What does the Judge feel?

[lloydslights]

When an individual is on bail for a crime, and recommits to a greater degree (deadly coward punch), how does the former judge come to grips with his adjudication? 

[meh_too]

He would not give it a second thought.   

[***super_nova***]

There is not enough space to accommodate every person waiting for trial, only very small percentage do re-offend while on bail; unfortunately judges are just human and generally do not possess  crystal balls.  They allow/refuse bail on the info provided.

How would they feel?  I am sure they would wish there was something in the paperwork they were given that would have given them a reason to refuse the bail application.

[fredgirl23]

I agree.. next idiot please..

[ufo_investigations]

---

@lloydslights wrote:

When an individual is on bail for a crime, and recommits to a greater degree (deadly coward punch), how does the former judge come to grips with his adjudication? 

---

This is why we should do away with judges. All offences and punishments should be prescribed just like the price tag on supermarket products. Like we do with speeding. Speed between 40km and 50km the charge is X amount. Speed between 50 and 60km it is X.   Park in disabled parking and the punishment is X. etc etc etc for all offences.

[***super_nova***]

BUT that is exactly how it is, albeit somewhat more complicated; the judge operates within the guidelines.  And considering that person is considered innocent until proven guilty you cannot lock them up (at the cost of $150 000pa of taxpayers money) until they are convicted.  Only people who are considered unacceptable risk to community can be retained.  It often takes many months before people get their day in court, and even now people are held in police lock ups because there is not space in jails.  Would you be saying the same thing if it was your kid accused of something?

"prison costs

It costs more than $300 a day to keep a prisoner in jail, and more than $600 a day to keep a juvenile in detention. Taxpayers deserve a break: politicians should be working on ways to keep Australians out of prison....... Prison numbers are up, more prisons are being built, in 30 years the imprisonment rate per 100,000 population has nearly doubled "

http://www.cla.asn.au/News/prison-costs-up-numbers-up/

[azureline**]

well, not everyone charged with a crime is actually guilty of it, so very risky to assume so.

[just_me_karen]

That's called mandatory sentencing...if you commit certain crimes, you'll be sentenced for a predetermined period of detention.

But it doesn't really work because of mitigating circumstances.

For example, if a wife has been beaten for 10 yrs and eventually snaps, stabbing her hubby...it is different to someone who plots to stab someone over a dodgy drug deal. Is it fair to lock both killers up for the same period?

[ufo_investigations]

---

@just_me_karen wrote:
That's called mandatory sentencing...if you commit certain crimes, you'll be sentenced for a predetermined period of detention.

But it doesn't really work because of mitigating circumstances.

For example, if a wife has been beaten for 10 yrs and eventually snaps, stabbing her hubby...it is different to someone who plots to stab someone over a dodgy drug deal. Is it fair to lock both killers up for the same period?

---

If mandatory sentencing was to be introduced, the offences would have to be specific for each possible offence. The judge would have no discretion to reduce or increase the penalty, the judges job would be simply to impose the prescribed statute penalty and to ensure all is legal.  I don't see the problem about mitigating circumstances this is what causes criminals to walk. I reckon get rid of it.

[just_me_karen]

So you'd lock up the wife and the druggie for life?

There is already mandatory sentencing for some crimes, perhaps there's a law school dropout somewhere here who might know.