Australia:
‘How top judges go soft on worst crims
HALF of all defendants who challenged convictions or sentences in the Court of Appeal last year succeeded, leaving crime victims feeling betrayed.
…….* A thug who used a cricket bat in an unprovoked attack on a teenage stranger and a man who came to the teen’s aid, inflicting a fractured skull and a broken arm. He was given three years’ jail, entirely suspended.
….A serial offender with four convictions for drink-driving who critically injured a pedestrian – who later died – as he rode an unregistered, unlit motorcycle at night while disqualified, drunk, and speeding. His minimum jail term was 16 months.’
What these elitist idiots don’t “get” is that for a certain type of person, only the prospect of severe consequences prevents them from behaving like feral assholes. These judges have the luxury of showing “mercy” because they’re largely sheltered from the kind of lowlifes they pamper. Why does Singapore–for example–not have a problem with this kind of thing? Apparently the connection between crime and consequences is too complicated for Australian judges to make.
