johnwicksdog@aussie.zone 3 days ago
I read this yesterday and just can’t shake it. It’s so fucked up.
I try remind myself of a study where members of the Australian public were asked if sentences were too lenient. The same question was asked of jurors from the actual court case. The results were that the public was far more likely to have the opinion that a sentence was too lenient where as the jury was more likely to believe it was appropriate. Normally considering this helps me take a step back from being outraged; Those who are closer to the case have considerations that aren’t making the paper.
This case has to be an exception though. I just can’t fathom how the judge arrived at such an abhorrently lenient sentence. This can only prove to indigenous people, and the family of the victims they don’t matter. I really hope there is some review on this sentencing to prevent this in the future.
hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
I agree and havw read the same, I rarely comment or post about such things for that reason. This wasn’t a jury case though, he plead guilty
Indeed and why I posted about it. Shocking as it would have been If the.dude had hit them and killed him but if he’d stooped amd rendered assistance but this … this is next level
This update has some reasons given as well as the family being upset by it all
www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-18/…/105787700
From the judge
I can only agree mith Ms. Roe.
johnwicksdog@aussie.zone 1 day ago
I suspect the reason a jury was chosen for the study was simply to find a cohort that was lay to the legal professions but still intimidate to a particular case. The lack of a jury doesn’t mean this still isn’t relevant, since it relates to the perception of fair sentencing among the public.