Keiran Loveridge (3 Viewers)

[Kiraken]

You're putting your reliance on one or two professionals to decide on a person's sanity and/or remorse...

there are always conflicting theories to certain situations in the scientific community... look hard enough, you can find some sort of scientific professional to play fiddle in your examination or cross examination...

Who else would you rely on lol?

 

[Crobat]

You're putting your reliance on one or two professionals to decide on a person's sanity and/or remorse...

there are always conflicting theories to certain situations in the scientific community... look hard enough, you can find some sort of scientific professional to play fiddle in your examination or cross examination...

Who better to decide this than a professional in their field..?

 

[nerdasdasd]

You're putting your reliance on one or two professionals to decide on a person's sanity and/or remorse.....

......

 

[wannaspoon]

You high bro?

Welllllllllll.... no... just trying to argue against the irrefutable...

 

[Spiritual Bean]

You're putting your reliance on one or two professionals to decide on a person's sanity and/or remorse...

there are always conflicting theories to certain situations in the scientific community... look hard enough, you can find some sort of scientific professional to play fiddle in your examination or cross examination...

Contrary to the above opinion, this is a valid point.

Ever wonder why six medical examiners can analyse the same evidence and reach different conclusions? It's all subjective and just because a professional was satisfied that the guy demonstrated remorse, doesn't mean it's at the pinnacle of accuracy and that it should be given absolute validity.

 

[Spiritual Bean]

Oh wow! he found god... after he got caught...

looking in hindsight is very different to repentance... fear is very different to remorse...

exactly

at least there's someone out there who understands the true face of 'justice'

unlike more than half of society as evidenced through this thread who look at the 'evidence' predisposed to asserting its validity before they even come to an understanding of what the evidence is

justice is a subjective term individualised to perception, but I'd rather label their perceptions as unjust

 

[Spiritual Bean]

. 5 years and 2 months is a long time and is a considerable punishment.

Wow, this statement that is encased fully in opinion should be treated as absolutely valid. In fact, let's resentence everyone with similar circumstances to a five year non-parole period. Let's be retroactive and progress Australia forward! All of those murderers or those convicted of manslaughter, 20 years is too much! You only deserve five years! Why? This pure, but trust me, 100% valid opinion which is principally sourced from the almighty funkshen!

. 5 years and 2 months is a long time and is a considerable punishment.

- Scholar, Academic (2013)

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Contrary to the above opinion, this is a valid point.

Ever wonder why six medical examiners can analyse the same evidence and reach different conclusions? It's all subjective and just because a professional was satisfied that the guy demonstrated remorse, doesn't mean it's at the pinnacle of accuracy and that it should be given absolute validity.

Regardless of the possibility of professional disagreement, I would hold the opinion of a specialist who examined the defendant above that of a person on the internet who has, in all likelihood, never even seen him.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

exactly

at least there's someone out there who understands the true face of 'justice'

unlike more than half of society as evidenced through this thread who look at the 'evidence' predisposed to asserting its validity before they even come to an understanding of what the evidence is

justice is a subjective term individualised to perception, but I'd rather label their perceptions as unjust

The absolute principle example here of people judging evidence before they know what it is are the remarks in favour of a harsher sentence, especially that which claimed that there were no mitigating factors involved in the case. Though I agree, such a perception could be accurately labelled as 'unjust'.

 

[Spiritual Bean]

Regardless of the possibility of professional disagreement, I would hold the opinion of a specialist who examined the defendant above that of a person on the internet who has, in all likelihood, never even seen him.

wow this is extraordinary!

a 2014er has speculated that that there is no relationship between them because this is the ultimate criteria which eliminates all prejudicial effects! this is amazing! you sure sound like the next geoffrey robertson!

The absolute principle example here of people judging evidence before they know what it is are the remarks in favour of a harsher sentence, especially that which claimed that there were no mitigating factors involved in the case. Though I agree, such a perception could be accurately labelled as 'unjust'.

wrong

as I said

justice is individualised to perception

 

[wannaspoon]

thank fucking christ! somebody else who shares my point of view...

get prepared to be called a pinhead...

 

[Spiritual Bean]

thank fucking christ! somebody else who shares my point of view...

get prepared to be called a pinhead...

This forms the bulk of their response to obscure their lack of argument.

 

[captainpigs]

Although I think what he did was horrible and has ruined the lives of many, whats the point of having him sit in a prison cell rotting through his youth instead of trying to change himself and maybe actually contribute something good to society.

Having him sit through 20 years of prison would have him come out as a 39 year old man who probably wouldn't give a shit about what he does because what future does he have?- his job prospects would be gone, he would probably go back to drugs and alcohol and just be a further menace to society.

If he can serve prison time, rehabilitate and then come out and do some good for society why not let him?
Look at justice from the view of a society, one bad person going in and a possible good person coming out.

It's fair enough that everyone who has experienced something like this or sympathizes with the family- which i do to- is saying he deserves however many years, but the whole point of having such a system is that a rational and fair decision is made for both the offender and victim for the good of society.

I would be happy to see on appeal him getting more prison time but nothing like the 15 or 20 years some people are saying.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

wow this is extraordinary!

a 2014er has speculated that that there is no relationship between them because this is the ultimate criteria which eliminates all prejudicial effects! this is amazing! you sure sound like the next geoffrey robertson!



wrong

as I said

justice is individualised to perception

Throw around your sardonic comments all you like but I don't think it can really be questioned that a psychologist's opinion of their subject is more reliable than the opinion of a person who has never met the defendant based on their own perception of how people generally respond to imprisonment. And as for the second comment, note the use of the word 'may', indicating that it would be possible for that description to be accurate, depending on one's perception. I'm not planning on calling anyone a 'pinhead', I'm merely claiming that if a defendant cried during the reading of the witness impact statement and descended into a depressed state once realising the pain caused by his actions, and it is the professional opinion of a psychologist that these are indicators of remorse, it is highly likely that these are indicators of remorse. I am also stating that the opinion of the aforementioned doctor is a more valid assessment of the defendant's psychological state than the opinion of an untrained stranger.

 

[Spiritual Bean]

Although I think what he did was horrible and has ruined the lives of many, whats the point of having him sit in a prison cell rotting through his youth instead of trying to change himself and maybe actually contribute something good to society.

as someone who tutors legal studies, I would've expected more from you... forget the balance of competing rights between the victim, offender, and society? I don't think there's one case in the judicial system which illustrates a perfect balance, but this is just too disproportionate... you can't argue that it was justice on the part of the family, because they've obviously expressed otherwise, so no, there's no balance

Having him sit through 20 years of prison would have him come out as a 39 year old man who probably wouldn't give a shit about what he does because what future does he have?- his job prospects would be gone, he would probably go back to drugs and alcohol and just be a further menace to society.

speculation... what you said is probable but just because he's 39, doesn't mean he's going to come out and run a muck. He'll obviously have 15-20 years to reflect on what he did and people who are 50 go to university and further their job prospects

If he can serve prison time, rehabilitate and then come out and do some good for society why not let him?
Look at justice from the view of a society, one bad person going in and a possible good person coming out.

well obviously the point of argument is whether five years is enough for rehabilitation, and it's simply not

It's fair enough that everyone who has experienced something like this or sympathizes with the family- which i do to- is saying he deserves however many years, but the whole point of having such a system is that a rational and fair decision is made for both the offender and victim for the good of society.

exactly, so where's the justice for the victims family? as I said, justice is perceptive and they couldn't be more blatant about expressing what an injustice this is

I would be happy to see on appeal him getting more prison time but nothing like the 15 or 20 years some people are saying.

I think this is a good case of 15 years

 

[nerdasdasd]

I love you spiritual.

 

[Spiritual Bean]

Throw around your sardonic comments all you like but I don't think it can really be questioned that a psychologist's opinion of their subject is more reliable than the opinion of a person who has never met the defendant based on their own perception of how people generally respond to imprisonment. And as for the second comment, note the use of the word 'may', indicating that it would be possible for that description to be accurate, depending on one's perception. I'm not planning on calling anyone a 'pinhead', I'm merely claiming that if a defendant cried during the reading of the witness impact statement and descended into a depressed state once realising the pain caused by his actions, and it is the professional opinion of a psychologist that these are indicators of remorse, it is highly likely that these are indicators of remorse. I am also stating that the opinion of the aforementioned doctor is a more valid assessment of the defendant's psychological state than the opinion of an untrained stranger.

warn us next time before you initiate directionless discourse

from someone who's created a self-destiny to be a lawyer, you sure don't know how to put evidence to the test

I could've gotten five other psychologists and I can assure you, they wouldn't be unanimous in their decision

now obv it's more reliable than some kid riding a bicycle down the street administering a test, but this is not the twilight zone, this is a court of law

as I said, professional opinion should not be considered valid

go look at the adam kaufman case in america, six medical examiners came to different conclusions about the death of his wife - that is, six professionals, analysing the same evidence and they all had similar previous experience (moral of the story which I'm sure you've gathered since you're the suppository of knowledge - a professional does not denote automatic validity, or even probability - just possibility)

where's the reliability? who should I believe? maybe I should roll a dice of twelve and determine the fate of the defendant, let me give a whole new meaning to the 'justice game'

 

[Spiritual Bean]

I love you spiritual.

ruv u nerd (5% homo)

 

[RealiseNothing]

Don't some psychology courses only need like a 70 ATAR anyway?

lol much reliable, such trustworthy




But seriously, the system should work to deter people away from shit like this, not just rehabilitate some one who has ALREADY committed the crime. Either way 5 years is simply not enough to 1) rehabilitate him, and 2) deter people away from this behaviour.

n i 4 n i

 

[nerdasdasd]

Don't some psychology courses only need like a 70 ATAR anyway?

lol much reliable, such trustworthy




But seriously, the system should work to deter people away from shit like this, not just rehabilitate some one who has ALREADY committed the crime. Either way 5 years is simply not enough to 1) rehabilitate him, and 2) deter people away from this behaviour.

n i 4 n i

Atar is determined by the demand and supply. Tis irrelevant.