Baz

On your point of ‘right to silence,’ your response, ‘police are not some kind of impartial investigators,’ suggesting police are only interested in charging people and that they don’t look at defences, and are not open to the possibility that they did not commit the crime is just ridiculous. Just because someone makes a complaint against someone does not mean the other person committed the crime. Do you think that every person investigated by police is charged, and do you really think that the only reason this could ever be is lack of evidence, as opposed to maybe the complainant is making a vexatious complaint, or maybe they are just making it up? From my experience, 100% of the time, people who have not committed an offence participate in an interview, because they have nothing to hide, and are more than willing to give police their version of events, and as such provide police with their defence during initial interview. I am not naïve enough ttosuggest all cops are perfect, but at least I can concede this, your response and attitude just shows how prejudice you are against the police.

I don’t think I’m being ‘tough on scum,’ (your words not mine), the vast majority of people I deal with as offenders I do not label as scum, most have just made bad decisions, some are products of their environment, and some have not done what they have been accused of by who-ever (believe it or not). I just think there should be a level playing field when it comes to judicial process, because at the moment everything is geared towards the defendant, which is why there are so many acquittals, so much pitiful sentencing, and partly explains why society is in the state it is today.

We are obviously just going to have to agree to disagree on many of the other points, I am just re-assured that so many other members of the public, having seen what happened in the case with the McLeod’s, have been supportive of the police, don’t think that the police should be being charged with assault (I am still shaking my head at this comment), do not agree with your arguments, and do not hold your views.

Fraser, your views are so ignorant. If you had any idea about what you are talking about you would know cops coulden't give a toss about conviction rates, we don't get paid any more for charging people, never mind whether they get convicted or not, the only people who concern themselves with convictions are the bosses in the police, for their resume and promotion purposes.

fraser

So you don't give a toss when those you nick walk, sorry I'm sure you said that earlier in the thread.

fraser

Ha ha that's the point though isn't it neither you or any on here are well informed enough to make an informed opinion about that.

Yet the jury thought they were guilty of assault, yet you think they shouldn't be charged, you are a very funny man.

the troubadour

If that was the case it is likely that film footage would not be so readily available nor would the media give it quite so much time.

the troubadour

History has nothing to do with this and i have witnessed what you have and again not in Australia.It would appear a lot of posters would prefer to do away with the democratic process entirely and replace it with some quasi
authoritarian system.
Just to add mandatory detention has been shown to be of limited success in the USA as there as been no decline in assaults.
Shame this state government has not displayed a bit more spine and cave into demands by the police who instigated a first rate public relations campaign on the community supported by conservative lazy local press.

the troubadour

It sounds like thet have been in Australia for quite some time This being the case they may well be Australian citizens which ofcourse make the whole question of deportation redundant.

Kalenge

And thankfully your skewed opinion is in the minority

fraser

But I don't have an opinion, I'm just going with the legal procedures outcome, because they know better then me. As above I'm not well enough informed

lapin_windstar

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The common law system is an adversarial one in which two sides square off in front of a judge (and jury if relevant), and the police are (obviously) on the side of the prosecution. An arrested person is not being treated as a witness, has been placed by virtue of his arrest on the other side from the police, and whether or not to say anything to the people who are trying to make a case against him should be up to him, with no penalties for not doing what he is not forced to!

Defendants don't have to justify their defence to the police, they do it to a judge and/or jury. If they think it's going to save them hassle by shift the police's interest onto others, then great, but if not, that's their choice. Why should a defendant shortly after arrest tell the police what his defence in court is going to be any more than the police should tell him which witnesses and evidence they are planning to use (at some hypothetical point in the future)?

And in this case specifically (as far as we know any of the facts), how would the abolition of the right to silence have helped the police putting together their case at all?

I am not prejudiced against the police - I am just not naive about how all the different individuals and agencies involved in the process are pursuing their own interests.

You say that the entire criminal justice system is stacked in favour of defendants because there are so many acquittals - but you also don't want people who have been proven to have committed an assault to stand trial for it!