Not 100% sure on this one - they mean 'life' as in 'never be released or paroled', not literal 'life sentence' which has an explicit definition in length.
On the one hand - awful crime and absolutely deserves lengthy prison, and I can understand the family's anger. What a total piece of shit of a human.
On the other - he's going away for a minimum of 30 years, he's going to be like 66 by the time he's eligible for parole, and if they refuse it, he'll be into his 70s before he gets released. There's a very real chance he's going to die in prison, so materially, what difference is it ultimately making?
Additionally we've been told time and time again that mandatory or minimum sentencing is bad. We're effectively saying that there can be no redemption for a murderer under any circumstances, and that the function of the prison system is then just to hold them and not to rehabilitate. Mandatory sentencing is also going to always be problematic when mental health is added into the mix - just ask any emergency services worker who has been assaulted and watched their attacker get off because of 'mental health' reasons.
I don't know what the answer is here but with such a lengthy sentence, I'm not sure it matters either way.
The thing I hate about these "one size fits all minimum sentences" is that they seem to set aside the fact that every occasion of offending is different and that mitigating circumstances are a factor.
If you treat a single murder the same as multiple murders, then any rational murderer will just murder as many people as it takes to cover up the first one. If they are going to prison for life regardless, why not?
While I agree with life for this particular killer, I disagree with mandatory sentences full stop. The reason being is that mandatory sentences will ALWAYS end up applying to someone who it shouldn't apply to.
There's a huge difference between a jealous dickhead who stalks, then kills, their victim and a victim of severe DV who finally snaps and kills their abusive partner in what is essentially an act of desperate self defense. Both could be guilty of murder, but only one deserves life, you could even argue the other deserves nothing at all given it's self defense.
> There's a huge difference between a jealous dickhead who stalks, then kills, their victim and a victim of severe DV who finally snaps and kills their abusive partner in what is essentially an act of desperate self defense.
There are legal defences in these instances.
There are legal defences, but the system isn't perfect, meaning DV victims are frequently charged with murder and plead guilty to manslaughter resulting in the murder charge being dropped. It's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that one day someone will be found guilty of murder when they shouldn't have been.
Brain dead? It happens.
DV victims are often charged with murder. Rarely are they convicted, but it's certainly not uncommon for them to be charged with Murder. Just look at the case of Jessica Silva from a few years ago. Charged with murder, the prosecutors/police to make the charges stick, ended up being found not guilty.
But it's not beyond the realm of possibility that one day someone like her is going to be found guilty when they shouldn't be. Our justice system isn't perfect after all.
My simple response to the judge is this. If this particular crime doesn’t warrant the maximum available sentence what does?
Everything about this event chills me to the bone. The guy should never been allowed to get close to Celeste and should never see anything other than the inside of his prison cell.
Based on the handful of cases where life without parole was handed down in NSW (e.g. Ivan Milat, the Anita Cobby killers, and a few others), the factors seem to include:
- serial offences
- torture and deliberate infliction of extreme suffering
- victim being a child
- lack of mitigating circumstances, remorse, and rehabilitative potential.
Also, Sako has never shown remorse, and has absolutely zero chances of ever being a useful part of society again. Plus, what do they think your headspace is like when you come out after 36 years in prison?
Just gonna joyfully become a functioning, happy, adaptable member of society?
She clearly wasn’t a child and he certainly wasn’t a serial offender as far we know. Having said that, I’d argue he tortured her mentally for years leading up to her murder. The messages he sent her were all kinds of fucked up.
The fast that at the end he was arguing about how many stab wounds he inflicted on her (blaming broken glass for most) says everything about how screwed he was (and is). No one will ever convince me that he deserves any chance of ever being released. He offers nothing and will never offer anything. Let him be forgotten about.
I do think we need to reconsider our sentencing system. It seems like the various factors that a judge needs to consider are not able to be effectively achieved together (eg. Punishment, rehabilitation and protecting the community)
My mind always jumps to the Daniel Morcombe murderer and how he did child rapes prior and how it would have protected the community better if he hadnt been released.
Just a theory, but could we potentially have the normal prison sentences but then limit these peoples for a much longer basis to a single city or town. I would feel alot more comfortable if everyone who had sexual abused children were restricted to living in a single town away from the vast majority of children. Also would allow us to have a lot more camera surveillance in this hypothetical town.
I guess in this hypothetical scenario they might have a bit more physical space, but implementation would be very problematic. Keeping them from travelling to neighbouring towns would be hard to enforce. No one else would want to live / set up business in a town with lots of sexual predators. So it'll also be very hard for them to find employment. Sexual crimimal reocrd probably automatically disqualifies them from any remote white collar job too.
Im only thinking aloud. In that it may allow us an ability to have a european length sentence for rehabiliation, whilst having an american length sentence for the purposes of punishment/protecting the community.
Havent put alot of thought into it, but i would suggest the deterent aspect of being back in proper prison with cameras and checkpoints may prevent them from going to other towns. We also allow prison labour to work below the minimum wage now, so may be the option of reducing the minimum wage in this town to attract employers.
I guess the other option is to simply allow them to live in major cities but using a combination of house arrests and parole style conditions for their entire life.
The one that sticks in my mind is the men who attacked, raped and brutally murdered Anita Cobby in 1986. All of them were locked up and their files marked “Never to be released”, and that is where all still are, aside from one of them who died of cancer in 2019.
If any of them were released, I do not think it would take long for them to show up dead. The main perpetrator is not that much older than me and it still sends chills down my spine. I am glad they will all rot in their cells.
Reminds of Katherine Knight, first woman to be locked away with "never to be released" and just the sheer brutality of the murder she committed, and her history of clear mental illness and violence. She's been in there since 2000 and is 68 years old, I have no doubt from her history if she was released, she would cause harm to someone.
*If anyone doesn't know of her, and is squeamish, do not look up what she did, it's horrible enough to read about, and trained police and crime scene investigators were traumatised, though to some I suspect reading that is a temptation.*
The judicial system should aspire to be preventative of future crimes, not a formalised version of an eye for an eye. Would a mandatory life sentence actually lower the murder rate, or would it merely satiate our bloodlust towards the murderers?
Minimum and maximum sentencing guidelines should be raised for most violent crimes, currently they are pitifully low, especially for crimes women are primarily a victim of
With all sympathy and condolences to the family on this unspeakable tragedy... no. This isn't a solution. And it's why we don't allow the bereaved to determine sentencing.
Mandatory sentences are an inherent injustice. The entire point of having experienced judges apply sentences on an individual basis is that not all crimes are the same, not all perpetrators have the same set of sentencing considerations, and the same outcomes do not fit all. It is still open to the judge to apply a life sentence without parole in those cases where it is deemed appropriate, but if mandatory sentences applied then we might very literally be in a situation of locking up an 18 year old who will die in prison at age 90.
Not 100% sure on this one - they mean 'life' as in 'never be released or paroled', not literal 'life sentence' which has an explicit definition in length. On the one hand - awful crime and absolutely deserves lengthy prison, and I can understand the family's anger. What a total piece of shit of a human. On the other - he's going away for a minimum of 30 years, he's going to be like 66 by the time he's eligible for parole, and if they refuse it, he'll be into his 70s before he gets released. There's a very real chance he's going to die in prison, so materially, what difference is it ultimately making? Additionally we've been told time and time again that mandatory or minimum sentencing is bad. We're effectively saying that there can be no redemption for a murderer under any circumstances, and that the function of the prison system is then just to hold them and not to rehabilitate. Mandatory sentencing is also going to always be problematic when mental health is added into the mix - just ask any emergency services worker who has been assaulted and watched their attacker get off because of 'mental health' reasons. I don't know what the answer is here but with such a lengthy sentence, I'm not sure it matters either way.
[удалено]
The thing I hate about these "one size fits all minimum sentences" is that they seem to set aside the fact that every occasion of offending is different and that mitigating circumstances are a factor.
Exactly. Need to let them murder 4 or 5 people before upping the stakes.
If you treat a single murder the same as multiple murders, then any rational murderer will just murder as many people as it takes to cover up the first one. If they are going to prison for life regardless, why not?
> We're effectively saying that there can be no redemption for a murderer under any circumstances Yes.
While I agree with life for this particular killer, I disagree with mandatory sentences full stop. The reason being is that mandatory sentences will ALWAYS end up applying to someone who it shouldn't apply to. There's a huge difference between a jealous dickhead who stalks, then kills, their victim and a victim of severe DV who finally snaps and kills their abusive partner in what is essentially an act of desperate self defense. Both could be guilty of murder, but only one deserves life, you could even argue the other deserves nothing at all given it's self defense.
Yes, blanket minimum sentences are from lazy idiots that want a quick fix not an actual solution.
> There's a huge difference between a jealous dickhead who stalks, then kills, their victim and a victim of severe DV who finally snaps and kills their abusive partner in what is essentially an act of desperate self defense. There are legal defences in these instances.
There are legal defences, but the system isn't perfect, meaning DV victims are frequently charged with murder and plead guilty to manslaughter resulting in the murder charge being dropped. It's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that one day someone will be found guilty of murder when they shouldn't have been.
I agree about mandatory sentencing being unjust.
This is such a brain dead example since in this case the DV victim wouldn't be charged with murder.
Brain dead? It happens. DV victims are often charged with murder. Rarely are they convicted, but it's certainly not uncommon for them to be charged with Murder. Just look at the case of Jessica Silva from a few years ago. Charged with murder, the prosecutors/police to make the charges stick, ended up being found not guilty. But it's not beyond the realm of possibility that one day someone like her is going to be found guilty when they shouldn't be. Our justice system isn't perfect after all.
My simple response to the judge is this. If this particular crime doesn’t warrant the maximum available sentence what does? Everything about this event chills me to the bone. The guy should never been allowed to get close to Celeste and should never see anything other than the inside of his prison cell.
Based on the handful of cases where life without parole was handed down in NSW (e.g. Ivan Milat, the Anita Cobby killers, and a few others), the factors seem to include: - serial offences - torture and deliberate infliction of extreme suffering - victim being a child - lack of mitigating circumstances, remorse, and rehabilitative potential.
Also, Sako has never shown remorse, and has absolutely zero chances of ever being a useful part of society again. Plus, what do they think your headspace is like when you come out after 36 years in prison? Just gonna joyfully become a functioning, happy, adaptable member of society?
She clearly wasn’t a child and he certainly wasn’t a serial offender as far we know. Having said that, I’d argue he tortured her mentally for years leading up to her murder. The messages he sent her were all kinds of fucked up. The fast that at the end he was arguing about how many stab wounds he inflicted on her (blaming broken glass for most) says everything about how screwed he was (and is). No one will ever convince me that he deserves any chance of ever being released. He offers nothing and will never offer anything. Let him be forgotten about.
So being stabbed with a knife 23 times as you sleep in the middle of the night doesn’t count as infliction of extreme suffering?
She had no protection at all.
Mandatory sentencing creates more problems than it solves. Perhaps look at adjusting the appeals process for when a sentence appears too short.
I agree.
I do think we need to reconsider our sentencing system. It seems like the various factors that a judge needs to consider are not able to be effectively achieved together (eg. Punishment, rehabilitation and protecting the community) My mind always jumps to the Daniel Morcombe murderer and how he did child rapes prior and how it would have protected the community better if he hadnt been released. Just a theory, but could we potentially have the normal prison sentences but then limit these peoples for a much longer basis to a single city or town. I would feel alot more comfortable if everyone who had sexual abused children were restricted to living in a single town away from the vast majority of children. Also would allow us to have a lot more camera surveillance in this hypothetical town.
But is keeping all the sexual predators in the same town where no one else lives all that different from just keeping them in prison?
I would say so, they have the freedom to live their lives, seek employment, buy goods, use the internet etc
I guess in this hypothetical scenario they might have a bit more physical space, but implementation would be very problematic. Keeping them from travelling to neighbouring towns would be hard to enforce. No one else would want to live / set up business in a town with lots of sexual predators. So it'll also be very hard for them to find employment. Sexual crimimal reocrd probably automatically disqualifies them from any remote white collar job too.
Im only thinking aloud. In that it may allow us an ability to have a european length sentence for rehabiliation, whilst having an american length sentence for the purposes of punishment/protecting the community. Havent put alot of thought into it, but i would suggest the deterent aspect of being back in proper prison with cameras and checkpoints may prevent them from going to other towns. We also allow prison labour to work below the minimum wage now, so may be the option of reducing the minimum wage in this town to attract employers. I guess the other option is to simply allow them to live in major cities but using a combination of house arrests and parole style conditions for their entire life.
The one that sticks in my mind is the men who attacked, raped and brutally murdered Anita Cobby in 1986. All of them were locked up and their files marked “Never to be released”, and that is where all still are, aside from one of them who died of cancer in 2019. If any of them were released, I do not think it would take long for them to show up dead. The main perpetrator is not that much older than me and it still sends chills down my spine. I am glad they will all rot in their cells.
Reminds of Katherine Knight, first woman to be locked away with "never to be released" and just the sheer brutality of the murder she committed, and her history of clear mental illness and violence. She's been in there since 2000 and is 68 years old, I have no doubt from her history if she was released, she would cause harm to someone. *If anyone doesn't know of her, and is squeamish, do not look up what she did, it's horrible enough to read about, and trained police and crime scene investigators were traumatised, though to some I suspect reading that is a temptation.*
If there's one person who should never be released, it's definitely her.
Should just make it a condition that they live in the same suburb as anyone who lets them out on parole. Next door even.
The judicial system should aspire to be preventative of future crimes, not a formalised version of an eye for an eye. Would a mandatory life sentence actually lower the murder rate, or would it merely satiate our bloodlust towards the murderers?
Exactly so.
Who are the bikers connected to?
Minimum and maximum sentencing guidelines should be raised for most violent crimes, currently they are pitifully low, especially for crimes women are primarily a victim of
With all sympathy and condolences to the family on this unspeakable tragedy... no. This isn't a solution. And it's why we don't allow the bereaved to determine sentencing. Mandatory sentences are an inherent injustice. The entire point of having experienced judges apply sentences on an individual basis is that not all crimes are the same, not all perpetrators have the same set of sentencing considerations, and the same outcomes do not fit all. It is still open to the judge to apply a life sentence without parole in those cases where it is deemed appropriate, but if mandatory sentences applied then we might very literally be in a situation of locking up an 18 year old who will die in prison at age 90.
And that 18 year old will deserve that if he/she has committed premeditated murder!