and more from the ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...ailed-for-his-part-in-2-million-theft/5865728
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...ailed-for-his-part-in-2-million-theft/5865728
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
To be fair, some people don't know how wrong what they are doing is until someone points it out to them. Probably puts him at the shallow end of the gene pool, but he may have genuinely not understood the ramifications of his actions.
I've watched 'Gone in 60 seconds' - maybe he was doing it to pay his brother's debt back....
I've watched 'Gone in 60 seconds' - maybe he was doing it to pay his brother's debt back....
Which is how they did it in the "old" days - according to my father-in-law, now sadly passed away.Should have done it "one piece at a time"
Back in those days, when we wanted good tyres cheap, we'd talk to Goodyear workers in the pub who'd ensure that lettering was moulded upside down which we could then buy as cosmetic rejects!
Didn't the dumbass know it's the wheelbarrows you are meant to steal, not what you carry out of the factory in them...
http://lifeexplainedinjokes.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/hes-stealing-wheelbarrows/
http://lifeexplainedinjokes.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/hes-stealing-wheelbarrows/
If you want to take a narrow view I am sure that is true.
However criminal justice is charged with being a management tool of society, and we need to manage those who fail to comply with our laws in the most effective way. I don't think it is effective for people who say they are sorry when caught and who act contrite, and for whom a proper check of their life and behavior to that point shows them as an OK bloke, to be treated the same as the guy with a long history of getting drunk and beating his wife and who tells the police and judge to go get ****ed.
I am thinking the contrite fellow might respond to rehabilitation a little better than the determined sociopath. So I would husband my limited criminal justice budget and spend it more on detaining the guy who figuratively and literally gives justice the finger, than on wasting years of costly jail time on the guy more likely to have learned his lesson...
Did you just make that **** up?
In Australia we are serious about criminal justice and we have strict legislative guidelines for what constitutes 'good character' and 'contrition', which the judge must follow based on a pre-sentencing investigation and actual evidence of good character and evidence of contrition. Saying you are contrite or have good character is worth zip unless evidence proves it.
The biggest problem I have with this sentence is.....people perceive theft from a Corporation and theft from individuals as two separate issues....if this guy had stolen engines out of your car I doubt you would be so lenient....its a progressive narrative that big Corporations are bad so theft against their property either intellectually or goods is some how just some harmless act......If you want to take a narrow view I am sure that is true.
However criminal justice is charged with being a management tool of society, and we need to manage those who fail to comply with our laws in the most effective way. I don't think it is effective for people who say they are sorry when caught and who act contrite, and for whom a proper check of their life and behavior to that point shows them as an OK bloke, to be treated the same as the guy with a long history of getting drunk and beating his wife and who tells the police and judge to go get ****ed.
I am thinking the contrite fellow might respond to rehabilitation a little better than the determined sociopath. So I would husband my limited criminal justice budget and spend it more on detaining the guy who figuratively and literally gives justice the finger, than on wasting years of costly jail time on the guy more likely to have learned his lesson...
Actually the person found guilty after a not guilty plea is not getting a harsher sentence, they are getting the correct sentence according to the sentencing guidelines.
The person who pleads guilty gets a lesser sentence under the heading of 'contrition' but in fact the lighter sentence is not based on a moral premise but an economic one. The lighter sentence is indeed in exchange for not making the state, victims, police and witnesses suffer the stress, time and the cost of a trial.
It's the oldest quid pro quo going. You make it easier on us, we make it easier on you.
You don't make it easier on us, you get the standard sentence....
It's also a signal that the offender accepts they've done wrong and might have a chance of rehabilitation.Actually the person found guilty after a not guilty plea is not getting a harsher sentence, they are getting the correct sentence according to the sentencing guidelines.
The person who pleads guilty gets a lesser sentence under the heading of 'contrition' but in fact the lighter sentence is not based on a moral premise but an economic one. The lighter sentence is indeed in exchange for not making the state, victims, police and witnesses suffer the stress, time and the cost of a trial.
It's the oldest quid pro quo going. You make it easier on us, we make it easier on you.
You don't make it easier on us, you get the standard sentence....
In Australia we don't believe in warehousing criminals like in America, so 6 years with a 2.5 year non-parole period is quite stiff for a non-violent offence of theft.
And by the way, under sentencing guidelines the law actually says that a person stealing from a corporation like GM should get a lighter sentence than if they stole from an individual person.
Sentencing guidelines must include the impact of the crime on the victim. If you steal the engine from a little old lady's Camry you leave her with no transport and a load of distress and the anxiety that especially old and vulnerable people feel after being robbed. Sometimes they become too scared to go out.
When you steal several dozen engines by deception from GM (probably less than GM mistakenly sends to landfills each year) and nobody even knows they are gone and each shareholder loses what? - a millionth of a cent per share (although with the insurance refund shareholders probably make more profit than had the engines not been stolen) - how is that impact morally equivalent to impact on the little old lady?
So sentencing guidelines make it the law that harsher sentences go to crimes victimizing real people and not so much those fake people called corporations. I don't think I have ever seen a corporation cry or be afraid to go down to the shops...
So you can forget progressive/conservative crap, reality and the law says real people are harmed more....
That may be so but why do judges tell that to a person who says they are not guilty and they still stick to that. It is meaningless to them as they still maintain their innocence. They are empty words.Actually the person found guilty after a not guilty plea is not getting a harsher sentence, they are getting the correct sentence according to the sentencing guidelines.
The person who pleads guilty gets a lesser sentence under the heading of 'contrition' but in fact the lighter sentence is not based on a moral premise but an economic one. The lighter sentence is indeed in exchange for not making the state, victims, police and witnesses suffer the stress, time and the cost of a trial.
It's the oldest quid pro quo going. You make it easier on us, we make it easier on you.
You don't make it easier on us, you get the standard sentence....
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
