Melbourne Protest Rally

Inconsistency? you may need to spell it out. If you are yalking about
the "three strikes" thing, there is no inconsistency. I advocate more
severe penalties for (among others) drink drivers. But I insist on
defending the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law. What brought me into this was the suggestion that a
harsher bail condition was warrented by the seriousness of the crime,
consideration for the victim's family and fairness as against people
convicted of .05 offences.

I have yet to hear anyone argue specifically that allowing this
particular person to only drive to and from work would represent a real
hazard. Comparisons with people like Martin bryant fail because there
was no homicidal intent. If she were accused of being an axe murderer,
I would certainly support remand without bail.


My point is, I guess, that I see the basic principle of the presumption
of innocence as being so important, that it *must* be observed, even
when it seems obvious that the accused is guilty. After all, one would
assume that there is a case against every person brought to trial.

I expect that this woman is probably guilty, and hope that if the court
finds her so, that the punishment is appropriate. I suspect I will not
be satisfied. Nevertheless, I prefer to put up with the possibility of
wrongdoers occasionally going unpunished, or getting what seem to be
'soft' bail conditions, as long as it reduces the chances of innocent
people being convicted or treated unduly harshly by the system.

So say it explixitly. Does denying this person the right to drive
anywhere except to and from work represent a real danger to society?

The Victorian legislation (from memory) explicitly states that the
presumption is that bail will be granted, except in cases of homicide or
serious crimes. Causing a fatal accident while under the influence of
alcohol is one of a list of offences specifically excluded from those
where bail would normally be refused.

The Bail Act specifies that bail conditions should be sufficient to
ensure that the accused turns up to court, and does not represent a
danger, but should not be unnecessarily onerous.

A lot of people elected Geo. W. Bush.

But what I'm hearing is a lot of understandably emotive argument that
misses the whole point of bail conditions. If the people who are
protesting are doing so under a misaprehension, don't you think it would
be charitable to point that out?

And you wonder why I asked you about the meaning of bail? You typed the
words, but you don't seem to understand them. Should I ask you about
the presumption of innocence?

Moike

 

I've left the trail in so you can see that that sequence was in response
to your assertion that something had been prooved.

You wrote the right words, but you keep showing that you don't understand.

The reason why murderers get bigger bail than smart-arses, is because
they face higher penalties and so represent a greater risk of skipping
town. The victorian law is explicit in making that connection.

You accused me of "dismissing people's views as to the seriousness of
the crime" I don't. I simply dispute that the seriousness of the crime
(as such) should dictate the severity of the bail conditions.

It seems clear that the accused does not present much of a threat of
absconding.

Tell me how much threat is presented to society by denying her the right
to drive except to work.

Moike

 

So you believe that denying her the right to drive anywhere except to
and from work a couple of times a week will cause her to get pissed and
go out looking for motorcyclists to kill?

Moike

 

never did.

Does denying her the right to drive anywhere except to and from work
present a real danger to society?

Moike

 

educate me. What pissweak rhetorical device?

Moike

 

beer mate?

Moike

 

John Littler wrote:

.... and yet in another thread, you pooh pooh the idea of imposing
stronger penalties for recklessly endangering others unless those others
actually get hurt!

Moike

 

Ta and I'll shout you the second

 

Moike wrote:

Scarey, ain't it.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Smee initially thought he might accept your offer of a beer, but then he
suspected that noone he knew was having a beer also, so he changed his mind
and piked. I'll have it instead. Can't see good beer go to waste. Speaking
of good beer, I still have those cans of Fosters you and Goaty left in my esky
after the Superbikes this year... all of them.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

That's a suprise, he doesn't usually pike unless there is some
inconvenience involved......

I'm not suprised. I credit Fosters with keeping me (relatively) sober
at the Supers. I don't need to tell you who purchased the beer.

Enjoy them with a clear conscience.

Moike

 

<plonk>

 

More than enough evidence that you are highly likely to drink and drive and
pose a risk to motorcyclists on the roads. Please hand in your licence now.
No driving to work for you.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Yup

But no one in this thread (or the others) has demonstrated that by not
denying all access to driving he didn't adequately manage that threat.

I've mentioned that IMO he did.

You've mentioned in yours that IYO he didn't.

But no one has proved anything one way or the other... and I suspect no one
can.

At the point of trial one of us will be able to go "see nothing happened" or
"see something happend" but even that won't prove anything.

I think it's more a matter of common law and established precedent.

Err... some community opinion differs.

Sure if those people object, by all means let them peacefull protest in a
manner that does not unduly inconvenience the normal lives of other people
(that is uninvolved third parties).

I don't mind that as a proposition actually.

But it isn't a logical position... it's an emotive one. And your wording is
emotive as well. A logical proposition, logically set out would give
supported reasons.

The only possible reason is that she presents a risk.

Now as I mentioned above, opinion aside no one in these threads has been
able to provide any sort of proof that she does.

Nope you aren't the only one, but there are other people who believe that
what the judge did was not out of line with what has been done in the past.

Now (again) I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that saying 'the judge
got it wrong' is barking up the wrong tree.

The right tree is setting mandatory conditions which courts need to follow
in certain specific circumstances, like where a traffic death is involved.

And having community discussion and feedback about what those conditions
should be.

Yup, already got your opinion (see even you admit it's an opinion ;-)

But _no one_ has demonstrated an increased risk to the public of her
continuing to drive to and from work, and that would be required to be
demonstrated before all access to driving was cut off.

She _has_ demonstrated a danger when driving for 'recreational' purposes,
and that driving has been stopped.

One does not automatically presuppose the other, although you (and yes I)
might believe that it is more likely.

That however is not the point, our beliefs do not provide evidence.

It is about danger yes.

But nothing is that cut and dried. At what point does the danger become
negligible?

How do we judge that point? Is a blanket ban that point or something else?

Now that, I strongly disagree with.

And further more that goes against the purpose of the bail act.


G-S

 

I suspect that a 30 second news bite won't achieve it either, and that
lobbying from various committees is more likely to be more influential, if
lots slower

I didn't get that message from the protest YMMV.

So you are saying that if a car driver was killed by a drunk driver in
similar circumstances then a guilty driver should somehow be treated as less
guilty?

I would be uncomfortable with that...

I don't think you can have one without the other. If you run that line then
a more restrictive outcome for motorcyclists is a real possibility.

Would you like (as an example) a government committe examining the issue of
'less protected motorcyclists' to come up with a recommendation for say
"compulsery wearing of air bag jackets".

That sort of response is a real danger with this approach.

I suspect that they realise it. I'm just not sure that they alter
sentencing as a result of it, nor am I sure that they should. They _should_
alter the sentencing as a result of the outcome, and that I am sure they do.

Personally I want a balance between deterent of dangerous actions and
punishment reflecting the outcome of those dangerous actions. Now how one
balances that is the hard task.

But I wouldn't argue that something like "reckless endangerment" should
carry the same penalty as "reckless endangerment causing serious injury" (or
death). One needs to balance the likelyhood of certain actions causing
serious harm (or death) and the results of that action.

I would prefer to see any more serious punishment happen at sentencing, and
as a result of the serious injury (or death) caused _not_ at the bail
hearing, where innocence or guilt has yet to be legally determined
(confessions not excepted).


G-S

 

VB Smee?


G-S

 

But I ride to work!!!!!!!

 

Don't mind if I do.
My name aint Johno

 

Told you
It gives me a rash

 

VB is a beer? - and all this time i have been using it as a radiator
flushing agent~

Johno

Coopers any1?