In this news report, the woman had stole her boyfriend's car, crashed it while drunk, physically attacked the police who came to arrest her, and she received a suspended sentence.

Here's you answer - the female news reporter describes as "hearbroken".

Maybe its all part of a great master plan to prove that women truly ARE completely unfit to be allowed to do whatever they feel like whenever it comes to their head to do whatever.. (which is what women do very much it seems..)

Then, the state can clamp down on womens freedoms in the same way as it has done successfully to mens..

Total control will be assumed..

Baaaa!

Quote from Percy

why have a friggin' sentence at all if you are going to suspend the fucking thing??

It's the suspended sentence that puts the teeth in the good behaviour bond. You have the rest of that sentence hanging over you for the rest of the (in this case) three years. It means that it isn't just 9 months in prison and then that's over and done with. The purpose of the good behaviour bond and suspended sentence is to filter out the decent, generally law-abiding people who have made a horrible one-off mistake from people who just can't obey the law for longer than two monts at a time. It's a test of character: how do you behave when there aren't screws looking over your shoulder every minute of the day? Can you keep it up for three years?

Quote from Percy

Why was her licence simply suspended for three years after she had been driving, unlicenced, under the influence (at a level four times the limit)

Because that's the standard of sentencing. The goal of a suspension of license is that it break bad habits. Realistically, of course, this stupid woman will break the terms of her bond, and everybody knows it. But you don;'t throw people in prison for what you are pretty sure they will do.

Quote from Percy

Why was the woman not told to pay the man's medical expenses and living costs for the rest of his life? ALL of it. Until he is 'cured'.

Because that would mean that if you are injured in an accident, you better hope it was someone with money. Hobart is in Australia, dude. Everyone gets medical care on the taxpayer.

They do have your system in some countries. In those countries, if a taxi hits someone the driver will drive that person around until they die, rather than be liable for the costs of their medical care. You'd like to live in one of those? You just haven't thought through consequences at all, haven't you? All you have is thoughtless outrage.

Quote from Percy

Courts are after all supposed to be the societal representative of aggrieved parties.

No, that is exactly wrong. The prosecution in a criminal case represents The Crown, not the aggrieved party. In civilised societies, courts do not "do" vengeance. Sentences are about risk of reoffending, general dterrence, and the public good.

Quote from Percy

Why did the reporter not raise the one major issue that everyone would like an answer to? That of the cost to the taxpayer for the trial, the prison and later 'good behaviour' monitoring?

Sure, it would be cheaper to … what, exactly? What alternative are you proposing? Throw everyone in prison for life? Not have trials at all? "If they hang 'em all, they get the guilty. But remember - they'll have to hang you too."

Quote from Percy

No doubt the taxpayer is paying for the man's medical needs now, instead of her. HOW MUCH DID THIS FRIGGIN' FIASCO COST US.

As I mentioned, yes, of course. This is the case in almost every developed nation.

Quote from Percy

Not a whiff of criticism of this woman who is clearly an alcoholic basket case, excusing her behaviour with 'eating disorder'. Not a whiff of a question of releasing this woman onto her three kids. Not even a small comment about the poor little doomed buggers having to live with this disaster of a mother.

Being an alcoholic basket case is not a crime. You don't send people to prison for it. And what a joke, you banging on about taxpayer expense and how m,uch the justice system costs, and then suggesting that the kids be taken from their mother and well, what? Put through the foster care system? Or didn't you think that far ahead?

Remember - the papers only get the defence at the trial. Because of the broken and silly way our courts work, the prosecution gets a free hand up until a judge hears all the evidence, which is something you have not done.

Sorry, Percy, but I have a bit of a stake here. I know that the papers just don't get the facts right, I know that people banging on who haven't heard everything just don't have a clue. Know it for a fact. Forgive me if I'm a little short with you over this.

Mr Wombat, I don't mind people being a little short with me. I am short myself.

But the arguments you put forward are specious.

It's the suspended sentence that puts the teeth in the good behaviour bond.

But it doesn't work. Where is your proof that it makes any difference at all. People constantly get suspended sentences, break the rules, and get another one.

Because that's the standard of sentencing.

And that is what needs questioning. It is an "we've always done it this way" arguement.

Because that would mean that if you are injured in an accident, you better hope it was someone with money. Hobart is in Australia, dude. Everyone gets medical care on the taxpayer

Yes. Why should the taxpayer pick up the tab in anything but the cases where 'causing' miscreants can pay instead, or pay the taxpayer back? For example, the Ambulance service is 'taxpayer paid' here, and my next door neighbour has used an ambulance at least eight times in the past year. He, like that small minority in society, are wasteful users and abusers of the taxpayer. He is pissed most of the time and could get a taxi for his modest self-inflicted injuries.

The prosecution in a criminal case represents The Crown, not the aggrieved party. In civilised societies, courts do not "do" vengeance.

And this must not be questioned?? In our Courts where the search for Truth has virtually entirely disappeared? Where the Judge judges which lawyer has lied the best? It is high time that someone started questioning the basis of mis-representation such as that. The victim of an accident of that nature has an aggriement issue that the 'Crown' is not representing.

You bring in 'vengance'. This is not relevant nor sought. Recompense should be.

As I mentioned, yes, of course. This is the case in almost every developed nation.

So are family courts that hold men guilty of almost every issue. So what that it happens everywhere? Another non-arguement.

Remember - the papers only get the defence at the trial

Another matter to question, not simply accept.

I would appreciate you, Mr Wombat, having a look at the way this, below, is reported.

What sort of questions do you think need to be raised?

[QUOTE]
Mother who hit twins with electrical cord
allowed to continue working in childcare

May 30, 20122:28PM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/mother-who-hit-twins-with-electrical-cord-allowed-to-continue-working-in-childcare/story-e6frg6nf-1226374495105

A MOTHER who used an electrical cord to hit her eight-year-old twins when they refused to do the dishes has been given permission to continue working in the childcare industry.

In a written judgment published on Wednesday, theQueensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal returned a blue card - which allows people to work with children - to the woman.

The woman, who cannot be identified, was originally issued with a blue card - which allows people to work with children - in 2009.

However, it was revoked in 2010 after she hit her twins with the cord.

The children received bruising and the woman pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm.

The twins were subsequently returned to her care.

The woman applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal last year seeking the return of her blue card on the basis she was regretful, had never again used violence towards her twins, and was not a threat to other children.

During a hearing in March, the tribunal also considered a subsequent incident where the woman locked one of the girls out of her home in a distressed state for a short period of time.

The tribunal found the woman had minimised the consequences of her behaviour in both incidents, but also found she was unlikely to again smack her children.
AAP
[/QUOTE]

The court heard it was the anniversary of Self's partner's death from a drug overdose the day of the crash and she was battling alcoholism, an eating disorder and depression.

Her licence had expired in April that year and she had forgotten to renew it.

Lawyer Amber Mignot said the mother-of-three had been suicidal before and after the accident and the consequences weighed heavily on her.

Don't any of you misogynists see, she's a victim, I tell you, A VICTIM!!!

The woman applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal last year seeking the return of her blue card on the basis she was regretful, had never again used violence towards her twins, and was not a threat to other children.

Again, she was regretful so that makes it all fine.

So long as the one woman is a victim and the other one writes that she has regret, there is nothing wrong... Damn these poor, poor women.. If only men weren't so oppressive these things would never happen.

*cough cough*

@Andy Man: That piece of jouranlism is simply awful and shockingly sexist, as is the sentence.

Percy makes some great points about the need for us to complain more and do so as in an organised way in numbers.

In particular it's worth complaining to any press regulators or compalining abour organisations who supposedly have a duty to be impartial (such as the BBC)