impervious182
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 634
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
This is stupid. Reminds me of Germaine Greer's article on Aboriginal 'rage' because of the European occupation centuries ago. Take a look:
"This sentence seems unusually light, but it also throws an unusual light on modern justice:
The WA Supreme Court yesterday sentenced Mathew Roy McDonald, 22, to five years in jail for the manslaughter of pastoralist Bill John Rowe, 49, last year…
The Supreme Court heard the Rowe family had decided late on Christmas day to go to the beach to play a game of cricket with a new kit that Mr Rowe had given as a present to the family.
While at the beach, an argument had begun between some of the young Rowe and McDonald family members, and that spread to a physical confrontation between the two groups.
The court heard that as the Rowe family left the beach for their cars, Mr Rowe, carrying the family dog, walked up to McDonald to ask him to hand him the family’s cricket bat that he had taken.
McDonald then swung the bat, striking Mr Rowe across the face, fracturing his skull and forcing him to the ground.
Rowe wasn’t the only victim of that confrontation:
To add to the mystery of the light sentence, the court also told McDonald:
- “you consumed prodigious amounts of cannabis and alcohol, cans of bourbon, cans of full strength beer and an abundance of cones, so that by the evening you were well and truly intoxicated”.
- “this was not your fight in one sense”
.
- “I am at a loss to know why it was necessary for there to be a confrontation in the first place, even on a version which has your family as the wronged group.”
- “You can offer no explanation as to why you took the cricket bat”
- “Mr Rowe - who by all accounts was a gentle man, then 49; he would have been 50 today - offered you and nobody else either any violence”
- “You already have a record for violence but much of that is as a result of your drunken behavior”
- “(You had already been convicted of the) crime of unlawful wounding, (and given an) order of suspension of sentence ... for a period of 9 months”.
So why only a five-year sentence?
First, McDonald’s illegal drug-taking and drinking had been used not to damn him, but save him, as the judge noted, by “reducing the offence from an intentional to an unintentional crime, an unlawful killing”
Second, the crime was said to be unpremeditated, the defendant young and the killing unintentional.
Third, the law is strange, as columnist Paul Murray noted:
(Thanks to reader Steve.)"
From Andrew Bolt
The WA Supreme Court yesterday sentenced Mathew Roy McDonald, 22, to five years in jail for the manslaughter of pastoralist Bill John Rowe, 49, last year…
The Supreme Court heard the Rowe family had decided late on Christmas day to go to the beach to play a game of cricket with a new kit that Mr Rowe had given as a present to the family.
While at the beach, an argument had begun between some of the young Rowe and McDonald family members, and that spread to a physical confrontation between the two groups.
The court heard that as the Rowe family left the beach for their cars, Mr Rowe, carrying the family dog, walked up to McDonald to ask him to hand him the family’s cricket bat that he had taken.
McDonald then swung the bat, striking Mr Rowe across the face, fracturing his skull and forcing him to the ground.
To add to the mystery of the light sentence, the court also told McDonald:
- “you consumed prodigious amounts of cannabis and alcohol, cans of bourbon, cans of full strength beer and an abundance of cones, so that by the evening you were well and truly intoxicated”.
- “this was not your fight in one sense”
.
- “I am at a loss to know why it was necessary for there to be a confrontation in the first place, even on a version which has your family as the wronged group.”
- “You can offer no explanation as to why you took the cricket bat”
- “Mr Rowe - who by all accounts was a gentle man, then 49; he would have been 50 today - offered you and nobody else either any violence”
- “You already have a record for violence but much of that is as a result of your drunken behavior”
- “(You had already been convicted of the) crime of unlawful wounding, (and given an) order of suspension of sentence ... for a period of 9 months”.
First, McDonald’s illegal drug-taking and drinking had been used not to damn him, but save him, as the judge noted, by “reducing the offence from an intentional to an unintentional crime, an unlawful killing”
Second, the crime was said to be unpremeditated, the defendant young and the killing unintentional.
Third, the law is strange, as columnist Paul Murray noted:
Why should an accused in an open and shut case like this get any sentence reduction for an early guilty plea?
But fourth is spelled out in the judgement:
You are an Aboriginal person. I am well aware of the disadvantages faced, particularly by young Aboriginal men. It is a notorious fact, one which should fill all members of this West Australian community with shame, that although comprising only 3% of our population, Aboriginal people comprise 45% of our prison population. The background and privations of many young Aboriginal people are well-recorded and your story, looked at in isolation, would arouse feelings of pity in many people and anger that a young person, as you were growing up, has to live with those privations in 21st century Australia. As a community we have probably come desensitised to the depths of abuse suffered by Aboriginal children in their journey to adulthood. Your background is typical in that respect and needs to be factored into any sentence as part of your overall criminal responsibility. There are parts of your background that have led you and I inevitably to come face to face today because of the disadvantages that have been put upon you from an early age by others.
McDoanld will be out, it’s estimated, in about three years.
(Thanks to reader Steve.)"
From Andrew Bolt
Last edited:
