QLD
7436 posts
Just heard a most amazing thing on the radio. An airport baggage handler was condemned to 2 years in the poky for rifling through women's luggage and stealing hair from their brushes. He had a catalogued collection from about 80 women. Whats bizarre about that?.... the term of imprisonment. I would have given him 30 days in the hole at most. Maybe I'm missing something but that seems a little excessive for what is no more than an invasion of privacy.
QLD
1241 posts
NotWal,
I'd like to see if you're whistling the same tune when this baggage handler becomes tired of stealing hair and starts stealing items of value, or worse still adding samples of his own DNA to your luggage. When I check in baggage on a flight I am entrusting it's security to airline personel, I say 2 years is enough but only if it is served in a Denpasar jail.
NSW
1510 posts
In essence he's stealing there DNA.
It could have been worse, he could have been taking their short and curly's.
DavMen
QLD
2315 posts
Since it's an airport it may be a federal offence, ie he's screwed.
QLD
7436 posts
Well KB, I would be whistling a different tune if he was doing something different, but he wasn't (according to the report that I heard).
But maybe there is something in that "federal offence" business. He was charged with theft not invasion of privacy. Seems gratuitously heavy handed to me.
We really are seriously out of balance when a conga line of suckholes can prance around free as you please starting wars and murdering thousands of people by proxy and some poor slightly weird powerless minority of one gets shafted for f**k all.
QLD
181 posts
Too true Notwal, the Bush family have killed way more Iraqis in a couple of years than Sadam was able to in almost 30 years and little Johnny wants to be just like George W when, sorry IF he grows up.
WA
101 posts
That is an interesting one - he must have had a **** lawyer - I think one of the points of proof that police have to prove is that the item was/is of value - not necessarily monetary value - could be sentimental value - like a photo - but pretty doubtful that someone could claim that thay were going to knit their granny a jumper out of it or maybe insulate their roof. It might be some other obscure charge under some federal law!
VIC
1509 posts
OK, I'll fess up. I don't deal int the Federal CRIMINAL jurisdiction and it's a long time since I studied criminal law, but as far as I'm aware, the sentencing principles judges apply whether it's an offence under a Federal statute or under a State law don't really differ. They will obviously look at things like the seriousness of the offence, the requisite deterrent effect, to some degree the public's expectation, the degree of culpability, prior convictions etc. I would think that tampering with baggage, particularly with the current climate of terrorism and allegations of drug-planting eg. the Corby matter, would be viewed very seriously by the trial judge. Without having read his judgement (which I can't find) I wouldn't be surprised if he were to say something like "the public expects a high standard of security when it entrusts its baggage to you. You have breached that trust. So off to the can for 2 years."
So just to make it Seabreeze relevant, if some scumbag dicked about with my gear, like screwing in the vent plug just before a flight, bugger me, I'd give him more than 2 years.
QLD
7436 posts
Mikey, pro rata you'd have to cut his hands off if he stole your harness and kill him if he stole your board. Messing with luggage is NOT planting bombs. All that is required of the law is to provide a punishment that will deter him - a fine would do it I venture to guess.
QLD
2315 posts
He was in a position of trust, punishment should fit the crime... his punishment is fine, many others are overly lenient.
QLD
7436 posts
Punishment fit the crime? stealing hair is NOT balanced by two years in prison.
QLD
7436 posts
An aside to this - I find it ironic the word "justice" has become conflated with the word "fairness". They seem to be used to imply the same thing when etymologically "justice" means to do with the law from the latin "jus" (yoos) = law. The law is not about fairness. It is about control and order, with a veneer of fairness applied to make it palatable. That's about the politics of the institution of law. Just goes to show how effective they are when the law is on occasion manifestly unfair and yet most of us think its ok, and most of us use the word justice to mean fairness.
QLD
2315 posts
Is it FAIR that a stranger breaks into you're bags and rifles through you're luggage, especially now it's filled with all those personal items you cannot take on in hand luggage anymore? There is all sorts of items containing sensitive information being flown around the world everyday, is it FAIR he had access to that?
I think there is more to it than just the hair and certainly there are several offences aside from the theft of hair (why the hell didn't he just go to a hair salon?).
Geez Dave for an architect you're sounding alot like a defence lawyer... change of career on the cards?
IMO give him the 2 years of his life back, jail dosen't work for petty criminals and we are paying for it so they should just cut off his hand instead.
VIC
1509 posts
Well, it's starting to become a bit clearer now. 2 years just for stealing hair- I don't think so. Try this:
"Sydney AFP- An Australian airline baggage courier who stole women's hair to satisfy a sexual fetish was jailed for two years and eight months on Friday.
Rodney Petersen, 30, had pleaded guilty to 50 counts of stealing head and pubic hair from brushes and underpants in women's luggage.
The court heard that Petersen, who has a previous conviction for attempted rape, would pull over in his airport courier van and rummage through the lost or delayed luggage that he was returning to Qantas passengers.
He put the hair he found in plastic slips and recorded the owner's personal details in an exercise book, the Victorian County Court in Melbourne was told, the national AAP news agency reported.
The court heard that Petersen suffered from a range of sexual deviances including fetishism, sexual sadism and frotteurism, in which satisfaction is gained by actual or fantasised rubbing up against another person.
"I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you posed a real risk to the safety of women in the community," said judge Jennifer Coate.
Petersen's sentence took into account a suspended jail term for the 2004 attempted rape conviction. - Sapa-AFP"
Now this still isn't a copy of Her Honour's decision, so the journalist who wrote this is still likely to have only summarized the facts, but a different picture is starting to emerge now, wouldn't you agree?
QLD
7436 posts
Well yeah,thanks for that Mikey.
Protection of society...indeed.
The court heard that Petersen suffered from a range of sexual deviances including fetishism, sexual sadism and frotteurism, in which satisfaction is gained by actual or fantasised rubbing up against another person.
Christ, all that sounds pretty good to me. I hope they don't find out about me.... mmmm neoprene....
