Ok, so let me get this straight. Guy goes to work, makes a mistake and doesn’t see something at his eye height and goes to jail for a few years. Supposition on my part, but surely we’ve all had the experience of our eyes playing tricks on us.
It seems highly unlikely that he went to work with the intention of driving into the bridge. It is possible he was playing with his phone or otherwise distracted in a criminal way, but the news reports don’t indicate that.
Then, parliamentarians go to work, ignore science and voters wishes and represent their own personal beliefs and those of their campaign contributors. Cause untold hardship to refugees, fail to perform their duties, oversee health systems and coal burning that kills people,
completely fail to take action on environmental issues for 10-15 years and are resoundingly criticized as having done a very bad job. Their negligence and active undermining of science is likely to significantly affect future generations and the environment.
They get dumped at the next election and then get immediate access to very large superannuation benefits without having to wait until retirement age. And they can then get jobs paying $100’s of $1000’s per year with their cronies in industry.
Meanwhile, the poor bloody bugger of a bus driver spends a few years in jail, contributes nothing to his super in that time, comes out at retirement age without a job, perhaps loses his house and family because he made a mistake and probably has a sizeable legal bill too.
How is his position different to politicians that offer au pairs visas, take helicopter rides at taxpayer expense, permit environmental catastrophe under their watch for “making mistakes”?
(I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they actually are good people, making mistakes and not evil plotters, however that is purely an assumption on my part and probably open to challenge).
As much as Australia is meant to be a classless society where we are all equal, the reality is far from that. The wealthy “Haves” are on a completely different track to the working “Have Nots”.
If one of the pollies ended up in court over charges of making a mistake at work, they’d probably have their legal bills paid for them and, if the charges were not proven, sue the person that brought the charges and get a sizeable payout.
Is traffic law really the only law where intent isn’t required to prove guilt?
5 February 2019
This guy used a gun and balaclava to commit an armed robbery (granted, they didn’t get any money, but the intent was absolutely there). He got a sentence that almost two years shorter and a smaller non non parole period. Granted, Victoria and the ACT are two different jurisdictions, but the discrepancy is profound.