Page 1 of 1

AUSTRALIA'S JUDICIAL SYSTEMS IS A JOKE

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:24 am
by AussieMark
Man sentenced 11 years for baby's death

A NSW man will spend at least eight years behind bars for killing his then-girlfriend's baby.

NSW Supreme Court Acting Justice Jeffrey Miles sentenced Christopher Hoerler, of Wagga Wagga, to 11 years jail with a non-parole period of eight years and three months for the manslaughter of Jordan Anderson.

Seven-month-old Jordan was killed in the home Hoerler shared with the child's mother at Wagga Wagga, in the state's south, on February 25, 2000.

Jordan died from multiple injuries including liver and bowel damage, bruises and abrasions to his face, a torn lip and crushed toes.

Hoerler, 26, originally pleaded not guilty to murdering the infant, but offered to plead guilty to manslaughter after the Crown completed its case in his murder trial in July this year.

Justice Miles said he did not believe Hoerler's claim that he only hit baby Jordan with an open hand, at the instruction of the child's mother Louise Anderson.

"I conclude, and am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that the extent of the child's injuries was much greater than what could have been caused by striking the head twice with an open hand," he said.

"Overall, there must have been several and not only two blows."

Justice Miles said he accepted evidence from paediatric surgeon Dr Bruce Currie that Jordan died from choking on his own vomit, which was caused by the bashing injuries.

Outside the court Jordan's uncle, Darcy Smith, said the family was extremely disappointed with the sentence.

"Today I feel is just a very dark day for justice in Australia," Mr Smith said.

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:32 am
by Lindaloo
ONLY EIGHT YEARS?!! MANSLAUGHTER? Gosh Mark, you are absolutely right. That is screwed up.

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:22 am
by CaptinCrunch
Public Hanging time........Get a rope!!

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:49 am
by Guest
Wow, makes you want to take justice into your own hands.

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:58 am
by roarusdogus
That's nothing, some people here in the U.S. get away with murder with no jailtime. I think I'll have a glass of "O.J." this morning, if you get my drift. :wink:

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:59 am
by Josephine96
LOL Roarus... But it does seem like the judicial system over there is a joke..

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:01 am
by TexasStooge
8 years, nuh-uh, try 99 years to life.

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:52 am
by Lindaloo
roarusdogus wrote:That's nothing, some people here in the U.S. get away with murder with no jailtime. I think I'll have a glass of "O.J." this morning, if you get my drift. :wink:


The only reason OJ got away with murder is because of the cops inability to secure the crime scene. Plus, I do not believe he actually committed the murders, he had someone do it. That is the reason those gloves did not fit his hands. If the prosecution had moved towards the conspiracy theory, they could have better presented their case and got a conviction.

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:56 am
by Josephine96
I also believe OJ himself is innocent.. Somebody else may have indeed done it..

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:01 am
by Lindaloo
He is by no means innocent. Paying someone to committ murder is worse than the actual crime itself.

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:02 pm
by azsnowman
Don't EVEN get me started on the judicial system, what a CROCK of BS it is. In Az...kill a dog, cat etc....get LIFE, commit murder, rape, serve as the man in the article stated, MAYBE 8 years, MAYBE!!! The justice system WORKS for the criminals, not the victims!

Dennis

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:11 pm
by Derek Ortt
11 years for Manslaughter is appropriate. That is much more than one gets here. The definition of manslaughter is unlawful killing without malice while murder is with malice. If it were 11 years for murder, then I could see the outrage, but not for manslaughter

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 7:36 pm
by Lindaloo
Derek Ortt wrote:11 years for Manslaughter is appropriate. That is much more than one gets here. The definition of manslaughter is unlawful killing without malice while murder is with malice. If it were 11 years for murder, then I could see the outrage, but not for manslaughter


Should never have been deemed manslaughter to begin with. Do you know how many children died last year at the hands of their own parents? 450! I guess they should all get manslaughter too. This is ridiculous, malice or no malice. How do you figure there was no malice Derek?

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:12 pm
by AussieMark
It was only deemed manslaughter because

<B>Hoerler, 26, originally pleaded not guilty to murdering the infant, but offered to plead guilty to manslaughter after the Crown completed its case in his murder trial in July this year. </B>

I wish it was a murder Case and not manslaughter because as Derek said The definition of manslaughter is unlawful killing without malice while murder is with malice.

From what i have read i don't beleive it was an accident.

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:22 pm
by Lindaloo
They gave him a plea bargain. How typical. They do that here too Mark. Sad, but true.

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:17 pm
by Derek Ortt
Probably should have been murder, but he was guilty of manslaughter; thus, that's all he could be sentenced to. The blame should lie with the prosecution for presenting a completely craptacular case so that a plea bargain was necessary

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:25 am
by Lindaloo
Derek Ortt wrote:Probably should have been murder, but he was guilty of manslaughter; thus, that's all he could be sentenced to. The blame should lie with the prosecution for presenting a completely craptacular case so that a plea bargain was necessary


I agree 100%