decision to rape them was basically a spur of the moment thought, then took into account he had grown up on an aboriginal reserve, had a drug problem and was slightly mentally impaired. The sentence has not been handed down yet, but the sheer fact that those were considered sickens me. There are no excuses for what people do. If anything (god forbid) ever happens to my family e.g rape, murder, they won't need a sentence, I will kill them myself and use insanity due to what happened as an excuse and get off with a slap on the wrist or at best 12months.

[GasoLane]

A couple of things have been forgotten here..

Firstly, the Judge never said that her bipolar disorder had anything to do with the crash. He simply took it into account that she had it, along with depression and thoughts of suicide since the crash (which happened 3+ years ago) and that a prison sentence would do no good.

Secondly, Her solicitor. I'll bet she never one through legal aid

[FGII-XR6]

The natural reaction is to call for gaol time if someone you know is killed in a car accident and in some cases this is justified but not in all cases.
the main issue is intent was there an action by the driver that was deliberate that caused the death or was it just a tragic accident caused by poor judgement? if the driver deliberatly does something that contributes significantly to the accident then gaol time is called for if it was just a case of bad driving and /or poor judgement sanctions against their licence are more approprite maybe with driver testing before allowing them back on the road.
If alcohol or other drugs and/or excessive speed are involved in the death sure lock them up

puts on flame suit :SaiyanSmi

[Burnout]

She would have had a solicitor, + a Barrister, (legal aid?), this matter was an indictable offense and she was found not guilty of the more serious charges by a jury, guilty on the lessor charges.
This verdict & the sentencing comment of the judge indicate high sympathy for the defendant.

How much worth then is placed upon the life of the victim by both the Jury and the Presiding Judge. His lifes with has been defined then by the sentence, a wholly suspended sentence & three year loss of license. Woop-de-do!

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

The natural reaction is to call for gaol time if someone you know is killed in a car accident and in some cases this is justified but not in all cases.
the main issue is intent was there an action by the driver that was deliberate that caused the death or was it just a tragic accident caused by poor judgement? if the driver deliberatly does something that contributes significantly to the accident then gaol time is called for if it was just a case of bad driving and /or poor judgement sanctions against their licence are more approprite maybe with driver testing before allowing them back on the road.
If alcohol or other drugs and/or excessive speed are involved in the death sure lock them up

puts on flame suit :SaiyanSmi

That's cobblers - intent means nothing, I have witnessed sentences handed down where there was no intent....... In one case recently 'intent' at law was a proof of charge under statute.

[sly_ba]

Originally Posted by luke1984

Maybe deter others from doing the same?

Be very careful, deterrence as a empirical theory for the basis of sanctions is based on shaky foundations. The aims or objectives of punishment have been historically explained to consist of notions including retribution and deterrence. By deterrence in this respect I am referring to a desired effect where the threat of punishment ‘causes individuals who would have committed the threatened behavior, or the public in general, to refrain from doing so’.

Accordingly, deterrence theory assumes that prospective offenders respond to incentives as they choose to allocate their time and energy between legitimate and illegitimate activities . The criminal justice system assumes that such deterrent goals are only achieved when sentencing leaves the general community with an unpleasant experience which he or she does not wish to repeat.

However, the assumptions behind deterrence theory, that individuals are calculating rational human beings, may be true for some people, but certainly not for all. The sad truth remains that people who are aware of what they should be doing will sometimes engage in conduct that they know they should not regardless of the potential consequences. In other words, crime is seldom rational. It may be claimed that the prospect of being caught and going to gaol will have at least some deterrent effect on individuals, however, the likelihood of detection, conviction and imprisonment is very low for many offences. A clear weakness inherent in this theory remains that it rests on crude generalizations about human nature and the motivations behind the committing of criminal activities.

I guess that's enough ranting from me...... certain aspects of criminal law get me a bit agro.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Burnout

She would have had a solicitor, + a Barrister, (legal aid?), this matter was an indictable offense and she was found not guilty of the more serious charges by a jury, guilty on the lessor charges.
This verdict & the sentencing comment of the judge indicate high sympathy for the defendant.

Oops...I missed the bit about the Jury. Anyway that gives a good Barrister (read actor) more people to work on.

[FGII-XR6]

so by your twisted logic if you are in a pub and spill you drink causing the person walking by to slip and break their neck ( killing them ) you should be locked up as intent means nothing???? there is no point in gaoling someone for a tragic accident where there was no intent to break any law. We are human not machines and to gaol someone for not acting like a machine is not justice but revenge

Originally Posted by Burnout

That's cobblers - intent means nothing, I have witnessed sentences handed down where there was no intent....... In one case recently 'intent' at law was a proof of charge under statute.

[sly_ba]

In VIC anyway, intent means very little when Statute only requires recklessness on the part of the accused as to the probability that serious injury would result from their actions.

[jimmyxr6t04]

Whilst i agree that some motorists who cause accidents should be jailed, i don't think it should be as 'blanket' as some of you suggest. I have no problems with an offender in a stolen car being jailed for causing an accident, infact, i think they should be jailed for simply stealing the car..

However, all this talk of 'intent' is interesting... Even a person driving a stolen car may not have had 'intent' to kill someone.

Unfortunately the law, and punishments that go with it are often more complex then meets the eye. The other situation is that each Judge, jury etc are completely different people. There will never be 100% accuracy in judgement. Hell, even the NRL with 2 on field refs, 2 linesman and 2 sitting in the video ref box can't get it right... So what chance does a Judge / Jury have with more complex problems?

For the record, i don't think the original example should have got jail time, perhaps if she was a previous repeat offender with multiple offences etc or a repeat drink driver... But for one mistake? It could happen to anyone, even one of you.. Changing the air con setting, CD, whatever the distraction might be, and you could kill some one. On the other hand, if it had been my family member killed, of course i'd be seeking jail time.. But then i wouldn't be thinking rationally...

[MAD]

The thing that got me from this story was the fact she has been found guilty and sentenced to 2 years jail, which has then been suspended because she says she would off herself if she went to jail. Why not just call her 'not guilty' from the get go? No friggen difference IMO. And my sentiments are the same as those that have said she should have been put in somewhere for examination if she was that unstable.

Also, changing CD's, aircon, etc... what a load of crap.... If you pay enough attention to what is going on around you, you can choose a suitable opportunity to do many tasks in the car without risk.
While going to uni, I drove into the city along Princes Hwy everyday for 3 years, then drove to from Noble Park to Bundoora for another two years, and I used to roll my own smokes while driving. I never had an accident, never had to brake suddenly unexpectedly, never missed a traffic light, never even drifted from my lane.

To completely miss a traffic light, that you can generally see from 300+ metres away, would take a hell of a distraction.

[jimmyxr6t04]

Originally Posted by MAD

The thing that got me from this story was the fact she has been found guilty and sentenced to 2 years jail, which has then been suspended because she says she would off herself if she went to jail. Why not just call her 'not guilty' from the get go? No friggen difference IMO. And my sentiments are the same as those that have said she should have been put in somewhere for examination if she was that unstable.

Also, changing CD's, aircon, etc... what a load of crap.... If you pay enough attention to what is going on around you, you can choose a suitable opportunity to do many tasks in the car without risk.
While going to uni, I drove into the city along Princes Hwy everyday for 3 years, then drove to from Noble Park to Bundoora for another two years, and I used to roll my own smokes while driving. I never had an accident, never had to brake suddenly unexpectedly, never missed a traffic light, never even drifted from my lane.

To completely miss a traffic light, that you can generally see from 300+ metres away, would take a hell of a distraction.

I do agree that CDs and aircon etc isn't all that distracting, they were merely examples (perhaps not the best examples)... You have to remember to factor in the lowest common denominator though... Not all people have equal abilities, even if they think they might...

Perhaps the government need to put retractable bollards in at red lights that'll stop people going through them!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

so by your twisted logic if you are in a pub and spill you drink causing the person walking by to slip and break their neck ( killing them ) you should be locked up as intent means nothing???? there is no point in gaoling someone for a tragic accident where there was no intent to break any law. We are human not machines and to gaol someone for not acting like a machine is not justice but revenge

Your view is over simplistic.

She ran a red light because she was not paying attention. She has a legal responsibility with due care and attention, that is the law. She failed in that duty and therefore she was negligent in her responsibilities. You can bet if she drives with so much attention that she can miss a red light once, she has done it previously. This is a much different situation than spilling a drink, since when do you have to pass a law test and practical exam to pour a drink. There is no legal responsibility here unless you are an employee of the establishment that spills the drink, fail to mark it with warning signs and then make no attempt to clean it up (because you have received training in tis hazard management). That person does have a duty of care to all persons in the establishment and therefore could face legal proceedings.

Let me pose this scenario. I am a paramedic and I attend your child who has choked on a sausage, now unconscious and not breathing. I turn up and remove the sausage, but the child does not start breathing. I then place a tube down the child's throat and begin to ventilate the child, but in my haste I forget to listen to the chest to ensure the tube is in the right place. So because I have not checked, I do not know the tube is not in the airway but instead I am ventilating the child's stomach (this is a very real risk and can happen). I then spend 30 minutes attempting to resuscitate the child but this is unsuccessful because the child is not being ventilated and the child dies on scene.

By your theory, that is ok because it is human to make a mistake and I should not go to gaol for being human, nor am I responsible because I just being human.

I assure you the coroner will see different and I can also assure you that you would certainly be after me for both criminal responsibility and most likely a law suit as well. Why is that, because I as a professional that has demonstrated my competence in these procedures, have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to perform those tasks competently. Just like every driver has when they do their license, she demonstrated on her driving test that she understands that she must pay attention to the road and stop on red lights, that is her legal responsibility. Failure to comply should be punished to a suitable level that reflects the consequences of her actions.

By gaining a license, you are accepting responsibility to operate that vehicle with appropriate due care and attention, within the road laws and accepting that you may receive fines or imprisonment if you fail in your responsibilities. That is where the difference is.

I still want to know why if she was such a suicide risk with a mental health history, why wasn't assessment and treatment ordered, they have the capacity to do it. I believe it is because the judge did not truly believe the suicide risk, he just gives light sentences in these situations and he was overly sympathetic. Maybe he needs to go out with the paramedics and clean up the mess, console the families and carry some ghosts. Then he might view it different.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by MAD

Also, changing CD's, aircon, etc... what a load of crap.... If you pay enough attention to what is going on around you, you can choose a suitable opportunity to do many tasks in the car without risk.
While going to uni, I drove into the city along Princes Hwy everyday for 3 years, then drove to from Noble Park to Bundoora for another two years, and I used to roll my own smokes while driving. I never had an accident, never had to brake suddenly unexpectedly, never missed a traffic light, never even drifted from my lane.

.

Good point but it fails in one large aspect, you assume all motorist chose appropriate times to change CD's, look for wallets, adjust radio station etc. Let me tell you they do not and I have been to dozens of accidents as someone looked down "for just a second". I have heard that excuse so many times it is sickening.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Let me pose this scenario. I am a paramedic and I attend your child who has choked on a sausage, now unconscious and not breathing. I turn up and remove the sausage, but the child does not start breathing. I then place a tube down the child's throat and begin to ventilate the child, but in my haste I forget to listen to the chest to ensure the tube is in the right place. So because I have not checked, I do not know the tube is not in the airway but instead I am ventilating the child's stomach (this is a very real risk and can happen). I then spend 30 minutes attempting to resuscitate the child but this is unsuccessful because the child is not being ventilated and the child dies on scene.

By your theory, that is ok because it is human to make a mistake and I should not go to gaol for being human, nor am I responsible because I just being human.
.

I would not expect imprisonment Disiplinary action yes maybe dismissal due to negligence but I see gaol as a place for criminals, people who choose to flout the law. people who find themselves in a situation like you mention or like the case that this post is about need to be treated in a different manner. non custodial options focusing on perventing a repeat of the lapse of jusgement would provide greater benifit to all parties involved and the community as a whole.
I read some time back ( can't remember who I'm quoting here) 90% of people in gaol shouldn't be there and the other 10% should be there for longer. food for thought

[Airmon]

I guess it depends on your view on the purpose of imprisonment. For retribution/punishment or for rehabilitation/personal reform.

[FGII-XR6]

australian prisons are for rehabilitation/personal reform thats why they call it corrective services not punitive services

Originally Posted by Airmon

I guess it depends on your view on the purpose of imprisonment. For retribution/punishment or for rehabilitation/personal reform.

[BHDOGS]

This is good to read now i dont have to try and be super careful on the roads anymore excellent if an accident happens i can just say whoops sorry your moms dead kiddies but ive got bipolar and it was a bit wet oh yeh and the radio station was playing this song and i was singing along oh well accidents happen lost my license for a couple of years but least im free of to the pub i go.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

australian prisons are for rehabilitation/personal reform thats why they call it corrective services not punitive services

Sounds wonderful. Calling it 'something', doesn't make it so.

In my experience all corrective services does is offer opportunities to rehabilitate oneself, therefore if you chose to be an anti-social, selfish 'womble', then you will serve your minimum sentence and head off out into the 'world' unchanged, taking with you your recent environmental experience.