Last week, we saw the sobbing wife on TV, whose husband was shot in a Gamesman shop in Penshurst a few years back. Most of the accomplices in the armed robbery will be out of jail by 2000, and the murderer got a sentence of 14 years jail (I think). She stated that justice had not been served. And indeed, a 14 year sentence for a murder seems highly unfair when that person killed a man with a family to bring up. Even under the circumstances - where the man, instead of giving the cash, decided to fight against the agressors - it almost seems to cruel that the accused was let off with such a light sentence. Many however would say that the man SHOULD NOT have attacked the young men with guns - that he should have given them the money and allowed them to get away with it. However, this is a ridiculous argument. If everyone was willing to risk their lives in the case of armed robberies, there wouldn't be that many. Most people would not enter a shop and steal money if they knew that a murder sentence would await them as the end result. Most armed robbers would expect acquiescence. THAT THEY DID NOT get it in this circumstance does not make the crime committed by the accused any more palitable. However, when it comes to sentencing, the whole of the circumstrances of the accused must be taken into consideration. For example, the relatively young age of the accused, or whether the accused was involved with drugs. Sometimes our justice system is based on the principle of forgiveness or rehabilitation, and not just retribution (that's what makes us 'civilized'). Does that one second error where the robber was confronted with this man attacking him and decided to pull the trigger warrant a lifetime in jail? Perhaps, but just remember that in cases like this there are always two sides to a story and that the anguish of the deceased's family may have been tempered if the prosecution had adequately supported them and made them aware of the true position in relation to the possible sentencing.

As for the armed robber convictions. They seem clearly fair in the circumstances. They assissted in the robbery, but they did not pull the trigger, nor did they have any idea it was loaded. There is no intention or no act involved in either the manslaughter charges or the murder charges. While one seems to think that four years is too light a penalty for these people involved (and I am one of them because when a person is held up, they are forever changed for the worse in their belief in their own safety. Also, the psychological trauma caused by these people can be significant, and a four year punishment for any armed robbery, not the least one which causes a murder, seems very unfair). But again, one must look at the circumstances again. Judges are too often blamed for being lenient. They have laws to follow, and they also have discretion to follow. They do not have to bend to the opinion of Alan Jones, no matter how influential he is in Sydney. They have to bend however, to the rule of law and to precedent. If the State Government wants tougher sentencing, it should pass the legislation or allow the courts of appeal to make a decision on sentencing (such as the case with negligent driving deaths). And again, one must look at the circumstances. Here are young people whose lives have also been ruined for whatever reason. Jail is not a pleasant experience. An offendor being raped in jail, let alone the shocking condition of many jails (no, they aren't palatial mansions) would be more than enough payback for the armed robbery that many of the offendors took part in. They should not go to jail for life because one idiot decided to load his gun. So, when picking up a newspaper, or watching a commercial television station, remember the built in biases (and also who feeds the information - crime reporting is the easiest thing to do cause networks don't have to pay that much for covering the stories since the police feed all the information).