Assaulting Emergency Service Personnel Laws (Vic)

[Culprit]

No sympathy for anyone going forward, you get convicted of an Assault on Emergency services personnel you are heading to prison. That can be as simple as pushing an Ambulance office away. This law has all come about from the Media/Social Media hysteria because two women got off their jail sentences. I can understand why people are pissed as I was annoyed as well. I decided to read the transcript and I urge others to read it. I am fair minded and can see why the judge made the decision.

http://www9.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCC/2018/689.html?context=1;query=Caris%20Underwood;mask_path=au/cases/vic/VCC


In saying that, the new law is a Facebook Law (to hopefully grab votes at the next election). Will the law stop these incidents? No chance just like Life in Prison or even the Death penalty hasn't stopped murders. If Parliament wants to dictate what the Judges do, let's remove the Judges and have MP's sit instead of Judges. We could kill two birds with one stone and save a fortune and our MP's may have to work a full year for a change.

On a side note: The clause that allowed the judge to not imprison those two women was introduced by the LNP.

All case transcripts are available. Would I want to be a Judge? No chance and I am not surprised so many suicide.

[K]

Is there ever a circumstance in which you cannot refuse treatment of any kind from ambos, etc.? I assume you always can. (Not saying that if you couldn't it would justify assaulting them, of course.)

[watt price tully]

[stui magpie]

It's an interesting one. Good find with the transcript Culprit, it's an interesting read. When you look at all the considerations the magistrate took into account and the detail in the final orders, it doesn't seem that light afterall.

Culrpit is right, this is a Facebook /Twitter law aimed to appease the perpetually offended. It will do little to actually protect the people it's supposed to protect as, in my understanding (WPT may have more detail) the majority of assaults like this on emergency services people are by people who are not in a rational state of mind. They are effected by either Alcohol or drugs or both.

Now you can't let that be an excuse, otherwise a valid excuse for drink driving is that you were too pissed to make a rational decision and not drive.

The difference with drink driving however, is that people can make rational decisions before they go out drinking to leave the car behind. People don't plan to get so wasted they require ESP assistance, so by the time that happens they're already irrational.

I'm in 2 minds about the mandatory sentance I'd rather see people employed in these areas get more and better self defence training and have the ability to refuse to treat someone who is violent. Get the Cops to take them off to the lock up, if they need medical treatment the cops can bring them back, suitably restrained.

[Culprit]

Yes WPT I was listening, always do at work. I went and found the transcript and had a read. I heard Rob Starry and what he stated is spot on, the law is about retribution not about justice. I am pissed at those two women but they have had their names faces do the global circuit. Everyone knows who they are and what they did.

[HAL]

Angry at what?

[Mugwump]

The transcript was an interesting read, and the sad facts of their lives did not surprise me. I am sure that many people who commit violent crimes have such a background, and we have created a society where this type of background, once relatively rare. has become common.

The problem is that the courts are not, in my view, there to develop sentences which apply the law very differently based on some implicit scale of disadvantage. They are there to administer the law, and to hand out sentences which reflect the gravity of the offence, not the inner state of the offender. Once we started to �excuse� crime, crime soared. In justice, equality under the law is a vital principle. This makes the law more severe for some of us than others.

There are many people with damaged and disadvantaged backgrounds who do not commit crime. Perhaps we should start paying them for their forbearance.

[Culprit]

There is no such thing as rehab in a private prison system as it's in their interest to get the person back. Especially as the cost now is estimated at $118, 000 per Prisoner per year. Surely we should be seeking an alternative than prison if we can. Mind you there are people that need to not pass GO and go directly to jail. The perception that jail will solve all problems is just wrong.

[David]

Same old story, isn't it? Tabloid beat-ups about light sentencing end up with politicians instituting mandatory minimum jail terms, removing judicial discretion and nuance, and making sure that our prisons become even more over-filled.

Having said that, I'm no fan of sympathy sentencing ��sentences should most certainly take into account life circumstances, but only insofar as they affect prospects of rehabilitation. So while I'm not 100% convinced that the right decision was handed down here, I am convinced that removing that discretion from judges in this area (or any other) will only make things ten times worse.

[stui magpie]

[David]

^ I was thinking the same, Stui. I get the sense of wanting to protect people in the line of duty, but one can't imagine that the victim impact is necessarily any worse.

[Mugwump]

^ I suppose the reason is because frontline public service workers are more exposed to risk, because of the frequency of their contact with the more, ah, troubled members of society. So you need to work very hard to dissuade would-be assaulters. That�s the official version, and it is probably true to some extent.

The other version is that penalties for serious assault are known to be inadequate, but the government is not prepared to take on the elites who set sentencing guidelines. And the general public doesn�t have a union which contributes to the Labour Party or writes things on their work vehicles.

[Mugwump]

[stui magpie]

Maybe I just read it different, but I considered a 3 year period when you're closely monitored on drug and alcohol use, and required to report to the magistrate, health and mental health professionals on a regular basis would be more effective than 6 months in gaol

[Mugwump]

^ I see no reason why these are incompatible. I�d have thought that the minimum sentence of three months was reasonable, given the good behaviour since the offence.

The job of the prison system is due punishment of responsible individuals, in an austere manner which should lead them to reflect that crime does not pay. Rehabilitation is the job of social workers after people leave prison. I agree that we could do far more on genuine rehab.