I don’t know Luke Adams. Chances are I never will. But when I viewed the graphic, and much-publicised, video of the promising footballer (and his friend) getting bashed at a Prahran Hungry Jack’s last July, my heart skipped a beat.

It was incredibly disturbing footage. On Friday, two of Adams’ attackers were sentenced in the County Court.

Mark Bogtstra, 22, received intensive corrections order, requiring community work for nine months. The man who put Adams in a headlock and let him fall to the ground, bouncer Nathan Karazisis, 24, was sentenced to two years and four months in jail, and made to serve at least a year.

It is a light whack considering the seriousness of his crime. Adams sustained a long list of injuries, including a skull fracture and broken eye socket. These must be taken into account, too.

He will, without doubt, lose confidence in the real world. Such a vicious attack will shake you up. And he may not play footy again – a game that requires confidence and courage.

So, with all this is mind, did Karazisis receive an appropriate sentence?

A bouncer by profession, he would have understood the potential for injury as he held Adams in the choker-hold. Then, he let him fall.

Adams smashed his head on the ground, and is still, obviously, recovering.

Karazisis’ lawyer, ironically, claimed his client felt threatened. Oh yes, that explains why he delivered a flurry of punches to Adams’ head as he held him in a vulnerable position where he was incapable of defending himself.

Luckily the defence didn’t stack up, but that does not mean the sentence does.

It does not send a strong message. While it does not condone senseless violence, it is not far from it.

What makes the verdict worse is the fact a video was available – the same I watched – to the court. It clearly shows the actions of those guilty. The video does not lie, and it should have guaranteed justice.

Adams will be affected forever. Karazisis could walk free in a year. He should never work as a bouncer again, as he used the methods he was taught to inflict serious, and needless, injury on another person.

When will the state stand up to the bullies? When will we reclaim our streets? And when will the victims be heard by the court?

In my eyes, this was a test case and a chance to establish a “hard line” towards thugs who feel it is necessary to mow down those who stand in their way.

And, on this occasion, the court has failed.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu has promised to scrap suspended sentences if his party is returned to power. But let’s go further. Scrap minimum and maximum sentences. The sentence handed down should be the sentence served.

Why should Karazisis be allowed to walk free in a year for good prison behaviour when his actions have permanently affected his victim psychologically? Adams’ potential football career is no more. Why should good prison behaviour matter when a guilty verdict has been reached?

The education must start now – and it starts with parents. If they fail to instruct their children on how to conduct themselves in modern society, then we will no longer have standards.

The sooner amped-up people begin to talk with their mouth (and brains) rather than their fists, the better off we will be. Just Think – remember the campaign?

The Police are trying their best to stop the weekly bleeding, but if the legal system fails its duty, the objectives will not be reached.

In my opinion, the court has failed in its duty with its delivery of a slap-on-the-wrist to Karazisis. In the context of the offence, this is what has occurred.

Luke Adams, his family, his friends and the public all deserved better.

Many of us in society no longer feel safe on the streets at night. How much longer can it continue?

As Adams’ father, Peter told the Herald Sun after the verdict was reached: “On the face of it, it (the sentence) would not seem much of a deterrent. People should be able to go out in public during the day and night and feel safe. And the message I seem to read from the community, and one I certainly have, is people don’t feel safe.”

The Government, Police and the courts must all start to work together.

Most commented

29 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Seano says:

      07:48am | 12/04/10

      All for longer sentences for violent crime. But I think the idea of a minimum is a good one for those working in prisons, as it gives incentive for prisoners to behave whilst inside.

    • stephen says:

      05:15pm | 12/04/10

      Not quite. What should happen is a sentence of, say, 2 years should be served, then if he/she plays up, then a further 12 months should be served. No discounts for good behaviour, just punishment for further misdemeaners.

    • notsurprised says:

      08:01am | 12/04/10

      Agreed Luke. What is the point in having laws against violent crime if they cannot control those who are obviously willing to break them. These kinds of scumbags should have the book thrown at them.

    • Jolanda says:

      08:18am | 12/04/10

      Laws are made by those in power to protect those in and with power.  Sentences are handed out by those in power.  If the sentences are lenient it is only to protect those in and with power.

      Education – Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

    • Philip Crowley says:

      01:46pm | 12/04/10

      Utter crap Jolanda. Under the rule of law, our Parliaments enact laws and the independent judiciary interprets and applies the legislation, independently of, and uninfluenced by political and public opinion. Sentences are ultimately based on precedent however the sentencing judge will take a number of factors into account in each individual case before arriving at a sentence. Should he not follow precedent the sentence is open to appeal on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive, or conversely, manifestly inadequate.

      Attacking the judiciary is pointless. If you are unhappy with a particular law, or the provisions of the respective States penalties and sentencing Acts then lobby your members of parliament. They are the only ones capable of effecting change.

    • Jolanda says:

      03:02pm | 12/04/10

      Independant judiciary hey?  Yeah right.

    • Philip Crowley says:

      06:13pm | 12/04/10

      Jolanda, in response. If you have evidence of misfeasance, or indeed malfeasance, against a judicial officer please outline that evidence. Alternately, direct your complaint to the relevant authority. Assuming your residence from your website, that would be the Judicial Commission of N.S.W.

      Your own personal dissatisfaction with particular judicial outcomes does not constitute evidence against any member of the judiciary. As I stated earlier, slandering the judiciary serves no purpose. Judges are bound by legislation and precedent. You are best advised to direct your wrath at your elected representatives, who do have the power to change legislation.

    • SarahJaneJones says:

      07:28pm | 12/04/10

      Yes Jolanda, independent judiciary. The aren’t elected and have no affiliation with political parties. You are possibly getting our system confused with the US one. Because the US has a Bill of Rights, how the judiciary interprets issues like the legality of abortion is really important. In Australia, we have no bill of rights, the government can enact legislation on any issue it so choses so our judges aren’t and don’t ever need to be influenced by the government.

    • Jolanda says:

      09:38pm | 12/04/10

      “They aren’t elected and have no affiliation with political parties”.

      So are they robots?

    • Jolanda says:

      10:29pm | 12/04/10

      Everytime I hear that sentences are based on precedent and that the Judicary can interpret the laws pretty much at their discretion it makes my skin crawl.

      What if the Judiciary member had a liking for kids or is a bully or likes to take drugs?  What sort of precedents would the Judiciary member set that others would then have to follow? 

      Again I say that Laws are made by those in power to protect those in and with power.

    • Jolanda says:

      10:31pm | 12/04/10

      @Phillip the local representatives do not have the power to do anything and I know because I have letters from local representatives who say that they do not have the power or resources to do anything about anything. 

      We have a system that provides the law abiding citizens no protection or rights.  Rights and protection are only available for criminals.  That is our Law.

    • ABC says:

      08:45am | 12/04/10

      No no, no.  Whether a sentence is perceived to be light or not - the scrapping of suspended sentences, and the removal of discounted sentencing options for pleading guilty and removing incentives for good behaviour if imprisoned (ie parole options etc)  will have the opposite effect.  Presently there is now the incentive for pleading guilty and if you remove that conviction rates will fall.  To provide a rough example (and everyone don’t get aerated about the numbers they are just an example).  Look at sex offences against children.  For every 50 offences committed, say 30 are reported to police.  For each of those 30 reported offences 20 will proceed to trial.  Of those 20 approximately 3 will be acquitted.  Of the remaining 17 over 90 percent will plead guilty, thus avoiding the need for a trial, and enabling the offender to receive some form of sentencing mitigation.  If you remove this incentive to plead quilty there will be increasing rates of acquittal for serious offences as offenders will elect to proceed to trial to chance their arm for an acquittal as they have no sentencing incentive to plead guilty.  It may be imperfect but if you want to increase conviction rates and imprison more people then what you are proposing will not work.  As any person involved in the criminal law will tell you - harsher sentences do not lead to reductions in offending behaviour

    • papachango says:

      03:08pm | 12/04/10

      You make some good points about plea bargaining / good behaviour and I agree. However there is a widespread perception that the criminal justice system is far too lenient.

      e.g A plea bargain for rape should reduce the sentence from say 25 to 15 years, not 10 to 2 with release after eight months for good behaviour.

      I’m not sure I agree with your last sentence - harsher sentences might not reduce recividism much, but they deter others from doing the same, not to mention keeping the real scumbags off the streets.

      In any case sentencing is largely based on precedent so I’m not sure how we could change it.

    • stephen says:

      05:32pm | 12/04/10

      Harsher sentences costitute punishment ; reductions in offending behaviour are the responsibility of mommy and daddy, especially if they have nothing to do, as well, with the prison system.

    • Geoff David says:

      09:14am | 12/04/10

      How about this for an incentive: if they plead guilty they get the currently prescribed jail term but if they plead not guilty and are subsequently convicted then they get the sentence increased for wasting everybody’s time.

      And instead of time off for good behavior how about extra time for bad behavior?

      Bleeding heart do-gooders whine that harsher sentences do not lead to reductions in offending behaviour, but I’d like to know how a criminal can prey on the public and commit additional offences if he is taken out of circulation and locked away?

    • T.Chong says:

      09:39am | 12/04/10

      GD :Your second point- extra time for bad behavior- is the norm everywhere I know of - ie troublesome prisoners are convicted of further crimes while in custody, and sentenced accordingly.
      Most Corrective Services are hardly the refuge of “bleeding heart do gooders”

    • SB says:

      11:20am | 12/04/10

      Sentence as per the guidelines..BUT…add on to the sentence a period of time equal to the time taken for the injured person to recover. If the person wil never recover then you have forfeited your right to live in society. And get rid of the priveleges…toasters, tv, books. Why should you get more than some law-abiding citizens when serving for crime against society? Suffer in hardship for the period of your sentence.

    • Luke says:

      11:23am | 12/04/10

      Agree with everything you say, SB. I just think the harship suffered by victims in being forgotten when the sentencing procedure is taking place.

    • papachango says:

      11:45am | 12/04/10

      I’m all for harsher punishments for genuinely violent criminals. Rob Hulls ‘tea and scones’ approach is clearly not working here in VIC.

      But the issue with prison is that sometimes they will come out worse due to the other ratbags in there. Sometimes I think shorter sentences, but with hard labor would be a better idea.

    • Lee from WA says:

      11:45am | 12/04/10

      I wonder if Luke would scream injustice if a person who shoplifted was given a 20 year sentence because they scrapped maximum sentences. People tend to forget that people can be harshly dealt with by the courts too. We don’t hear about 99.9% of the cases that go through the courts, only the 0.1% where someone gets a light sentence and then that is distorted to be the only thing the courts hand out. 80 000 cases get heard in the WA each year (Vic would have more) and the media only picks up on the few to make their case. I guess fair sentences don’t make for good copy.

    • Jimbo says:

      11:47am | 12/04/10

      What has happened to this country of ours? I recently researched the family history, I was delighted to find a convict, the poor guy got 7 years hard labour here for stealing half a pound of butter. Today if he stole that butter he probably wouldn’t even make it to court. I personally am grateful he was hungry enough to steal butter, when they were starving in England because I would not be here otherwise.
      Its time to make the crime fit the punishment, if they murder they should get the term of their natural life. I personally would give rapists the same sentence because they destroy lives and as for Pedophiles, castration and removal of their hands would be the option I would go for.
      We have gone to soft on crime, time to toughen up

    • SarahJaneJones says:

      07:32pm | 12/04/10

      You cannot give rapists life sentences - then there is a huge incentive to rape and the murder the victim since there is less chance of being caught if the person is dead and the punishment is the same.

    • Harquebus says:

      11:48am | 12/04/10

      Our jails are full of people who shouldn’t be there in lieu of of those that should.

    • BTS says:

      02:21pm | 12/04/10

      Lol, yeah only the innocent ones are in jail…

    • Harquebus says:

      10:05am | 13/04/10

      A man shoots someone’s eye out and gets a fine. An aboriginal boy steals a car and get three months jail. Yeah, lol.

    • Pip says:

      04:35pm | 12/04/10

      If you want harsher sentences, and more, first time offenders, to go to jail, ie the young men involved in the Chapel Street Affray, that saw Luke Adams injured, then be prepared for BIG increases in TAXES, and the costs of Legal fees to go through the roof, the only ones who will be happy are the Lawyers etc.
      I agree with the comment that Pedophiles, Rapists and Sex offenders, that castration and the removal of there hands would make any future offender seriously think twice.

    • Shifter says:

      05:56pm | 12/04/10

      I’m always amazed that crimes against money seem to receive longer sentences that crimes against the person.

    • Wirewolf says:

      07:22pm | 13/04/10

      We must be clear about what sentencing can realistically achieve, and the price we (as a society) are willing to pay to have it. Prisons are extremely expensive to build and to operate, so we must understand that if we choose to gaol more people, we will have to accept the additional costs associated with it.
      We must also recognise that imprisoning people will not deter them from offending again when they are released. In all probability, they will offend again, because the prison system is an inherently criminogenic environment that breeds frustration, alienation, and contempt for the rest of society.  Therefore, we must consider carefully what offences we gaol people for and what offences we apply other forms of punishment to. Personally, I believe that gaol should be only used to protect the community from individuals with a propensity for violence who cannot be dealt with through alternative means in the community.
      However, the problem then becomes how to deal with these people when they are released, as they are at high risk of re-offending? Maybe we don’t release them at all? Maybe we release them in a limited way? Maybe there are some people who just can’t fit in no matter what we do for them? As depressing as it is to say, the only punishment that has a zero recidivism rate is the death penalty, and it is easy to see why its use appeals to justice administrators in many countries. However, our system of determining guilt and innocence is simply not sufficiently reliable to be able to apply such a punishment with certainty, and until it is, the death penalty should stay off the table of options.

    • Harold says:

      12:32pm | 30/03/12

      I think any lawyer would agree that the video footage was strong evidence, but the verdict really disappointed many who were seeking to have action taken against the aggressors.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter