Chang decision based on outrage, not logic

John A Neve says:

05:53am | 28/10/09

Once again we have a politician (John Robertson) putting his seat before good sense. Rightly or wrongly a decision was made eighteen years ago based on the law as it stood. To talk about retrospective changes to appease the baying masses is so wrong, but typical of our pollies.

I believe the rules governing parol should be tightened, but this is neither the time or the way to do it. What is required is a rational debate on the implementation of our existing laws.

Lee says:

06:17am | 28/10/09

So glad you posted this. It’s been driving me nuts. Yes it was among the most shocking incidents in my lifetime but let’s not confuse the incident with a system where populism should have no place. Dangerous. Bad bad bad.

westie says:

06:39am | 28/10/09

Maybe John A Neve and some others don’t think this case should be discussed here, but public outrage about lenient sentencing has every right to be heard, hopefully by some of the out-of-touch legal panjamdrums who are responsible.

The criminal Lim should never have got such a lenient sentence in the first place.  And his co-conspirator Liew who shot Victor Chang, twice, in the head, should never be released.

Harvey says:

07:09am | 28/10/09

If Phillip Choon Tee Lim had murdered a drug lord, the newspaper Tory has worked for would be campaigning for his defence.

As it always does, it has chosen the path of gross populism, not evidence-based legal argument, to ignite an emotive issue. This distorts, rather than strengthens, our legal system.

SM says:

07:31am | 28/10/09

What an utter embarrassment they are.  Just a ridiculous, irrational call,  similar in part to their knee jerk handling of the Dennis Ferguson situation.  Their own incompetence allows the Chang family to discover the news via the media, and then all they do is roll out “we’re tough on crime” bullsh*t.  Again

Laughable

nigel says:

07:42am | 28/10/09

Spot on Tory. What a shame it’s your very organisation that fuelled the backlash with a ridiculous ‘Chang Killer Walks Free Early’ headline in The Daily Tele. Nothing objective or impartial there, which I always thought was the duty of a news provider. All that coverage did was bring sorrow to the Chang family and foster public distrust in the judicial system. Lim was tried and found guilty on the evidence. His sentence was imposed to reflect the deed. He served his time. Should have been end of story. Was there an outcry about a lenient 18-year minimum term back in 1991? Any attempts to change it back then? Maybe that should have been the focus of the story, instead of letting a prisoner serve 18 years and then say, actually, that’s not enough. As you say, if it succeeds once, it will change the rules forever. And that’s frightening, for if a society can’t make its mind up on what it wants in one area, it’s just a matter of time before all rules and laws are considered hollow logs.

RT says:

07:45am | 28/10/09

It was an evil tragic crime. It’s getting a lot of attention now because the victim was so much admired but the reality is,  that shouldn’t even come into it. The murderer has served the sentence he was given. The idea that his parole can now be stopped is a farce because it won’t be.  The prisoner will walk. This is just grandstanding by the government that will backfire because it is powerless to overturn parole board decisions.

It’s what you’d expect from ‘Robbo’ who was rushed into parliament and the ministry courtesy of his union power base in the NSW ALP govt. It was his reward for scuttling the privatisation of the power industry, that would have been the right thing to do for NSW but upset to many cosy union people. Populism, not principles.

Harvey says:

07:51am | 28/10/09

Westie, you say they should never be released. Should that apply to every murderer? What impact do you think that will have on the rate of convictions?

David C says:

08:18am | 28/10/09

Public debate should be encouraged and divegent views be heard and respected. But it seems to me we are heading down a scary path. The technology improves day by day whereby the citizenry could potentially vote on any topic. This would then lead to a political system of majoritarianism as opposed to our current system of representative democracy.
The public will naturally vote on issues on a mciro basis, but we need politicians to represent our views and relate them to the macro view.
Current governments both state and federal are very good at playing the populist view (similarily in the US)  but it now seems to me we are getting bogged down on minor (apologies to the Chang family) issues. This is all getting in the way of macro progress.

grumpy says:

08:38am | 28/10/09

Spot on Tory, well said

Politicians should stay totally out o parole decisions. If our pollies don’t like the parole board’s decisions (or those of the Courts) they should change the rules that are applied by the parole board (or the Court), i.e. legislate. They make these rules in the first place (or their predecessors did)

This isn’t about public debate, either. Debate the issue, but do that at arm’s length from individual decisions, although of course informed by them.

What’s happening here is that the Government is saying “oh well in *this* case we don’t like the result we got when we followed the rules to the letter, so we are going to exercise our discretion to ignore the rules this time”

This amounts to saying that there is one rule for most people and another rule for some people. Who are the some? How do we identify them? What are the rules that apply to them? Will they continue to be made up after the event?

Unfortunately, the NSW Government isn’t the only one doing this kind of thing. The SA Government is just as bad.

Micko says:

08:40am | 28/10/09

I don’t think 18 years is long enough to compensate for the murder of the philanthropic heart sugeon Dr Victor Chang—and I am entitled to my views.  Judges have been undersentancing for decades and this is why the Parliament has had to step in and provide better guidence rules.

I think Mr Lim lost all his rights the day he pulled the trigger…I don’t feel sorry for him at all…and I’m not too worried about Ministers interevening to maintain community standards on sentancing and parole…that’s their job.

Luke says:

08:48am | 28/10/09

The only reason this has come to light is the fact Chang was high profile… Where was the DT with every other murderer rapist pedo drug dealer who affected normal joe blows in society haaaa get a grip the guy has served his time been a model prisoner and will be deported anyway so why the outcry.

Steve says:

09:06am | 28/10/09

This murderer should never be released, his sentence was was too light, the sentence for murder should be mandatory 100 years, no parole no second chances, why should this man be given a 2nd chance Victor Chang was not

CJ says:

09:22am | 28/10/09

The public outrage in this matter has News Limited, Sunrise and 2GB talkback written all over it. It’s the media that heavily influences public opinion on these issues, not solely the misguided, opportunistic politicians.

RGG says:

09:23am | 28/10/09

I hate it when articles like this come around. It’s always annoying to see the simpletons bleat about how sentences are “too light” and should be mandatory life, or even death.

Newsflash: numerous studies have shown that being “soft on crime” directly correlates with lower reoffending rates. Case studies: Norway, Switzerland, and a few other European countries. Your desire to have people thrown away on life is based on nothing more than caveman-like retributive justice and actually makes the situation worse.

If the legislature has a problem with the laws which they created, they should re-write them - NOT use their discretion in defiance of the principles of natural justice.

Jack says:

09:23am | 28/10/09

Nup…Let him continue to rot.  I’ll personally foot the bill to keep this prick and his mate in jail.  18 years was never enough and nor is 24.  This piece of garbage decided to go the easy route in life and attempt to steal from the rich rather than work hard, as Victor Chang clearly did.  In the process he robbed a nation of one of it’s most gifted surgeons.  He and his accomplice should never see the light of day.  You bleeding hearts comparing this crime to the murder of Joe Blogs from down the road are kidding yourselves.  Clearly this IS a special case which deserves special treatment.

Matt says:

09:47am | 28/10/09

It’s issue like this that make me highly skeptical about the claims of the anti-bill of rights crowd that we should leave decisions in the hands of politicians and not ‘activist judges’.  I’m not necessarily in favor of a bill of rights but it seems pretty clear to me that politicians on average make less responsible decisions than the judiciary.  Who wants to live in a country where the law can be altered according to popular whim?

Graham says:

09:57am | 28/10/09

The views expressed by the so called Sunrise vote poll is an expression of public outrage by a great many people and is evident in all crimes involving high profile people like Dr.Chang and is a measure of the respect for Dr.Chang that it resonates 18 years later. The fact is Lim should have got life without parole or the death penalty and it’s because of weak, gutless soft on crime politicians in this country that the ordinary person is continually outraged by these outcomes. You only need to listen to the views expressed by people following the outcomes of most cases involving murder, crimes against children, pedophiles, gang rapes or street thuggery to understand what the citizens thoughts are on the justice system. It’s the soft on crime do gooders who focus on prisoners rights and what’s laughing called rehabilitation who get heard The laws should represent the peoples views and if those views offend ivory tower academics, jurists and the “knitting jumpers for prisoners” collective then that’s a good thing.

Nads says:

10:43am | 28/10/09

Great article Tors, and so refreshing to see a balanced report on this. It’s a classic separation of powers issue. The AG in SA has gone totally over the top re parole board decisions and is interfering on almost a weekly basis. To make matters worse the interventions seem to be purely driven by hysterical reports in the Adelaide Advertiser and so come down to pure populism. It is time to restore some reason and intelligent consideration to this debate

Andrew Goff says:

10:51am | 28/10/09

I’m sad.

Not for the victim’s unfortunate families, who once again were forgotten by a criminal justice system with many faults.

Not for the perpetrator of this horrific crime, though being told you are to be released and then ahving that retracted is a cruel and unusual punsihment.

Certainly not for a populist minister who has behaved disgracefully, though sadly all to understandably.

I’m sad because the piercing shrillness of media has reached such an extent that I have a ringing in my ears and may never be able to listen to music again.

Vicki PS says:

03:44pm | 28/10/09

Graham, I don’t know which “ordinary people” you think you speak for, but they sure as hell don’t include me.  I’ve been down from the trees walking upright for quite a bit longer than your flatheaded chest-thumping would suggest.  It may strain your capabilites, but you need to come up with some new epithets to hurl at the moderate majority (like me, neither weak soft gutless do-gooders nor ivory tower academics), who deplore political interference in the independence of the judiciary and associated statutory authorities.  The lynch-mob mentality has no place in our justice system.

Dan says:

05:07pm | 28/10/09

Jack at 10:23am; how is this a special case? Because Chang was a nice guy? Give me a break. The people who murdered him should be treated no differently than if they had murdered a drug dealer. There are not laws for different people. This case is not special and it does not deserve special treatment. The fact that the NSW govrnment is turning this into a populist issue is disgusting. They’ve done it before with other law & order issues. When will they stop treating law & order issues like Australian idol; being popular on crime is not the same as being right.

Change of Heart says:

06:38pm | 28/10/09

Tory - thanks for a balanced viewpoint on what is fast becoming an hysterical debate.  As someone who has lost 4 members of my extended family all under 30 years old in violent circumstances (3 to a drunk driver and 1 to a murderer), I feel somewhat qualified to comment on this issue.  It is a disgusting failure on behalf of the government and their policies that the Chang family were not advised of the impending parole of Phillip Lim.  They should not have found this out via the media.  However, he has served his non-parole period and the parole board have made a decision that he sould be released based on the evidence before them (which is not currently in the public domain).  Therefore (regardless of your views on the original sentence), Phillip Lim is entitled to be released.  For him not to be released indicates that there is no separation of powers and that NSW politicians are free to make any person currently in jail a political prisoner if it suits them much the same as the SA politicians currently do.

davido says:

07:15pm | 28/10/09

A good justice system depends on the rule of law being applied equally to all.

Sally says:

11:23pm | 28/10/09

Yes Steve your right. What is the matter with people. It is SO SIMPLE. Victor Chang doesn’t get a second chance so why should the man who caused his death ???? Logic please…does anybody have any ????? Everyone who agrees with this please just write the same thing in…perhaps with thousands keeping it simple…govts, parole officers, courts etc…might get the hint !!! Remember everyone…NO SECOND CHANCE FOR VICTOR MEANS NO SECOND CHANCE FOR THE MURDERER. very very simple…

Janine says:

11:28pm | 28/10/09

Gee…18 years jail for murder..with the average life expectancy increasing…we are going to find people will soon catch on and start murdering. 18 years in, might become appealing for people who want to dispose of their spouse or other ?? Out before u know it to start a new life ??

Adam Dennis says:

07:00am | 29/10/09

Sally, you’re right. It is simple. Our society is based on the rule of law. Davido said it simplest and best, but you sound like you don’t want a justice system, you want a revenge system. Well, there are cultures that practice something like that. I choose to live in this fair Australian culture. Perhaps you’d like to go to another place where the laws suit you better.

Generally speaking, those who are calling for logic don’t need to use multiple exclamations and upper-case letters - those are the hallmarks of those attracted to the emotive argument.

Sam says:

11:14am | 29/10/09

@davido and Adam Dennis,

We don’t have a “justice system” we have a “legal system”. “Justice” is thrown around too lightly. I reckon this guy should stay a few more years, what the hell, just throw away the key.

And what about the others that were involved, have they been caught yet?

Sam says:

11:16am | 29/10/09

Revenge, exactly. That’s justice and no need for lawyers to get paid along the way.

westie says:

07:40pm | 29/10/09

@Harvey, go back and read what I said, which was not that both of them should never be released.

I said that the crim who deliberately twice shot the victim in the head and was directly responsible for premeditated murder should never be released.  The fact that Victor Chang was the victim has absolutely nothing to do with it.

On a separate issue, we should prevent the very wealthy members of the legal industry, who love creating more jobs for themselves, from subverting the will of the public.  We need and mostly have effective laws made by parliament.  They should not then be undermined by endless capricious legalistic gameplaying.