Keiran Loveridge (3 Viewers)

[Tasteless]

You cannot control yourself if you are drunk (excessively ) .... It's like if you are on drugs, you can't stop being high.

Tipsy is a different story, but blind drunk is different.

I dont really if this is true.

Lots of europeans are very heavy drinkers but dont have half as much alcohol related violence as Aus/US/UK.
It seems like a cultural thing, I think someone's made a post like this before that possibly had sources etc but ye.


Imo 5 years is reasonably fair as there was no intent to kill + mitigating circumstances identified previously. Also despite moron opinion it is a very considerable amount of time.
Basically +1 to everything funkydunky said.

 

[someth1ng]

You cannot control yourself if you are drunk (excessively ) .... It's like if you are on drugs, you can't stop being high.

Tipsy is a different story, but blind drunk is different.

It's your responsibility to act responsibly, drunk or not. Being drunk is not a valid excuse for violence and if you can't control yourself when you're drunk, don't get that intoxicated.

It's not that hard.

#5000

 

[nerdasdasd]

I dont really if this is true.

Lots of europeans are very heavy drinkers but dont have half as much alcohol related violence as Aus/US/UK.
It seems like a cultural thing, I think someone's made a post like this before that possibly had sources etc but ye.


Imo 5 years is reasonably fair as there was no intent to kill + mitigating circumstances identified previously. Also despite moron opinion it is a very considerable amount of time.
Basically +1 to everything funkydunky said.

+1.

 

[RealiseNothing]

sucks to be your mate but i can guarantee you are not telling the full story. assault is the most investigated and prosecuted breach of the criminal law, and i highly doubt that the "cops did not give a fuck". regardless, making such sweeping generalisations about the criminal justice system based on what happened to your mate is foolish. go bash a cunt and let me know how you go with the cops who "don't give a fuck".

lol

you obviously don't live in an area where this shit is common

 

[RealiseNothing]

You cannot control yourself if you are drunk (excessively ) .... It's like if you are on drugs, you can't stop being high.

Tipsy is a different story, but blind drunk is different.

I don't give two fucks whether or not he could control himself.

An eye for an eye makes the world a better fucking place.

 

[SylviaB]

You cannot control yourself if you are drunk (excessively ) .... It's like if you are on drugs, you can't stop being high.

Tipsy is a different story, but blind drunk is different.

thats stupid, and even if it were the case it should be your responsibility not to get drunk

 

[funkshen]

Way too lenient - I'd say at least 15 years non-parole for the manslaughter, alone. Probably another 5 years for the other cases combined.

The fact is that this kind of behaviour is simply unacceptable - the only time you should hit someone is in self-defence (and some sports), pretty much nothing else.

you're a moderator, so I would expect that the standard of your posting would be higher than most others here. how about you do the respectful thing and read some of the previous posts before offering your own opinion on whether Loveridge's sentence was just? on why a 20 year sentence would at all be appropriate, or what the rehabilitative effects of or on what principle of justice that sentence would be appropriate?

lol
you obviously don't live in an area where this shit is common

no, i don't. but i also highly doubt that you do live in an area where king hits are common. i also doubt you've been king hit to death before, too. what's the relevance?

I don't give two fucks whether or not he could control himself.

An eye for an eye makes the world a better fucking place.

no, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

It's your responsibility to act responsibly, drunk or not. Being drunk is not a valid excuse for violence and if you can't control yourself when you're drunk, don't get that intoxicated.

It's not that hard.

#5000

yes, it is your responsibility to act responsibly when drunk, which is why Loveridge will serve a gaol sentence of at least 5 years and 2 months. however, the criminal justice system does also recognise that intoxication has a significant bearing on criminal culpability, ergo no charge of murder, and that substance abuse counselling is an effective tool to prevent reoffending due to substance abuse issues. indeed, in this case the sentencing judge was more than convinced that Loveridge would not reoffend.

ask your self two things.
first, do you recognise that a number of people in our society, for one reason or another, suffer from substance abuse issues (to the point of debilitating addiction) and cannot be expected to make rational or responsible decisions all the time?
secondly, have you ever consumed a significant amount of alcohol or another substance, and done something that you have regretted?

 

[nerdasdasd]

I don't give two fucks whether or not he could control himself.

An eye for an eye makes the world a better fucking place.

The world would be in anarchy if everyone was like "oh he killed my family member , that means it is right to kill him now". People would get revenge on each other and the stability of society would cease to exist.

 

[isildurrrr1]

The world would be in anarchy if everyone was like "oh he killed my family member , that means it is right to kill him now". People would get revenge on each other and the stability of society would cease to exist.

You just end up with endless clan/family wars that last for generations. Anglo-saxons had that system, didn't end up too well they decided you can pay off deaths with money instead. Is it a tragic case? Sure, but the intent of the man was not to kill someone in a one-hit KO, hence the manslaughter charge not murder. We have an alcohol related violence issue in this country, exactly the same as the UK. Rest of Europe can get shit faced responsibly and not end up bashing random people either. Enforcing drink limits won't do shit when people decide to get wasted at home and hit the streets, there definitely needs to be more cops on the streets acting as a deterrent to alcohol related violence.

 

[funkshen]

societies that endorse eye for an eye, tit-for-tat punishments, often taking the form of blood feuds and revenge killings, aren't unstable and anarchic

they're just fucking awful places to live

i suggest anyone who advocates such policies go fuck off to Albania where thousands of children, embroiled in familial blood feuds, are forbidden from leaving the house as they'll probably die.

 

[RealiseNothing]

no, i don't. but i also highly doubt that you do live in an area where king hits are common. i also doubt you've been king hit to death before, too. what's the relevance?

My friend was just in hospital for being king hit actually. He may not be dead, but it's still more common than you think.

 

[RealiseNothing]

The world would be in anarchy if everyone was like "oh he killed my family member , that means it is right to kill him now". People would get revenge on each other and the stability of society would cease to exist.

Lol because that doesn't happen now right?

 

[funkshen]

My friend was just in hospital for being king hit actually. He may not be dead, but it's still more common than you think.

great anecdote mate

 

[RealiseNothing]

great anecdote mate

thanks you too

 

[funkshen]

thanks you too

thanks, but you must be mistaken. i didn't actually have an anecdote. sorry about your mate getting king hit though. Kieran Loveridge died for your mate's sins.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

5 years and 2 months really isn't a long time.

What are the mitigating factors in this case? I can't think of any.

If you can't think of any mitigating circumstances in this case then you clearly know so little about it that's it's almost cute that you think you think you have any right to comment on it. Let me name a couple: he was a young offender, he was of a socially disadvantaged Aboriginal heritage, he demonstrated a clear remorse after his actions (hugging and apologising to his victims before the matter was even brought to court, 'weeping' during the reading of the victim impact statement, demonstrating remorse for his victims over himself to a 'pleasing' extent in the opinion of a psychiatric professional, descending into depression at the knowledge of what he had done), he was making a clear attempt to get his life together after the disruption of his first offence (resuming his high school education and pursuing higher training) and he was exposed to violence, alcohol and criminal activities in childhood in his family home. Many of these factors indicate a promising prospect of rehabilitation, I'll remind you that it's called CORRECTIVE services, I'm case you weren't aware that rehabilitation is the primary goal of the criminal justice system. Why force another young man to lose his life over this? If he is likely to successfully rehabilitate to the point where he will no longer cause harm to society why force him to 'rot in jail' as I believe a previous poster so delicately put it?

I'm sorry but the judge's obiter and ratio were posted by Rafy early on in this thread. If you couldn't be bothered to read it, it's not your place to judge it. That goes for pretty much everyone on this thread thus far.

 

[wannaspoon]

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

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

 

[SuchSmallHands]

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

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

Right, just like your opinion is very different to that of the professional psychologist who interviewed Loveridge and was satisfied that he demonstrated remorse.

 

[wannaspoon]

Right, just like your opinion is very different to that of the professional psychologist who interviewed Loveridge and was satisfied that he demonstrated remorse.

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...

 

[Graney]

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...

You high bro?