Mandatory sentencing for serious bodily harm-style assaults on police and other emergency service workers like paramedics is a statement by society that says: we will not tolerate serious assaults on our emergency personnel, and that includes nurses in emergency wards.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
These are front line public servants who uphold public safely and the rule of law.
Failure to draw the line with such attacks merely undermines the very fabric of a safe, orderly and civilised society.
Remember that an accused still has to be found guilty first, before mandatory sentencing applies. Also, the assault would have to be serious; not simply a case of pushing and shoving an emergency service worker or some alcohol fuelled comments.
Serious assault on police are an affront to our way of living. Penalties for those found guilty should be non-negotiable – not some legal argument traded on the courtroom floor.
Lawyers would have adequate time in the court case to defend their client against any charges. Mandatory sentencing is the end game.
Lawyers oppose the measure, as you would expect, because mandatory sentencing deals lawyers out of the equation at sentencing time.
Lawyers exist to ensure their client gets justice from a fair trial. Their brief is not to ensure their client always gets off.
Whether or not assaults on police have fallen is no argument. The reform is a statement of community standards.
Why is mandatory sentencing a prescribed form of punishment?
Probably because of the over-use of suspended sentencing. Also the reliance by the courts on questionable mitigating factors.
This ridiculous list of mitigating factors includes:
- An accused showed remorse – Of course an accused will show remorse if faced with jail. Who wouldn’t? It is even more ridiculous for the courts to accept such a sham.
- An accused should get some credit for pleading guilty at the outset. This is a frivolous excuse for reducing a sentence. A paperwork measure posing as contrition. It is an absolute insult to victims and families and does nothing to ameliorate guilt.
- To suggest that a difficult upbringing is a mitigating factor ignores freedom of will and freedom of choice.The philosophical notion of hard determinism, where we are wholly motivated and governed by our past is a cop out. Being assaulted as a child does not legitimise assaults by the child when they become an adult.
- Drug or alcohol addiction is often used as a factor, or intoxication is used as a contributing cause. Addiction may be a mitigating factor, but surely the impact of drugs or alcohol intoxication is no excuse for crime. It means that someone affected by drugs or alcohol can harm others with impunity. A drunk driver can run down a child and claim that alcohol was the cause. “I was so drunk I had no idea what I was doing.” Getting drunk was your choice, pal. When do you take responsibility?
Is it any wonder then, that society sometimes imposes its own sanction. Parliament has every right to make such laws. Parliament makes all laws. The law is a set of community standards, not a self serving tool for the legal profession. It is up to the courts to uphold our laws; not skew them towards the courts’ way of thinking.
Horse trading, plea bargaining, etcetera with crime and punishment may be a legitimate game in a court, but if it involves the defenders of public safety the game stops.
The only thing wrong with the current reform is it applies only to police. It should apply to all emergency service workers.
