Violence against men in Australia exposed: judges refuse to jail thugs who smash the lives of innocent men because it would be "society’s revenge". I bet they wouldn't be saying that if women were the victims.

Revoran · 2015-12-01T00:57:06+00:00

Firstly: Way to editorialize the title OP. Please don't try to spin your bullshit, just post the article title or a sentence from the article. Or at least some unbiased description of the article.

Secondly: I actually agree with him because judges should have the ability to discern between an attack with malicious intent and one without. The most important part of a judge's job is choosing a sentence after the jury delivers a guilty verdict. Having strict mandatory minimums defeats the point of even having a judge.

The solution to alcohol-fuelled violence is not mandatory minimum sentences or pub lockout laws, but stronger sentencing guidelines along with community education. We should have national ad campaigns and school education on this issue - something way exceeding what we already have for domestic violence.

The only bit of the article I thought was innapropriate was this:

Judge Botting said strong sentences judges were required to hand down in relation to alcohol-fueled violence ruined the life of the aggressor, often drunk but “otherwise a hardworking and decent citizen”,

If you commit violence, alcohol-fuelled or otherwise, you're not a decent citizen.

I bet they wouldn't be saying that if women were the victims

Agreed. If it was women everyone would be going apeshit. There'd be a national day of silence and people would wear coloured fucking ribbons.

JellySausage · 2015-12-01T01:15:43+00:00

I agree with the judge and I don't think this is in any way related to mens rights issues.

whelponry · 2015-11-30T20:08:18+00:00

Men in Australia basically have zero protection from the law when it comes to being assaulted by drunken thugs. Judges are more likely to express sympathy for the offenders than the victims. If these thugs were going around smashing in the skulls of women I wonder if alcohol would still be a valid excuse.

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=one+punch+avoids+jail+

Revoran · 2015-11-30T22:19:58+00:00

I don't understand the problem with what the judge says. He thinks that the law ( this one I believe ) mandating minimum sentences for drunken homicide is wrong. I do not think it is unreasonable that judges should be able to review cases, and the circumstances of each case, to determine what sentence to pass rather than being mandated to apply a specific punishment regardless of the facts of individual cases. In cases where malice and forethought can be proven, the punishment should reflect that. If two idiots get into a slap fight and one falls down a flight of steps, the punishment should reflect that as well.

The fact that this law directly targets "drunken thugs" means there is protection against king hit attacks. Also, in the study cited during the campaign for this legislation, only 4 of the 90 cases reviewed identified women as victims of the violence over a 12 year period. If anything, this law disproportionately protects men and if it actually helped solve the problem of alcohol related violence it would be a fantastic victory for men's safety.

aesopstortoise · 2015-11-30T23:34:22+00:00

The article didn't say he refused to jail anyone, although he does seem to express sympathy for aggressors rather than victims.

"Judge Botting said strong sentences judges were required to hand down in relation to alcohol-fueled violence ruined the life of the aggressor, often drunk but “otherwise a hardworking and decent citizen”, and did not serve as a deterrent.

“Let us call it what it is: society’s revenge,” he said.

“Don’t let us sanitize it by calling it a deterrent.”"

EvilPundit · 2015-12-01T06:27:17+00:00

Removed due to false and misleading title.

Comments