Slightly OT, but it is obvious from this case and others before it that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle with regards to trial by social media. IMO, the laws are going to have to be changed to suit this century.
I have always been against prior knowledge of a violent offender's other crimes not being admissible in court, to ensure they get a fair trial. What about the victims in all of this?
I would like to see comparable crimes allowed to be known by a jury. IMO, it is this law that can allow hardened criminals to continually commit crime against people, and continually get a slap on the wrist. The Jill Meagher case springs to mind.
There should be something in place whereby if an offender re-offends up to an arbitrary time period (5 yrs?, 10yrs?) after a similar offence, i.e a violent offence against another person, that offence should be well and truly considered when he/she comes before the court.
I believe that if you choose to commit acts of violence, which could include rape, murder, kidnapping, armed robbery etc, then you need to be judged on your "merits".
I believe the thinking that says every body is innocent until proven guilty should only go so far, and should not be extended to violent offenders - if they are bad enough to do it in the first place, then they have to be bad enough to wear that badge when getting judged on future crimes.
If the powers that be brought in something that addressed this, then it would cover a lot of the social media debacle regarding subjudice as well. The genie is never going back in.
Will probably never happen, thanks to the do-gooders bleating about invasion of privacy, they will say these people have done their time and deserve a second chance.
Well here is their second chance - don't do anything bad to anyone else for another ten years and that record won't follow you into the court room. Can't be fairer than that.
I have always been against prior knowledge of a violent offender's other crimes not being admissible in court, to ensure they get a fair trial. What about the victims in all of this?
I would like to see comparable crimes allowed to be known by a jury. IMO, it is this law that can allow hardened criminals to continually commit crime against people, and continually get a slap on the wrist. The Jill Meagher case springs to mind.
There should be something in place whereby if an offender re-offends up to an arbitrary time period (5 yrs?, 10yrs?) after a similar offence, i.e a violent offence against another person, that offence should be well and truly considered when he/she comes before the court.
I believe that if you choose to commit acts of violence, which could include rape, murder, kidnapping, armed robbery etc, then you need to be judged on your "merits".
I believe the thinking that says every body is innocent until proven guilty should only go so far, and should not be extended to violent offenders - if they are bad enough to do it in the first place, then they have to be bad enough to wear that badge when getting judged on future crimes.
If the powers that be brought in something that addressed this, then it would cover a lot of the social media debacle regarding subjudice as well. The genie is never going back in.
Will probably never happen, thanks to the do-gooders bleating about invasion of privacy, they will say these people have done their time and deserve a second chance.
Well here is their second chance - don't do anything bad to anyone else for another ten years and that record won't follow you into the court room. Can't be fairer than that.
