|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:25 PM April 28th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Had to check the article. Sure enough, it was a male judge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:54 PM April 28th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
one is invited to seek comparisons between or among unequals.
It serves no purpose to guess what might have happened. It's pointless. But, even if it had been a boy who had been present at that birth and had acted as we are invited to suppose he would have or might have, I'm certain that consideration would have been given to the special circumstances which would have obtained. It is rare for young men to give birth alone, so that already alters the situation considerably and different considerations would apply - the two deeds could not be regarded as "equal in severity", but perhaps they were. But even if he were to be treated differently from the girl, what is the point of hypothesizing? Should the girl in this case have been treated more harshly or should that hypothetical boy have to be treated more leniently? Were both the boy and the girl involved equally? Did she ask him to kill the child? Did she object to him killing her - their - baby? Did he suggest she kill the child? Did he render assistance in her killing the child? Dids he stand by idly? Did she stand by idly? When didi the killing occur?
Make up your mind: should men be treated like women or women be treated like men or should each case be dealt with on its merits and with compassion and consideration of the circumstances?
Mr Justice Bernard Bongiorno is an especially competent, highly regarded and humane judge. He is absolutely correct in this decision. The community would not be well served by sending her gaol. His remark that "some might object" is clearly correct, as witnessed by this posting but were more directly aimed at the current debate about "leniency in sentencing" in the State of Victoria. It is not his task to please others, he has to deal with the case before him, which he did admirably, without fear or favour. His Honour doesn't scare easily.
The situation in which this young girl found herself was horrendous and would have driven many to despair and in desperation one does desperate things. It is worthwhile to consider that, had she gone to a feminist "counselling service" the ladies would have urged her to have the child killed in utero, at public expense and within the law and she would have been applauded for taking this 'courageous decision". Or, perhaps, a "sympathetic" physician would have allowed the child to die of exposure, thirst and hunger.
The state of mind at the moment of the deed has to be taken into account. This His Honour did, and rightly so, as he would if anyone of us appeared before him, for, there but for the grace of God goes anyone of us.
An excellent decision; His Honour is to be complimented. One would not have expected differently from him.
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:16 PM April 28th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"should each case be dealt with on its merits and with compassion and consideration of the circumstances? "
The answer is yes. However at present, the only "important circumstance" which judges seem to consider is the gender of the accused.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 09:30 PM April 28th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"one is invited to seek comparisons between or among unequals. It serves no purpose to guess what might have happened."
When looking for disparities in treatment amongst men and women, comparisons are useful in helping to spot them. Additionally we aren't simply guessing here, we're using inductive reasoning. I've never heard of any man being convicted of murder and not given any time in jail. Now I can't say I know for sure that this particular judge would have given a different sentence to a young boy who killed his newborn son in similar circumstances, but I can say that overall judges do show much more leniency towards females than males. I would go so far as to say they show so much leniency towards females as to fail to adequately protect the public from the harm they can do, and I would cite verdicts like this one where women convicted of murder spend no time in jail as proof. With males, judges tend to do exactly the opposite, showing far too little empathy and being in some cases outright tyrannical.
"Make up your mind: should men be treated [more] like women"
In most cases, yes, men need to be treated with more empathy and the fact that we're human beings should be acknowledged on an emotional level by the judge.
"or women be treated [more] like men"
In most cases, yes, women need to be viewed as just as capable of harm as men and when they do it they should be held accountable to the full level of their participation.
"or should each case be dealt with on its merits and with compassion and consideration of the circumstances?"
Absolutely. The problem is sex should not be a factor in court cases and it obviously is.
"He is absolutely correct in this decision. The community would not be well served by sending her gaol."
I fully disagree with you. Anytime a person is convicted of murder and let go with no jail time the legal system has failed. The very first responsibility of the legal system, and government as well, is to protect it's citizen's lives. Let's not forget that newborn babies are a part of the community. Are they well served by letting someone who killed a newborn walk without jailtime? Where's the deterant to keep someone from killing newborns in the future? Yes these members of the community are well served by placing people who murder babies in jail, and by letting this killer go Justice Bongiorno has failed them as much as he has the power of doing so. For that, I feel he should be removed from the bench.
"The situation in which this young girl found herself was horrendous"
I understand the situation the baby was in was pretty traumatic too. Whom do you expect to recover first?
"The state of mind at the moment of the deed has to be taken into account."
Of course, but it shouldn't be the only or even the primary consideration. Justice should be the primary consideration. She took a life. Therefore, justice says she owes a life. The state of mind can be used to argue that maybe we should lower what we force her to pay a bit from that, but to remove the bill entirely is showing no respect for the murdered child, the other children in the community, or justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:42 PM April 28th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"one is invited to seek comparisons between or among unequals."
Indeed. Some animals are more equal then others…eh?
"It serves no purpose to guess what might have happened. It's pointless. But, even if it had been a boy who had been present at that birth and had acted as we are invited to suppose he would have or might have, I'm certain that consideration would have been given to the special circumstances which would have obtained."
Really? How certain are you Neale? Since you are the one who’s hypothesizing now… I say had it been a boy who committed this crime he would of gotten five years to life. Neale, you are aware that this woman was found guilty, right?
"It is rare for young men to give birth alone"
DUH!
"so that already alters the situation considerably and different considerations would apply - the two deeds could not be regarded as "equal in severity"
Dead is dead Neale. Perhaps the baby boy should be taken into consideration with your “equal in severity” test unless you consider being killed by your own mother to be less severe.
"...what is the point of hypothesizing? Should the girl in this case have been treated more harshly or should that hypothetical boy have to be treated more leniently?"
What is the point? Perhaps seeking justice for this baby boy. Or did you and this judge forget what the “point” actually was? So much for hypothetical hypothesizing!
"Were both the boy and the girl involved equally? Did she ask him to kill the child? Did she object to him killing her - their - baby?
Did he suggest she kill the child? Did he render assistance in her killing the child? Dids he stand by idly? Did she stand by idly? When didi the killing occur?"
So depending upon the circumstances there is an excuse for abuse? And in this case the actual death of a baby boy.
"Make up your mind: should men be treated like women or women be treated like men or should each case be dealt with on its merits and with compassion and consideration of the circumstances?"
Yes, lets make up our minds: Should both men and women be equal before the law? Should both men and women be equally held accountable when they violate the law?
“Mr Justice Bernard Bongiorno is an especially competent, highly regarded and humane judge.
Neale, are you hypothesizing again?
“The situation in which this young girl found herself was horrendous and would have driven many to despair and in desperation one does desperate things. It is worthwhile to consider that, had she gone to a feminist "counselling service" the ladies would have urged her to have the child killed in utero, at public expense and within the law and she would have been applauded for taking this 'courageous decision". Or, perhaps, a "sympathetic" physician would have allowed the child to die of exposure, thirst and hunger.”
Again, dead is dead, Neale. This baby boy was brutally beaten to death. How long did this baby boy suffer before he finally died? I find it far more despicable that a mother would kill her own child in comparison with a cold-hearted stranger, an abortionist.
What is true about this case is that the person who was the most desperate was and has been forgotten by both Neale and this judge...the baby boy.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:18 PM April 29th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
If you're so upset about it and so convinced of the inadequacy of the sentence and outraged by the injustice of it all, lodge an appeal.
Instruct a local QC to act on your behalf and take it from there.
All else is hot air.
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 12:55 PM May 3rd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
your experiment neale had happened...
a boy at the behest of his girlfriend (and she as well), repeatedly punched her in the stomach until they killed the as yet un born child... both were scared of what will happen... her with her reputation.. him with the same AND a 20 year economic sentence....
so tell me neale..
how come she is out free with no punishment...
and the boy is serving life? (they let him off the death penalty - how nice).
one thing that you dont notice is that when there is a law the ameliorates a desperate situation, it makes the criminal law stronger (though with women its made weaker)... so for instance, the existence of social services, soup kitchens, etc... make the defence that you were starving a point unacceptable to the court... why is abandonment laws with no strings attached NOT strengthening the murder cases in fetal death?
because they are useless... (as a recent article pointed out, the majority still KILL their babies! But why not? the neals of the world will let them go!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 06:04 AM April 29th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
There is another story on this same site about a man who was convicted of bigamy and sentenced to 22 months in prison. Why any man would get married today is beyond me but I guess down underin Austrailia having more than one wife is more criminal than bashing the brains out of a newborn child with your fists.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Tirryb writes "In Australia News.com.au reports