“Those who want to froth about the inadequacy of this sentence would do well to note that there is no rehabilitation in our ACT prison system. That is the fault of the current ACT Government… Sending this young offender into that system would have ensured that he learned only the wrong life lessons,” writes legal affairs columnist HUGH SELBY.

Just last week I was introduced to the term “angertainment” to describe media that is characterised by written outrage about something not to the writer’s liking.

Such articles are likely to use language calculated to evoke an emotional response from readers. There will be exaggeration, loaded language, and deliberate failure to check or accurately state the facts. 

The desired emotional response is that readers will agree with the writer and be drawn into accepting false assertions.

There’s a variation on this sport. This is when politicians and other attention seekers, acting selfishly, misuse the media to replace fair mindedness with fear and prejudiced opinions.

They exploit a common, but unpleasant, aspect of humans that is to label other humans as inferior and tainted.

The grounds for that claimed inferiority include gender, sexual preference, skin colour, nationality, religion, place of origin, income level, sporting affiliation, and on what side of the highway (once upon a time it was tracks) one grew up.

Depending upon one’s age and life experience, any reader can identify experiencing one or more of these prejudices.

Political parties cannot resist pushing for more “law and order” upon those feared inferiors. Neither can some commentators. When something awful happens, with one or more victims, it’s a rallying cry for making bail more difficult, creating new criminal offences, and increasing penalties.

There’s nothing easier than to claim that a sentence imposed by a court is inadequate, not respectful of the victim or their loved ones, caning the offender with a feather, or out of touch with community standards.

No evidence is needed to support such a claim, especially when the crime is committed by an outsider and the crime offends a current community priority. 

Once the angertainment claim is out there, all that is needed is some adroit use of social media, getting a petition in place, garnering some support from people who should know better, and then fanning the flames.

Ignorance is no excuse

Canberra is not immune. This can be seen from the current outrage about the non-custodial sentence imposed upon an adolescent, recent immigrant who raped a young woman. You can find it reported by the ABC here.

The ABC reporters don’t make clear the extent to which they quoted from the sentencing judge’s written reasons for his sentence, nor do they make clear what, if any, experience they have of reporting upon court decisions. 

For example, I can’t tell if they were in court and were given a copy of the reasons, or made shorthand notes, or had permission to record the judge’s remarks, or if they were given notes taken by some third party. It’s not required that they list their sources; however, it would help readers to evaluate the overall credibility of their report.

(Note that this week three long-term thieves from their ACT employer, to the tune of more than a half million dollars, are not going to jail. Will we see a petition complaining about that?)

There is nothing in the ABC report of the sexual assault sentencing to indicate that those seeking to capitalise on the sentence have read the reasons for sentence. 

The sentencing comments of our ACT Supreme Court judges can always be found, by anyone, on the court website soon after the decision is given in the court. The detailed reasons for this sentence, that run to 16 pages, are here.  

The judge reflected for almost a month between the sentencing hearing and handing down the sentence.

I encourage anyone inclined to believe that the sentence was wrong to read and consider the sentencing reasons. Pay close attention not just to the facts of the crime (which are gross) and the trauma to the victim (which is severe), but also to the life history of the offender, and then to the law that the sentencing judge was obliged to apply. 

Whether or not a reader is emotionally comfortable with the outcome, these sentencing reasons are an example of careful judicial method: laying out the facts and the law, identifying the gaps in information, exposing the reasoning, and coming to a logical conclusion.

Of particular significance is that the judge was obliged to assess the best way forward for this young offender’s rehabilitation.

Those who want to froth about the inadequacy of this sentence would do well to note that there is no rehabilitation in our ACT prison system. That is the fault of the current ACT Government which has made it clear that they have no intention of changing their “Prison is a warehouse, out-of-sight and out-of-mind” policy.

Sending this young offender into that system would have ensured that he learned only the wrong life lessons.

The outraged must look beyond a gut reaction to what’s on the scales of justice, and what is missing through no fault of the judges.

A petition to redress what’s missing would have merit. When it comes to rehabilitation there is so much that the Barr government could do, but chooses not to.

Retribution or rehabilitation, which should prevail?

Former barrister Hugh Selby is the CityNews legal affairs columnist.

News all day, every day at CityNewsQBN.com.au.