The Lesser of Two Evils
For those living in Australia, unless you have been hiding under a rock in recent weeks, you will be very aware of the separate criminal sentencing of two prominent Australian figures; Sportsman Nick D’Arcy and former Supreme court Judge Marcus Einfeld.
These two unrelated cases had me thinking…Â Â How does a court determine appropriate punishment in sentencing?
In the case of Nick D’Arcy, convicted of violently bashing in the face of his fellow teammate, and subsequently sentenced to a 14 month (non custodial) suspended jail term.
Marcus Einfeld, convicted of committing an act of perjury in lying to a court, was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
Should a court consider the character of the
individual in determining an appropriate punishment?
Of course a court needs to consider all the specific details of a particular case, although it would appear to me that in this particular case, the act of perjury should be a lesser crime than an act of violence against another individual.
When a court considers sentencing, should the social and community building efforts of the offender be considered in sentencing? In my view, those aspects must be considered. One has to wonder whether it is reasonable that an individual who has worked to eliminate social disadvantage, improve living conditions for Aboriginal Australians and establish standards of human rights in developing countries, should be gaoled when considered against the crime of an act of violence?
I find Marcus Einfeld’s crime exceptionally disappointing and as a judge he has undermined the very legal institutions he was supposed to stand for, although when considered against a violent crime, it would seem the sentence is out of balance.
Do we have yet another case of Australia showing greater appreciation for the efforts of those in a sporting arena, when compared to intellectual pursuits?
Which is the lesser of two evils?
3 comments3 responses to “The Lesser of Two Evils”
Leave a Reply
Luke,
I agree, 3 years in prison for arrogance seems a bit excessive. He has clearly been made an example of by his colleagues.
Slippery slope to make decisions based on who’s personality is more virtuous and how different kinds of virtuousness should affect leniency.
I think the most important in the sentencing handed down was that Nick D’Arcy’s crime was committed when drunk, and was an emotional reaction, the Marcus Einfeld’s calculated, pre-meditated and consistently carried through.
I guess I’m not trying to say “sentence based on personality” but rather, offenders should be sentenced taking into consideration their capacity for remorse and also rectifying their wrong in some useful way to society.
Marcus Einfield could still contribute in a significant way and to have him locked in gaol doesn’t really help anyone.
Luke
What difference does it make? The legal system is inconsistent. Sleeze bag lawyers can argue anything in order to save a client. Look at the way they used to tear apart rape victims and it has taken intervention from the government to rein that kind of defence in.
Nick D’Arcy is a spoilt brat and his daddy’s money saved his bacon again. However the swimming authorities decided that he got off with the legal system, but not with them. Good luck to him in his latest legal assault with his daddy’s money.
In the end, we will all meet our maker and everything will be sorted out then.