Keiran Loveridge (1 Viewer)

[RealiseNothing]

Atar is determined by the demand and supply. Tis irrelevant.

Yer but it means you can get into it with a 50 ATAR and 20 bonus points.

 

[captainpigs]

as someone who tutors legal studies, I would've expected more from you... forget the balance of competing rights between the victim, offender, and society? I don't think there's one case in the judicial system which illustrates a perfect balance, but this is just too disproportionate... you can't argue that it was justice on the part of the family, because they've obviously expressed otherwise, so no, there's no balance

I appreciate and acknowledge your debate- but don't get personal. It's rude and I don't appreciate it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions no matter how they form them.
I never once said that the decision was completely balanced and fair.... however, if there was no balance he would've walked out free with no charges against him and if there was no balance he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place. You also don't take my statement in the context which includes me saying I think he should've gotten a longer sentence. So no, I did not at all say that the decision was a completely balanced one as you have wrongly asserted, but I am saying that there is more options to consider than just throwing him behind bars for extremely long periods of time.

speculation... what you said is probable but just because he's 39, doesn't mean he's going to come out and run a muck. He'll obviously have 15-20 years to reflect on what he did and people who are 50 go to university and further their job prospects

Speculation as well. The changes to him that could happen- because he is so young- are endless and uncertain.

well obviously the point of argument is whether five years is enough for rehabilitation, and it's simply not

On what factual basis are you making that statement?
He could rehabilitate in five years, he might not. Everyone is different.

exactly, so where's the justice for the victims family? as I said, justice is perceptive and they couldn't be more blatant about expressing what an injustice this is

Why do you keep going on like I said that this was justice served? I never said the sentence was fair or just. I think he deserves more time in prison. What I'm saying that there is more to consider than how much of an injustice this is for the family. I don't understand what they are going through and I don't wish to because I couldn't imagine what it is like. But he is still a kid who can change his future.

I just believe- and again this is my opinion- your free to have your own so no need to get personal, but I don't see how 15-20 years is going to do a teenager any better than sending him in for 7-12 something like that and seeing how he is doing.

 

[RealiseNothing]

I just believe- and again this is my opinion- your free to have your own so no need to get personal, but I don't see how 15-20 years is going to do a teenager any better than sending him in for 7-12 something like that and seeing how he is doing.

I agree it won't be good for him personally. But he went around randomly king hitting people, the guy isn't exactly a person who deserves good treatment. And on a wider level, having a 15 year sentence as opposed to 4-5 years would make people think twice about this behaviour, and may lead to less incidents of bashings as well due to the possibility that they can lead to death.

Though really people who go around doing stuff like this probably don't really think/care in the first place, so it won't make a difference I guess.

 

[Spiritual Bean]

I appreciate and acknowledge your debate- but don't get personal. It's rude and I don't appreciate it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions no matter how they form them.

"Oh, hey, aren't you a psychologist who diagnosed Keiran Loveridge?"

"HEY MATE, DON'T GET PERSONAL!"

It has to get into your background because you're presenting an irrational opinion on a legal issue, then you go and tutor the subject. I'll leave it at that.

I never once said that the decision was completely balanced and fair.... however, if there was no balance he would've walked out free with no charges against him and if there was no balance he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place. You also don't take my statement in the context which includes me saying I think he should've gotten a longer sentence. So no, I did not at all say that the decision was a completely balanced one as you have wrongly asserted, but I am saying that there is more options to consider than just throwing him behind bars for extremely long periods of time

.

Let me quote what you said:

Having him sit through 20 years of prison would have him come out as a 39 year old man who probably wouldn't give a shit about what he does

Perhaps you'll argue that you weren't criminally responsible when you formulated that above-mentioned comment. That's something you said which completely implies the unfairness in a longer sentence, and thus the suitability, and thus fairness, of the current. I didn't say you said it was balanced. I stated that you implicitly support the current sentence which neglects the victim, offender and society balance.

Speculation as well. The changes to him that could happen- because he is so young- are endless and uncertain.

Yes, the idea that 50 year olds go to university to further their job prospects is speculation. It's factual. But you know, we can call it speculation if that helps you sleep at night.

On what factual basis are you making that statement?
He could rehabilitate in five years, he might not. Everyone is different.

Go look at recividism rates. Well you say that he may or may not rehabilitate in five years, so why not increase the sentence to ensure that there is a higher probability of rehabilitation? To keep it proportionate is important, yes, but five years is an extremity. Or perhaps the legal system is about injustice (at times), which is a completely fair argument. This thread is about whether it's too leniant and too harsh encapsulated within a justice concept, though.

Why do you keep going on like I said that this was justice served? I never said the sentence was fair or just. I think he deserves more time in prison. What I'm saying that there is more to consider than how much of an injustice this is for the family. I don't understand what they are going through and I don't wish to because I couldn't imagine what it is like. But he is still a kid who can change his future.

Oh, so you're advocating the importance of injustice? Or are you holding two opposing arguments and trying to mutalise them? As I said, five years is a too much of a gamble for rehabilitation, and it needs to be significantly increased, not slightly to 7 or 8 years. Obviously he can still change his future. That's the whole argument. Just because he spent a significant amount of time in prison, doesn't mean he can't change his future. Individuals who were wrongly convicted on crimes and spent 30+ years in prison have good lives now.

I just believe- and again this is my opinion- your free to have your own so no need to get personal, but I don't see how 15-20 years is going to do a teenager any better than sending him in for 7-12 something like that and seeing how he is doing.

I deal with facts and statistics, not speculative opinion.

 

[captainpigs]

I agree it won't be good for him personally. But he went around randomly king hitting people, the guy isn't exactly a person who deserves good treatment. And on a wider level, having a 15 year sentence as opposed to 4-5 years would make people think twice about this behaviour, and may lead to less incidents of bashings as well due to the possibility that they can lead to death.

Though really people who go around doing stuff like this probably don't really think/care in the first place, so it won't make a difference I guess.

Not giving someone a chance to better themselves because they did something bad defeats the whole purpose of having rehabilitative processes in place in the criminal justice system.

The people who aren't already thinking twice about this sort of behavior are those who are going to end up doing dangerous and harmful shit to society anyway? So why not promote education so you can change the people not just deter them from kinghitting someone because they will get caught and instead go commit other crimes.

I strongly support changes to the legislation in regards to kinghitting as a method of general deterrence.

 

[Spiritual Bean]

Yer but it means you can get into it with a 50 ATAR and 20 bonus points.

nope

my mate

teaching/psychology/law with 38

 

[captainpigs]

"Oh, hey, aren't you a psychologist who diagnosed Keiran Loveridge?"

"HEY MATE, DON'T GET PERSONAL!"

It has to get into your background because you're presenting an irrational opinion on a legal issue, then you go and tutor the subject. I'll leave it at that.

What does your psychologist statement have to do with me?

You were just rationalizing your argument of no balance in the decision by saying that the victims family emotional response clearly shows that it was unjustified. Does that not make your opinion irrational by justifying it with emotion?

Perhaps you'll argue that you weren't criminally responsible when you formulated that above-mentioned comment. That's something you said which completely implies the unfairness in a longer sentence, and thus the suitability, and thus fairness, of the current. I didn't say you said it was balanced. I stated that you implicitly support the current sentence which neglects the victim, offender and society balance.

Actually the only thing it implies that I don't agree with a sentence of 20 years. I explicitly stated that I don't agree with the current sentence. So how about before you make a judgement you take what I say as a whole and in its correct context. So no, I don't implicitly, or explicitly support the current sentence.

Yes, the idea that 50 year olds go to university to further their job prospects is speculation. It's factual. But you know, we can call it speculation if that helps you sleep at night.

The idea that HE will go do that after 20 years in prison is speculation. I never said the idea of 50 year olds going to university to further their job prospects was speculation

Go look at recividism rates. Well you say that he may or may not rehabilitate in five years, so why not increase the sentence to ensure that there is a higher probability of rehabilitation? To keep it proportionate is important, yes, but five years is an extremity. Or perhaps the legal system is about injustice (at times), which is a completely unfair argument. This thread is about whether it's too leniant and too harsh encapsulated within a justice concept, though.

What about recidivism rates? What statistics tell you longer prison sentences = higher probability of rehabilitation?
I have stated that it is to leniant- just not to the degree that you and others are advocating.

Oh, so you're advocating the importance of injustice? Or are you holding two opposing arguments and trying to mutalise them? As I said, five years is a too much of a gamble for rehabilitation, and it needs to be significantly increased, not slightly to 7 or 8 years. Obviously he can still change his future. That's the whole argument. Just because he spent a significant amount of time in prison, doesn't mean he can't change his future. Individuals who were wrongly convicted on crimes and spent 30+ years in prison have

Where am I advocating the importance of injustice?
Well, you as a 17 year old student would not have any idea about how much rehabilitation is needed- and according to you, the judges who deal with the law and justice every week of their lives would not either.

 

[Spiritual Bean]

Here we go again, the incessant refute of his own proposition

What does your psychologist statement have to do with me?

Background is important to formulate context and validity. I'm shocked that you don't know this.

You were just rationalizing your argument of no balance in the decision by saying that the victims family emotional response clearly shows that it was unjustified. Does that not make your opinion irrational by justifying it with emotion?

Emotional response is the perception of his own family? That's not emotional, that's perceptive justice and the crucial balance of victim, offender, and the society. Emotion is "hey Loveridge you are the worst human ever! Rot in jail for -insert inconceivable or invalid reason here-

Actually the only thing it implies that I don't agree with a sentence of 20 years. I explicitly stated that I don't agree with the current sentence. So how about before you make a judgement you take what I say as a whole and in its correct context. So no, I don't implicitly, or explicitly support the current sentence.

If you agree with anything less than 20 years, which you irrefutably do by your own self-admission (7-12 years as you said), then you're supporting a sentence which would improbably rehabilitate the offender. As I said, at least fifteen years to ensure rehabilitation. And sentencing him to 15 years won't stifle his prospect of rehabilitation. There are many people around this country and around the world who spend over 30 years in prison and are successfully rehabilitated.

The idea that HE will go do that after 20 years in prison is speculation. I never said the idea of 50 year olds going to university to further their job prospects was speculation

Oh sure, it's supposition, in that, I can't tell you in good conscience that he surely will rehabilitate himself. But there's a fundamental distinction between probability and possibility. By increasing his sentence to fifteen years, it's more probable that he'll be rehabilitated, as oppose to a mere five years which is playing with fire and complete uncertainty. My second point regarding furthering of job prospects stands.

What about recidivism rates? What statistics tell you longer prison sentences = higher probability of rehabilitation?
I have stated that it is to leniant- just not to the degree that you and others are advocating.

Go look at the 2009 stats, specifically for offenders his age. As I said, but you can't seem to understand for whatever inconceivable reason, the sentence has to be proportionate, not on either extremity, whether 5 years or 25 years.

Where am I advocating the importance of injustice?

Lol'd. Do you construct assertions without knowing what you write?

Sigh, back to quoting you:

Why do you keep going on like I said that this was justice served? I never said the sentence was fair or just. I think he deserves more time in prison. What I'm saying that there is more to consider than how much of an injustice this is for the family.

You:

>Five years is not as low as people make it out to be
>Seven years would be better
>That's my definition of 'more time'
>It's an injustice for the family
>But you know, who cares if it's an injustice for the family, perhaps increasing it to 7-12 years will make the family satisfied (when it doesn't - they are crucial to the justice balance if you're not familiar with the balance)

That sure sounds like the pinnacle of illogic. By recognising the family's perception of this great injustice, and inappropriately accomodating for it with a slight increase (yes, slight) and under-appropriate sentence, you're advocating the importance of injustice. Let me break it down for you. You're advocating a slight increase in the sentence, still an injustice, and I don't know if you advocate something without imposing some importance to it, thus you're advocating the importance of injustice.

Well, you as a 17 year old student would not have any idea about how much rehabilitation is needed- and according to you, the judges who deal with the law and justice every week of their lives would not either.

This is a complete strawman and is non-responsive to anything I stated, much less stated in the quoted. I'm 17, but at least I can say that I know more than a legal studies tutor entering into his second year of university. I've had to teach you about the balance because you can't conceive the notion. You also nothing about what I deal with, or what I do. Of course judges would have experience, and I never implied otherwise. There's a reason for appeal and review - to review judicial decisions and impose appellate judgement. You just ran out of arguments so you conjured strawman to obscure your lack of argument.

 

[Spiritual Bean]

I'm going out now, so I'll be home later to respond.

 

[Crobat]

Although I think what he did was horrible and has ruined the lives of many, whats the point of having him sit in a prison cell rotting through his youth instead of trying to change himself and maybe actually contribute something good to society.

Although I see your point, the problem is that this prioritises the rights/interests of the offender over the victim. Why should the law prioritise those who offend over those who abide by it and are victimised? You could argue that in this situation the victim is dead and the offender is the only one with a possible future, but then does that mean if an offender kills someone then their rights will be prioritised in that case, as opposed to another case of say assault (a less severe crime) in which the victim will have their rights prioritised? I'm not saying that that is what you personally advocate, but surely you can see the nonsense for the offender's rights to be prioritised as their offence becomes more severe.

If he can serve prison time, rehabilitate and then come out and do some good for society why not let him?
Look at justice from the view of a society, one bad person going in and a possible good person coming out.

That is the purpose of rehabilitation, and while I think it should always be a factor in sentences, in no way should it be the only factor considered in a judge's sentence (not that it was in this case specifically). The rights of the victims calls for punishment as well, not a simple few years of government funded "get well soon, you poor confused thing".

It's fair enough that everyone who has experienced something like this or sympathizes with the family- which i do to- is saying he deserves however many years, but the whole point of having such a system is that a rational and fair decision is made for both the offender and victim for the good of society.

Exactly, but I don't think that a rational and fair decision has been made for the victim and the victim's family who are victims in themselves as well. This isn't to say the sentence was wrong, actually if you go through Justice Campbell's judgment you will see his judgment is correct to the letter. He balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors appropriately with the law and remained objective as necessary, which is why I don't think an appeal would be allowed. The media would have you believe the Judge was a moron and that the whole judiciary (aptly labelled 'the legal system' by Matt Kean in his disgraceful article) has "failed" or "betrayed" us but many fail to realise the Judge here has done his job correctly - which is the problem. A better argument for these articles (and for those of us who truly believe this sentence to be unjust) might be one to push for tougher restrictions on alcohol and the introduction of new laws with regards to this common crime (I believe there is a campaign that has been around for a while, though I'm not really informed on it). Personally, while I find the sentence to be in line with the law, I still find the sentence itself to be too lenient and prioritising the rights of the offender over the rights of the victim. However, this is a conclusion that the Justice came to within the restraints of the law. This case doesn't reflect some flaw in the judicial process like most of the articles seem to be saying; it really just reflects a flaw in the laws surrounding the crime. People forget that the Judicature's duty is to interpret the legislations provided by Parliament, and the general articles and comments coming out surrounding this case really just exemplifies that lack of understanding.

tl;dr judge was right in his decision but the actual law is flawed

I would be happy to see on appeal him getting more prison time but nothing like the 15 or 20 years some people are saying.

I agree, 15-20 is too long considering the mitigating factors in this case. Something closer to 10-12 is more suitable I think.

EDIT: Play nice Spiritual buddy, I don't want this thread to be locked

 

[wannaspoon]

I'm going out now, so I'll be home later to respond.

Like I said, get ready to be called a pinhead hahaha

 

[captainpigs]

I'm not bothered to continue to do the quoting thing so I'll finish it with this.

You continue to tell me about how I know nothing about the balance, yet all you have spoken about how much of an injustice this is. You clearly have a strong preference towards the victim. Your argument is well grounded but how about some more balanced perspective, such as that of offender and society. The response of the offender is just as important to justice as the response of the victim is. Showing remorse- as determined the best we can (subject to your own opinion)- is grounds to reduce a sentence. Whether you accept that or not as based on your perceptions of professional psychologists, the matter is that is how it works. If you have better suggestions for how to determine remorse I highly suggest you go forwards and try to change the system because it will be for the better.

I do know nothing about what you deal with or what you do. Neither do you about me. Which is why I trust our criminal justice system- which isn't perfect by any means- to decide the punishment. Appeals are set in place to ensure greater justice is achieved for all. Whether a slight increase is an injustice is a matter of opinion. Something you don't seem to comprehend. I don't advocate the importance of injustice- because in my opinion justice will be served if he serves a considerable amount of jail time and comes out a better person.

You are a highly intellectual person but your personal criticisms of my opinion based on the fact that I tutor legal studies is as baseless is mine stating that your a 17 year old student who would have no idea how much rehab would be needed. I said it so you would realize that opinions differ but that doesn't mean they are illogical, wrong, or an injustice to the debate because as you have said it all is a matter of perspective.
I thank you for the discussion and will probably talk to you again about this when the appeal is heard.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Like I said, get ready to be called a pinhead hahaha

Hahah

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Although I see your point, the problem is that this prioritises the rights/interests of the offender over the victim. Why should the law prioritise those who offend over those who abide by it and are victimised? You could argue that in this situation the victim is dead and the offender is the only one with a possible future, but then does that mean if an offender kills someone then their rights will be prioritised in that case, as opposed to another case of say assault (a less severe crime) in which the victim will have their rights prioritised? I'm not saying that that is what you personally advocate, but surely you can see the nonsense for the offender's rights to be prioritised as their offence becomes more severe.



That is the purpose of rehabilitation, and while I think it should always be a factor in sentences, in no way should it be the only factor considered in a judge's sentence (not that it was in this case specifically). The rights of the victims calls for punishment as well, not a simple few years of government funded "get well soon, you poor confused thing".



Exactly, but I don't think that a rational and fair decision has been made for the victim and the victim's family who are victims in themselves as well. This isn't to say the sentence was wrong, actually if you go through Justice Campbell's judgment you will see his judgment is correct to the letter. He balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors appropriately with the law and remained objective as necessary, which is why I don't think an appeal would be allowed. The media would have you believe the Judge was a moron and that the whole judiciary (aptly labelled 'the legal system' by Matt Kean in his disgraceful article) has "failed" or "betrayed" us but many fail to realise the Judge here has done his job correctly - which is the problem. A better argument for these articles (and for those of us who truly believe this sentence to be unjust) might be one to push for tougher restrictions on alcohol and the introduction of new laws with regards to this common crime (I believe there is a campaign that has been around for a while, though I'm not really informed on it). Personally, while I find the sentence to be in line with the law, I still find the sentence itself to be too lenient and prioritising the rights of the offender over the rights of the victim. However, this is a conclusion that the Justice came to within the restraints of the law. This case doesn't reflect some flaw in the judicial process like most of the articles seem to be saying; it really just reflects a flaw in the laws surrounding the crime. People forget that the Judicature's duty is to interpret the legislations provided by Parliament, and the general articles and comments coming out surrounding this case really just exemplifies that lack of understanding.

tl;dr judge was right in his decision but the actual law is flawed



I agree, 15-20 is too long considering the mitigating factors in this case. Something closer to 10-12 is more suitable I think.

EDIT: Play nice Spiritual buddy, I don't want this thread to be locked

For what it's worth, I agree with this entirely. It's good to see someone who clearly actually read the judgement before forming their own own it.

 

[Crobat]

For what it's worth, I agree with this entirely. It's good to see someone who clearly actually read the judgement before forming their own own it.

Thanks but I can't say I had read the full thing when I started the thread

 

[captainpigs]

Although I see your point, the problem is that this prioritises the rights/interests of the offender over the victim. Why should the law prioritise those who offend over those who abide by it and are victimised? You could argue that in this situation the victim is dead and the offender is the only one with a possible future, but then does that mean if an offender kills someone then their rights will be prioritised in that case, as opposed to another case of say assault (a less severe crime) in which the victim will have their rights prioritised? I'm not saying that that is what you personally advocate, but surely you can see the nonsense for the offender's rights to be prioritised as their offence becomes more severe.



That is the purpose of rehabilitation, and while I think it should always be a factor in sentences, in no way should it be the only factor considered in a judge's sentence (not that it was in this case specifically). The rights of the victims calls for punishment as well, not a simple few years of government funded "get well soon, you poor confused thing".



Exactly, but I don't think that a rational and fair decision has been made for the victim and the victim's family who are victims in themselves as well. This isn't to say the sentence was wrong, actually if you go through Justice Campbell's judgment you will see his judgment is correct to the letter. He balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors appropriately with the law and remained objective as necessary, which is why I don't think an appeal would be allowed. The media would have you believe the Judge was a moron and that the whole judiciary (aptly labelled 'the legal system' by Matt Kean in his disgraceful article) has "failed" or "betrayed" us but many fail to realise the Judge here has done his job correctly - which is the problem. A better argument for these articles (and for those of us who truly believe this sentence to be unjust) might be one to push for tougher restrictions on alcohol and the introduction of new laws with regards to this common crime (I believe there is a campaign that has been around for a while, though I'm not really informed on it). Personally, while I find the sentence to be in line with the law, I still find the sentence itself to be too lenient and prioritising the rights of the offender over the rights of the victim. However, this is a conclusion that the Justice came to within the restraints of the law. This case doesn't reflect some flaw in the judicial process like most of the articles seem to be saying; it really just reflects a flaw in the laws surrounding the crime. People forget that the Judicature's duty is to interpret the legislations provided by Parliament, and the general articles and comments coming out surrounding this case really just exemplifies that lack of understanding.

tl;dr judge was right in his decision but the actual law is flawed



I agree, 15-20 is too long considering the mitigating factors in this case. Something closer to 10-12 is more suitable I think.

EDIT: Play nice Spiritual buddy, I don't want this thread to be locked

Thank you for such an excellent response. I think this kinda ends the argument between me and spiritual bean anyway.
I agree that the decision favours the offender which why I believe a longer sentence would be suitable. I do also agree that it would be nonsense for the offenders rights to be prioritized- but I do not think a prison sentence of 7-12 years would be prioritizing him.

I hadn't actually read the judgement which I really should but I also would support changes to the law as I have stated in my previous posts.

 

[wannaspoon]

It is pretty narrow minded to emphasise rehabilitation as the crux of justice...

 

[nerdasdasd]

You won't let this go, won't you?

 

[wannaspoon]

You won't let this go, won't you?

 

[RealiseNothing]

It is pretty narrow minded to emphasise rehabilitation as the crux of justice...

It's not narrow minded, it's stupid.