Marcus Einfeld (2 Viewers)

[big8oyjames]

on a serious note, i do not understand how anybody could stand by this joke of a sentencing. Yes he knew the law but 500 hours of community service would have been suffice. Society isn't any better with him off our streets, its not like he went around killing people.

 

[withoutaface]

I am fully aware of that, I was trying to illustrate a point.

Allow me to illustrate that same point with reference to the specific charges in this case.

WAF has argued that:

1. Einfeld lied and perverted the course of justice.
2. Einfeld gave others custodial sentences for perverting the course of justice.
3. Einfeld should be treated in the same way as he has treated others (implied).
4. Therefore, Einfeld should be given a custodial sentance.

There is no logical basis for premise 3, and therefore for premise 4. But even if we accept premise 3, by the same token, Einfeld also gave people who perjured and perverted the course of justice non-custodial sentences.

So applying the same logic, it is just as valid to conclude that he should be given a non-custodial sentence.

No logical basis? Those Judgments were upheld, and thus fall into precedent law at the very least. This case of perjury was significantly worse than 99% of others because he was fully aware of the gravity of what he was doing.

 

[withoutaface]

I wonder if they ever made him pay the $77.

EDIT: Also this thread should not be in L&OB.

 

[bell531]

on a serious note, i do not understand how anybody could stand by this joke of a sentencing. Yes he knew the law but 500 hours of community service would have been suffice. Society isn't any better with him off our streets, its not like he went around killing people.

Exactly. What is this punishment achieving?

Some people seem to be saying that precedent should have been followed in this case (as it was), but why blindly follow this principle when a community service order and a suspended would have achieved the same outcome (who could honestly say that Einfeld would re-offend with this hanging over his head?) and have been a much fairer punishment for a man who appears to have made only one, relatively small mistake?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

If feel genuinely sorry for the man.

He has already lost his career and his reputation. A suspended sentance and some community service would have been more than sufficient.

He has not harmed anyone and society will not be any better off for his imprisonment. The judiciary is merely catering to the moronic public's desire to see a public hanging.

There is so much focus on his position, and the hypocracy it represents. But no focus on how he abused that position. Had he embezzled millions of dollars, I'd be happy to see him go to jail.

But what he did was not destructive to others, merely dishonest and stupid. One stupid mistake should not be enough to condemn a man to prison.

Oh my yes.

 

[big8oyjames]

i only support the sentencing because he is jew. other than that, no.

 

[blue_chameleon]

...a community service order and a suspended would have achieved the same outcome (who could honestly say that Einfeld would re-offend with this hanging over his head?) and have been a much fairer punishment for a man who appears to have made only one, relatively small mistake?

A suspended sentence and community service hours would be a great deterrent in stopping blatant disregard for the law, wouldn't it?

As mentioned numerous times here, Enfield was committing perjury with full knowledge of his actions. For those that consider perjury as a real option to escape punishment, can we really believe that if Enfield was simply given a suspended sentence and community service order that this would provide a real deterrent towards others committing the act?

Enfield is a public figure. Whether he is a scape goat here is irrelevant. He shouldn't lied under oath to start with.

 

[bell531]

For those that consider perjury as a real option to escape punishment, can we really believe that if Enfield was simply given a suspended sentence and community service order that this would provide a real deterrent towards others committing the act?

Well this is where we disagree. Surely you can see that Einfeld's lie was a mistake initially, which snowballed out of control. I doubt, especially with his knowledge of the consequences, that any sane person would risk three years jail for a $77 fine. In my opinion, it was not a premeditated attempt to pervert the course of justice, it was a mistake, and so, although he did deserve some punishment, deterrence was not the right avenue. As I said before, community service and suspended sentence for such a mistake would have been the appropriate punishment.

He shouldn't lied under oath to start with.

Definitely true.

 

[big8oyjames]

no body takes the oath seriously anyway.

 

[withoutaface]

Well this is where we disagree. Surely you can see that Einfeld's lie was a mistake initially, which snowballed out of control. I doubt, especially with his knowledge of the consequences, that any sane person would risk three years jail for a $77 fine. In my opinion, it was not a premeditated attempt to pervert the course of justice, it was a mistake, and so, although he did deserve some punishment, deterrence was not the right avenue. As I said before, community service and suspended sentence for such a mistake would have been the appropriate punishment.

Former Supreme Court judges generally can't hide behind the "I didn't know the consequences of my actions" excuse.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Surely you can see that Einfeld's lie was a mistake initially, which snowballed out of control. I doubt, especially with his knowledge of the consequences, that any sane person would risk three years jail for a $77 fine. As I said before, community service and suspended sentence for such a mistake would have been the appropriate punishment.

C'mon now, let's be serious.

It wasn't a mistake. Concocting stories that his friend who was deceased had borrowed his car, was the start. Not satisfied with this, he created the supporting story to this that he and his wife were having arguments over him lending the car to his friend.

It 'snowballed out of control' quite simply, because he let it. He could have admitted the truth, but instead he held onto lies and exacerbated the problem.

That you look at the facts of this case and still regard his actions as a 'mistake' is laughable.

 

[blue_chameleon]

It would certainly stop me from lying about a $77 fine.

That's the joke though.

If a man of his position can't come clean and admit he lied to cover such a small penalty imposed on him, all whilst dragging the situation into worse territory, then he deserves whatever comes to him.

 

[bell531]

Former Supreme Court judges generally can't hide behind the "I didn't know the consequences of my actions" excuse.

I actually said the exact opposite of that.

C'mon now, let's be serious.

It wasn't a mistake. Concocting stories that his friend, who was deceased, had borrowed his car, was one thing. Not satisfied with this, he created the supporting story to this that he and his wife were having arguments over him lending the car to his friend.

It 'snowballed out of control' quite simply, because he let it. He could have admitted the truth, but instead he held onto lies and exacerbated the problem.

The first lie was a mistake. The story he concocted was told in the hope that it would not be investigated. Had he told the truth after this, the sentence would have been approx one and a half years. He obviously tries to cover this up, and avoid court, with another lie, his second mistake.

That you look at the facts of this case and still regard his actions as a 'mistake' is laughable.

They're opinion. I just can't see a man with his knowledge of the consequences risking the lie to save $77. It's quite clearly a mistake which got out of control.

 

[bell531]

That's the joke though.

If a man of his position can't come clean and admit he lied to cover such a small penalty imposed on him, all whilst dragging the situation into worse territory, then he deserves whatever comes to him.

That's the point - he deserves punishment, but to what extent? It's pretty stupid to say that because of one mistake that he is liable to absolutely any punishment that "comes to him". I just think the punishment was too harsh, and the aims would have been effectively met with a community service / suspended sentence.

 

[Scissors]

should've been sentenced to death imho.

 

[blue_chameleon]

The first lie was a mistake. The story he concocted was told in the hope that it would not be investigated. Had he told the truth after this, the sentence would have been approx one and a half years. He obviously tries to cover this up, and avoid court, with another lie, his second mistake.

At the end of the day though, a former Supreme Court judge has attempted to lie his way out of a parking fine, in the court of law that he resided over for so many years.

A suspended sentence and community hours would have made a mockery of our legal system.

Possibly one years gaol would have even been appropriate, i'm open to the notion that maybe two years is harsh. But I can't however, agree that what you're proposing is suitable.

...and the aims would have been effectively met...

Interesting point. What would the prosecutors/judge be aiming for with sentencing?

 

[incentivation]

I still stand by my original comment.

A person, of his stature and knowledge, who violates a law that is enacted to protect the integrity of the legal system, makes it all the more serious.

I agree with Blue_chameleon in that two years might be slightly too harsh, however believe a custodial sentence was required.

 

[bell531]

At the end of the day though, a former Supreme Court judge has attempted to lie his way out of a parking fine, in the court of law that he resided over for so many years.

A suspended sentence and community hours would have made a mockery of our legal system.

Possibly one years gaol would have even been appropriate, i'm open to the notion that maybe two years is harsh. But I can't however, agree that what you're proposing is suitable.

I'm starting to come round now, but in the end the punishment was too harsh, and he shouldn't have been made a scapegoat. One year does sound much more suitable.

Interesting point. What would the prosecutors/judge be aiming for with sentencing?

Maybe I worded that wrong. I meant that this sentence aimed to deter others, based on the notion that he deliberately tried to pervert justice (and apparently he was part of "planned criminal activity"), whereas I believe that it was essentially a mistake on Einfeld's part, and so it shouldn't have been such a harsh sentence.





And now I'm officially done with this topic. Despite all of my "laughably" absurd opinions which I apparently held, I enjoyed fighting this out with you blue_chameleon. Good game.

 

[gibbo153]

Hear hear.

He knew what he was doing, and the potential consequences. He played and lost.

EDIT: I don't think he'll last the two years in jail.

i hope he becomes the bitch of a big black man like the guy from 'lets go to prison'.

on a more serious note, despite the fact he probably deserves a more severe punishment, he actually shouldn't get one. equality before the law shouldn't be transcended in any instance, even when it seems reasonable. it is not a path common law should go down.

 

[JaredR]

apparently the bloke is Jew.

25 posts in and the first mention of his religion is made. I'm very impressed;