A fortune teller and a mind reader wouldn't be a bad idea also, then I'd be content.We need a verified attorney on board here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A fortune teller and a mind reader wouldn't be a bad idea also, then I'd be content.We need a verified attorney on board here.
I believe that's the difference between general and specific deterrence. Specific deterrence is aimed at the accused and his future conduct, general deterrence is aimed at the community.Here's a question -
When Judges refer to "deterrence" in applying sentences, is the deterrence aimed solely at the accused OR towards the community committing a similar criminal act OR two-fold?
BR's low sentence has very little deterring factors in itself, but if aimed at the community then it is similarly a joke.
Deterrance is of low priority in our laws it seems. Why?
I believe that's the difference between general and specific deterrence. Specific deterrence is aimed at the accused and his future conduct, general deterrence is aimed at the community.
AUSTLII - DPP v Osborn [2018] VSCA 207 (23 August 2018)
Supreme Court of Victoria
Court of Appeals
Summary - Osborn shot his girlfriend, Ms Karen Belej, in the head claiming he thought the one bullet in the barrel was on the the other side of the barrel, newly purchased gun, claims both were drinking on the day. Called 000, administered CPR for 1 hr, she was pronounced dead on Ambulance arrival, country area. Plead guilty to Manslaughter, no priors.
Murder charge downgraded to Manslaughter + a firearms offense - "a prohibited person in possession of a firearm"
Sentenced to nine years and two months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years.
Appeal -
( omitted for brevity)
Sentence increased to one of 12 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years.
That appeal was dismissed? DPP v Osborn [2018] VSCA 207 (23 August 2018) See the summary, after "CRIMINAL LAW", near the beginning of the document--last two lines of that paragraph. Where did you read that the sentence was increased?AUSTLII - DPP v Osborn [2018] VSCA 207 (23 August 2018)
Supreme Court of Victoria
Court of Appeals
Summary - Osborn shot his girlfriend, Ms Karen Belej, in the head claiming he thought the one bullet in the barrel was on the the other side of the barrel, newly purchased gun, claims both were drinking on the day. Called 000, administered CPR for 1 hr, she was pronounced dead on Ambulance arrival, country area. Plead guilty to Manslaughter, no priors.
Murder charge downgraded to Manslaughter + a firearms offense - "a prohibited person in possession of a firearm"
Sentenced to nine years and two months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years.
Appeal -
"9 The Director relies on the following two grounds of appeal:
Ground One:The individual sentences imposed, the total effective sentence and the non-parole period are each manifestly inadequate.
Particulars: In imposing the individual terms of imprisonment, in making the order with respect to cumulation and in fixing the non-parole period, the Sentencing Judge:
"Ground Two: The Sentencing Judge erred in finding that because the Respondent pulled the trigger of the handgun not intending for it to discharge this ‘tends towards a lower level of gravity of manslaughter’."
- failed to properly reflect the nature and gravity of the offending and the culpability of the offender;
- failed to have sufficient regard to the maximum penalties;
- failed to give sufficient weight to the sentencing principles of just punishment, denunciation, general deterrence and specific deterrence;
- failed to give any, or sufficient, weight to protection of the community;
- failed to give sufficient weight to the impact of the offending upon the victims;
- failed to give sufficient weight to current sentencing practices;
- gave excessive weight to the factors in mitigation."
"35 As indicated, the prosecutor had submitted that the respondent had told a number of lies to police, and that his Honour should therefore be slow to accept his version of events.
36 The sentencing judge gave careful consideration to that submission, but as we have said, rejected it. His Honour treated the ‘lies’ upon which the prosecutor relied, as, in his view, understandable errors."
"39 The sentencing judge described manslaughter as ‘manifestly a serious offence’...That said, having found that the respondent did not intend the weapon to discharge, he concluded that this factor tended ‘towards a lower level of gravity of manslaughter’."
"44 In addition, his Honour characterised the respondent’s behaviour as ‘an appalling’ breach of trust."
- 22 x Victim Impact Statements tendered in sentencing hearing
- Firearm relevant in upgraded sentence (+6 months it looks like)
Sentence increased to one of 12 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years.
Thanks JLZ for clarifying. I had some hope reading this, not so much now.That appeal was dismissed? DPP v Osborn [2018] VSCA 207 (23 August 2018) See the summary, after "CRIMINAL LAW", near the beginning of the document--last two lines of that paragraph. Where did you read that the sentence was increased?
Edit: Found it, and no, that was a dissenting judgement. One judge wanted to increase the sentence but the other two overruled him.
Your day for justice has a second chance.
'We didn't get justice today'
Outside court, Ms Ristevski's brother Stephen Williams expressed disappointment at the sentence.
"Nothing was going to bring Karen back, but today was about justice, and we didn't get justice today at all," he said.
"As a society at some stage we will … in regards to domestic violence make a stand … it wasn't today."
'We didn't get justice': Borce Ristevski gets nine years' jail for killing wife
I still believe he dictated a great part of that 'character reference'. How can one live with the knowledge their father killed their mother and seemingly be okay with that (not in all cases, I know some are truly horrific and justifiable, but this is certainly not that)?I also think that there will be a reconsidering of the matter of Sarah's letter, a most unvictimlike epistle being the only 'evidence' of Borce's good character.
Certainly, no one else gave Borce a recommendation, and by any measurement, Sarah's statement was so very very peculiar. She wrote that letter, knowing her father murdered her mother and , if she is to be believed, kept her in the dark and petrified about it for some time.
But she still wrote that reference , extolling in the most extravagant phrases, the gifts and glory that is Borce.
That , surely, has to be discounted, as a component of mitigation.
Nothing about when the court date is?