The idea behind the suspended sentence seems to be ripped straight out of the bleeding hearts handbook.

The basic premise is that you impose some weightless prison sentence on a criminal but then ‘suspend’ it for a period of time.

If the criminal commits a crime during this period of time then the original jail sentence instantly applies.

Back in 2007 Australia’s sentencing laws were tightened:

Judges are only supposed to suspend sentences in exceptional circumstances for serious crimes.

“Under the reforms, jail means jail,” Attorney-General Rob Hulls said at the time.


Whilst that might be what was intended back then, the reality today is every second criminal seems to be getting off with lollipop sentences. If anything, ‘serious crimes’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ appear to almost guarantee you a suspended sentence.

I appreciate the need for some sort of rehabilitation function in our judiciary system but let’s face it, suspended sentences might make people feel better but they’re not really punishments.

Say I hate my neighbour and don’t have any prior convictions. One day I decide to walk into his house and smash his face in with a baseball bat leaving him dead. Then I go back to my house, call an ambulance and play xbox until the police arrive.

At my court hearing I just make up some bullshit about daddy touching me, my family being poor, my television remote stopped working because the batteries ran out etc. and get a 3,000 year prison sentence, suspended for six months.

Now from my perspective I don’t plan on killing anybody else, my neighbour was the one who pissed me off and now they’re dead. Meanwhile I go back to living my life in peace and quiet and the legal system thinks I’m being rehabilitated.

I’ve just gotten away with murder.

There’s been a few serious cases that have made it to the news recently. I don’t know what the legal system’s definition of serious crimes is but I find it hard to believe there’s a whole other level of crimes above these examples going on that are never being reported on.

Do judges really think we’re that stupid?

In South Australia 2006, a three year old kid ran to answer the door before being kicked by his father, Troy Galffy. It wasn’t a friendly drop kick, a nudge to trip him up or even a violent shove against the wall.

Troy lacerated the kid’s liver and left him with facial bruising.

I don’t know about you but I had some pretty wild childhood fights growing up in my family but I don’t quite recall anyone ever lacerating somebody’s liver internally. Infact I’ve never even heard of that happening to anyone before.

For his troubles Troy was given a suspended eighteen month sentence and put on a good behaviour bond. The DPP did try to appeal the ‘sentence’ but was knocked back today in a 3-1 vote against.

Chief Justice Doyle, in publishing his reasons for opposing the application, said Galffy had made substantial progress to bring about his change and rehabilitation.

“There are good grounds for thinking that the family can be kept together, without putting the welfare and safety of the victim at risk,” he said.


What sort of message does that send to viciously violent parents? That it’s ok to kick the shit out of your kids so long as afterwards you make a few token gestures to show how rehabilitated you are?

God forbid we separate the family though. I’m pretty sure having your liver lacerated by your father’s foot isn’t something a child forgets any time soon.

“Yeah so as I stand here infront of my beautiful wife remembering the good times and the bad, like that one time my dad lacerated my liver and….

…oh god I hate my life”

Queensland teenager Rick Bailey shoved a glass into the face of a complete stranger in early 2008. Originally he received a fair sentence of four and a half years jail with an eighteen month parole period.

The attack was unprovoked and the victim and Bailey had no interaction prior to the random attack.

Just this week Bailey’s lawyers won their appeal.

They argued Bailey, 20, was extremely remorseful, had co-operated with authorities and had entered an early guilty plea.

It was also argued Bailey had made significant steps towards rehabilitation and was the sole income earner for his family.

The Court of Appeal set aside Bailey’s sentence, finding that comparable cases showed it was “manifestly excessive”.

Judge Sidney Tilmouth ruled the violence was “explainable” – because of childhood trauma Galffy had suffered – and “unlikely to be repeated”.


Baileys jail term was subsequently reduced to three years and wholly suspended for nine months.

Oh great, so because all the other sentences involving completely random glassing attacks are woefully inadequate we might as well keep the status quo? The guy random shoved a glass into a complete strangers face… who cares about a second chance?

And how the hell does one kick suddenly was away the bullshit ‘childhood trauma’ excuse?

If kicking your kid once is all it takes to solve someone’s childhood trauma problems maybe we just pre-emptively set up ‘Kick-a-kid’ clinics and invite childhood trauma suffers to come and kick all their troubles away.

Sure Bailey might have pleaded guilty and co-operated but honestly what choice did he have? I imagine it’s kind of hard to plead not guilty when a whole pub full of people saw you glass someone at random.

Co-operative with authorities? Well gee, if I thought I was screwed I’d be kissing arse too – no surprises there so why do we reward it?

Bandido biker Cem Jim Kusdemir (why do I get the feeling his parents named him over a game of scrabble?) threw rocks at two mothers and walked with a $1000 fine and two year suspended sentence.

Yeah, the guys been a deadbeat bikie all his life I’m sure the chances of rehabilitation over some rock throwing is going to set him straight.

Then there’s the case of the $50,000 a year welfare mum of eight who left her kids to fend for themselves for two weeks with $150 while she chased down an internet lover.

Slapped on the wrist with a 30 month suspended sentence.

And finally, back in March a NSW man was given a two year suspended sentence for having sexual intercourse with a four year old.

…I’m not even going to analyse that one.

While I’d like to believe that the idea behind suspended sentences has some merit, clearly the manner and frequency they are being used is quite useless.

Judges however seem to be delusional and think they’re doing everyone a favour;

Judges insist suspended sentences are the second most severe sentencing option because of the risk of jail hanging over an offender’s head.


I mean really, does the criminal care anymore? They’ve already committed the crime so what’s a good behaviour bond going to do?

Unless the person is an uncontrollable chronic re-offender (in which case what the hell are we doing handing out a suspended sentence in the first place?), having a jail sentence hanging over your head isn’t going to mean much.

Sure it’s supposed to be an incentive to not commit crime but lets not forget, had the criminal not commited a crime in the first place they wouldn’t be before a judge to begin with.

Something I think judges are increasingly forgetting.

Time to abolish this failed experiment and try something new. I for one am sick of seeing people walk for their crimes.


Related posts that might interest you:

1. Somebody tell judges they are supposed to be populist
2. Is cross dressing the new ‘mental illness’ defense?