Smashing the pokies gets 11 years in the slammer

Alderney said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Exactly?He did have significant prior convictions, most likely sentenced as a repeat offender of serious crimes, and much older than 17 too. You make a comparison here like any other Herald Sun gossip rag scribbler. Its poor form for a mostly good site. But on a serious note, it has been accepted by the courts that the reformation of the child offender is always an important, if not the dominant consideration, and that any sentences should be tailored with a greater emphasis on the future welfare of the offender. All adds up really. Society has no greater interest than seeing offenders rehabilitate. Period.

So the moral of the story is, it’s ok to kill someone as long as you do it before you are 18? Flawed logic!

What logic ? I think you meant to respond to another comment matey. There is no moral , or any story. What has being under 18 come about here for? Flawed articulation maybe, but you can read the rules of sentencing young offenders for a clearer def. It applies to young persons, under 18 and above. Cheers man.

Flawed logic!

No, that would be the bit where you claimed ‘it’s ok to kill someone’ when, here in the real world (it’s four dimensions to the left of the talkback universe) somebody was sent to prison for ten years.

Lookout Smithers said :

Exactly?He did have significant prior convictions, most likely sentenced as a repeat offender of serious crimes, and much older than 17 too. You make a comparison here like any other Herald Sun gossip rag scribbler. Its poor form for a mostly good site. But on a serious note, it has been accepted by the courts that the reformation of the child offender is always an important, if not the dominant consideration, and that any sentences should be tailored with a greater emphasis on the future welfare of the offender. All adds up really. Society has no greater interest than seeing offenders rehabilitate. Period.

So the moral of the story is, it’s ok to kill someone as long as you do it before you are 18? Flawed logic!

Exactly?He did have significant prior convictions, most likely sentenced as a repeat offender of serious crimes, and much older than 17 too. You make a comparison here like any other Herald Sun gossip rag scribbler. Its poor form for a mostly good site. But on a serious note, it has been accepted by the courts that the reformation of the child offender is always an important, if not the dominant consideration, and that any sentences should be tailored with a greater emphasis on the future welfare of the offender. All adds up really. Society has no greater interest than seeing offenders rehabilitate. Period.

71 priors hey, how successful is this bloke as a criminal?

And apparently he’s a real Lex Luthor criminal mastermind type, too! According to the report, Lex and his mate “spent days planning each of the robberies, waiting and observing staff movements to pick the best time to strike”.

So they spend days doing all this undercover surveillance. Then they pull armed robs that causes $100K damage, but only nets $700, and another one that obtains some newspapers and a few packets of smokes?

So, assume two blokes doing fulltime surveillance for two working days, giving a total of about 32 hours of surveillance. With a return of around $700, that means they’re making around $25 per hour, or a little bit more than what my teenage daughter makes working as a check out operator at Bunnings.

And the newsagent gig would’ve worked out to probably a few dollars an hour, or a helluva lot less than the Northbourne Ave windscreen washers make on a rainy day.

And riding bicycles to blaggings? WTF is that about?

Lock,.Stock and Two F*cking Idiots.

If it wasn’t for the guns, this would hilarious. As it is, these fools could’ve hurt someone, and they deserve to be put in a place where they can’t threaten anybody else for a very long time. It’s not about retribution (well, maybe a bit), it’s about protecting the rest of us from violent, dangerous morons. So may The Saints Preserve The Good Justice Nield, who is looking after the people of Canberra by locking up violent recidivist arsehats for extended periods. I’d like to shake his hand and buy him a beer.

Yeah but notice the judges are in each case. A lot of the eye raising decisions in recent years have come from one judge.

Can we keep Acting Justice John Nield?

Ozi said :

Why aren’t they naming this daft muppet? He’s a very well known local crim who has been regularly named in the past….

Why dont you name and shame him then!!!

Why aren’t they naming this daft muppet? He’s a very well known local crim who has been regularly named in the past….

Holden Caulfield said :

Murder only got him three years in the end, I think, plus an apology from the judge for daring to suggest 10 years was reasonable.

I think that is incorrect. Probation AFTER the sentence expired was reduced to 3 years. Still has to do the ten.