Athlai
Not Terrible
It can have a jail sentence up to 3 years. That said I don't know if the guy has been serving home detention since it happened or not.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Jesse Ryder Seriously Injured during attack at Christchurch bar
- Thread starter Mixmasterreece
- Start date
Flem274*
123/5
Nah **** him. Rehab is the second most important facet of the justice system. The most important facet? Getting people who pose a danger to society out of society until they are ready to come back into it.
Deciding whether indirect consequences are punishment enough is not the problem of the law. The marriage breakdown and business meltdown were the statements of his wife and his clients towards his behaviour, The court decision should be the statement of New Zealand as a whole.
I am about to sound like the rah rahs and I don't care. The justice system is too hard in areas that don't really matter and too fluffy in areas that really matter. That weed thing is a case in point. I don't want violent people. Another day Jesse dies from that, and famous person or no famous person, it is better for the rest of us if that guy is removed from public life for a while. The justice system has basically said "the punishment for violence that put someone in a coma for three days as a result of being punched to the ground from behind is a few hours painting fences".
The vomit pneumonia thing is a load of tosh. Jesse wouldn't have been in that position in the first place if some **** hadn't punched him onto the ground.
The right of the public to be safe from violent offenders trumps this man's right to rehabilitate while still being able to go to the pub and be around the rest of us.
Deciding whether indirect consequences are punishment enough is not the problem of the law. The marriage breakdown and business meltdown were the statements of his wife and his clients towards his behaviour, The court decision should be the statement of New Zealand as a whole.
I am about to sound like the rah rahs and I don't care. The justice system is too hard in areas that don't really matter and too fluffy in areas that really matter. That weed thing is a case in point. I don't want violent people. Another day Jesse dies from that, and famous person or no famous person, it is better for the rest of us if that guy is removed from public life for a while. The justice system has basically said "the punishment for violence that put someone in a coma for three days as a result of being punched to the ground from behind is a few hours painting fences".
The vomit pneumonia thing is a load of tosh. Jesse wouldn't have been in that position in the first place if some **** hadn't punched him onto the ground.
The right of the public to be safe from violent offenders trumps this man's right to rehabilitate while still being able to go to the pub and be around the rest of us.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Regardless of whether you agree with a custodial term or not (personally am more on the side of imposing a custodial sentence on the bloke who followed him out to the car - a pretty overt act, myself), it's a good thing that this sort of incident and the circumstances are debatable. Stuff like the one-punch legislation in NSW, mandatory sentences, etc. aren't much of a solution for many reasons.
Last edited:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I am with Phlegm here... You gotta punish the guy not only for the violence but the fact that he did it from behind and gave the other guy no chance at all... No matter who the other guy was, that kind of cowardice and the fact that he was a picking a fight after it was over should mean he should do some serious prison time.. regardless of what else has happened around him...
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
the slight problem with this theory is that there's no evidence to suggest prison readies people for the return to society, quite the opposite.
hmmm it's been a while since I've done anything sentencing related and while I do Craig got off lightly, I don't think it's quite to the extent everyone else does.
Craig's offence carries a maximum sentence of 3 years, Dylan's of 1 year. Generally with sentencing you have a starting point based on the offending and then consider the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offender. The only aggravating factor for the offending would be the eventual injury, but there isn't really anything else so the starting point for Dylan would have started probably with community detention, Craig would have started with 6 months jail probably. It should be remembered that these sentences are maximum sentence and are for the worst offending, where there are a few aggravating factors and no mitigating factors.
The fact the attack was from behind is reflected in the nature of the charges, but isn't counted here. For mitigating factors, Dylan has the benefit of his age, among others. For Craig, there are some applicable, and the judge used his power to consider another mitigating factor in the result of what happened to his personal life after the incident. I feel like this was taken into account too much but it is a valid consideration. The fact that they were drunk isn't relevant.
Personally I feel like Craig should have got home detention rather than community work but I don't think a jail sentence would be deserved.
Craig's offence carries a maximum sentence of 3 years, Dylan's of 1 year. Generally with sentencing you have a starting point based on the offending and then consider the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offender. The only aggravating factor for the offending would be the eventual injury, but there isn't really anything else so the starting point for Dylan would have started probably with community detention, Craig would have started with 6 months jail probably. It should be remembered that these sentences are maximum sentence and are for the worst offending, where there are a few aggravating factors and no mitigating factors.
The fact the attack was from behind is reflected in the nature of the charges, but isn't counted here. For mitigating factors, Dylan has the benefit of his age, among others. For Craig, there are some applicable, and the judge used his power to consider another mitigating factor in the result of what happened to his personal life after the incident. I feel like this was taken into account too much but it is a valid consideration. The fact that they were drunk isn't relevant.
Personally I feel like Craig should have got home detention rather than community work but I don't think a jail sentence would be deserved.
cnerd123
likes this
Actually this is a really good point.
Flem274*
123/5
Firing squad then
yeah nah the prison system isn't fantastic, and I believe prison should be rehab focused where possible (i.e. there are some offenders with very low successful rehab rates) or desirable. There are some people who can rot in hell for all I care (drunken dumb ****s don't fall into this category yet despite trying very hard to do so).
do you think it's ok someone who calculatedley (it's a word gagf) assaults someone gets to walk?
