The ugly face of the Hun’s constant misreporting of criminal sentencing

This is what you get when you constantly report criminal sentencing with half-truths and misrepresentations. When you exaggerate what the offender has actually done. When you always downplay the jail time by deducting time served and possible parole period. When you report aggravating factors but not mitigating factors, and exclude the parts of a judge’s sentencing remarks that explain how they’ve arrived at a sentence.

When you do that day in, day out, week in, week out, year in, year out – is it any wonder that your readers become an ill-informed, ranting mob with a serious hatred of judges and anyone who works in the justice system? Seriously – read the comments. The anger. The abuse. The threats of violence.

Is the Hun embarrassed by this? Not at all! On the contrary, they’re PROUD of the torch-wielding mob they’ve created. They’ll just write another editorial demanding that Hulls act on the “public dissatisfaction” or even “outrage” they’ve cynically confected.

They really are shameless.

AND BY THE WAY: The meme that judges are “soft” on criminals is a myth. Sentences are increasing. And when members of the public actually are informed of the details of a case, they tend to be less harsh than real judges.

Show that to a Hun reader though, after they’ve spent years absorbing the meme, and it might make their head explode.

UPDATE 16/7: I have lost the original link at the start of this post, which was to a story where they admitted the public consistently underestimated the sentences that were actually being handed out. If anyone still has that link, please email me. It was similar to this one, only more recent and reported by News Ltd.

13 responses to “The ugly face of the Hun’s constant misreporting of criminal sentencing

  1. Part of the problem is that judges are under pressure to deliver non-custodial sentences for generally low-rent and cretinous behaviour, or to release people on bond/bail, so then they keep on doing what they’re doing. Much better, I think, to decriminalise drugs and get pure drug offenders out of the CJ system and instead be able to lock up crims and cretins for B&Es, assaults, etc, and keep the violent and stupid off our streets.

  2. “Under pressure” from whom?

    The Sentencing Act does, sensibly*, require judges to consider all alternatives to prison first – but the pressure they’re under externally is mainly from media organisations like News Ltd, whose only interest in law and order issues is whatever sells newspapers.

    *given the costs of prison added to the fact it tends to train criminals rather than rehabilitate them – there’s a reason Pentridge was known as “Bluestone College”.

  3. philiptravers

    I read all the comments,and some of them put their real name on their opinions. So at least they are being honest in a sense of the word honest. Many moons ago now,I read about some crims being given a highly nutritive diet,which made them very calm without any meat in it at all. But seeing Cobb would encourage me by his attitude to physically more than punish him illegally,I think the Hun is an example of those who chew on blood and bone all the time. It doesn’t matter to them Jeremy wether being opposed to their outrageous criticism in an honest account of facts, they feel they can do good by calling people do gooders and socialists etc. And they can judge a troubled life, which expands over more than those days where activity has been attributed to criminal indulging. So actually the offender only offended for a very short period of time. Thus he could of killed people more deliberately as it doesn’t take long to get rid of a human life, like road kill. My old Rule….. 24 hours in a day multiplied by 60 minutes in the hour,multiplied by 60 seconds in the minute, multiplied by the normal or leap year of 365 days. I also now believe Ivan Milat of backpacker fame is completely innocent. And I dont know the reported in the SMH Ms Hanley from Thule Corp. I just once lived on Hendersons Rd. Bittern and knew the Myer family up the road. am disgusted by the coincidence of time in the finding of Kenneally’s Schindler’s List and this story in the Defence Contracts. I hope someone is observing these unfoldings to see if there is an American Organization behind what is being done. Hanley has the right to legal advice….getting close to the Midnight Oil.

  4. Slightly off the topic, but on the topic of that 91yo who was bashed. Early on in the piece some member of her family was going on about how her house had been broken into numerous times, and they feared for her safety.

    Surely they have to take SOME responsibility for what happened, as they allowed her to remain in what THEY considered to be an unsafe environment. No matter how fiercely independent she was/wanted to be.

  5. Good piece Lefty.
    Last night Media Watch did a great bit regarding this topic and “old-fashioned faulty journalism”.

    Mugged By The Media

  6. philiptravers

    Andy B has pointed out like Idlaviv how the story has been manipulated,except he or she could be wrong about wether the family HAD responsibility.That is a legal matter, rather than anon-legal matter if the individual has her full faculties.Seeing the whole Aged Care thing regularly blooms it it too easy to make a comment about the family.There was a victim of crime,and that happened to be the family’s mother.Wether they armed with some legal right to change the woman’s circumstance is unable to be considered properly here.And all this comment hasn’t had that family’s approval,just like the story I bet. And all the comments.

  7. I think the media is just giving people what they want to hear. judges too soft! etc… keyboard warriors can then go nuts.The Hun never had unbiased reporting. I remember when they changed Martin Bryants eyes to make him look more crazed.You get the commenters egging each other on, until there’s a lot of frothing at the mouth (too much blood and bone as philiptravers said). Good for a laugh though, unless you’re on the receiving end.

  8. Pingback: Why would they believe what we work so hard to convince them? « An Onymous Lefty

  9. Pingback: Message missed « An Onymous Lefty

  10. Pingback: Numbers, not children - Pure Poison

  11. Pingback: Who says the Hun speaks “for the community”? « An Onymous Lefty

  12. Pingback: Baillieu even worse than Brumby « An Onymous Lefty

  13. Pingback: Soft on crime – Pure Poison

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s