On the sentencing of Brett Button
Henry Lovatt writes: The word here is intent and most judicial systems take this into account. But not this time. Did Brett Button set out to hurt anyone? There was zero evidence to show any intent.
A successful appeal against that sentence is likely as any half-competent defence lawyer should be able to get this reduced to a more realistic six to eight years jail time. Or has our society, slobbering for revenge, swerved so far to the right that we are incapable of remembering that to err is human and to forgive is divine?
Jean-Marie Simart writes: I agree that when compared to a sadistic murderer, Button’s case is different.
But I disagree that the impact of the victims’ suffering should be ignored or washed down. What kind of punishment would be fair in this case?
Peter Barry writes: The concept of prison is to remove a person guilty of a crime from regular society to keep the community safe, to punish the person, and to act as a deterrent to others. Rehabilitation and reintegration into the community is a long-term and poorly executed aspect.
There is no limit to the punishment families will demand to assuage the pain of losing one of their members. These days whatever a judge decrees appropriate — based on evidence and experience — is never seen as enough. Mandatory sentencing is vengeance not justice. If a fraction of the millions of dollars spent to keep a prisoner locked up for decades was spent on structured rehabilitation, the rates of recidivism would decrease.
There are some criminals who are beyond reclamation, but it is hard to see what is gained by keeping people incarcerated for more than a decade. One or two years in these hell holes should be enough punishment for other than the most hardened criminals.
Eve Sinton writes: Although Guy Rundle’s article about the sentencing of the bus driver who killed 10 passengers and gravely injured many more raises valid points, I have no sympathy whatsoever for Brett Button.
He terrorised his passengers for a significant amount of time before his dangerous driving caused the crash. He ignored their pleas to slow down. According to a survivor’s testimony in court, after the crash he stood about, looking smug, with his hands in his pockets as others rendered assistance to the dead and dying.
One hopes the sentence will act as a deterrent to other reckless drivers.
Button may spend the rest of his life, or most of it, in prison but 10 others, many of them young, had their lives stolen by his reckless actions while others’ lives will never be the same.
He has appealed his sentence, but personally I think he deserves what he got.
David Trembath writes: Nothing is served by an excessive sentence, except some probably short-lived sense of retributive satisfaction for the victims’ families. It’s not going to bring the victims back.
It is also going to cost the taxpayer a bomb to keep this man in jail for 32 years and not produce any social good. Surely it would be better for all concerned to have retributive incarceration within more sensible timelines and a further sentence of 15 years of community service working with, let’s say, brain damaged victims of vehicle accidents or in an aged care facility? It goes without saying that he should be banned for life from driving. It’s win-win: cheaper, retributive, does some good, and helps the man work through his guilt by giving back.
Austin Lynch writes: There seem to be any number of experts prepared to say that jail generally just trains better criminals. The intention to provide correction, training or education is still framed in punishment terms.
I am sure there are those who have researched the costs of our present system — it would be surprising if a more forward-looking process would cost more.
There is a clear need to protect society from dangerous individuals, but surely that is the only justification for locking people up. Surely, we can do better.
Martin Lilford writes: Of course, words should be chosen carefully on this matter given the endless grief his actions have caused to so many families. But I wonder how many of them will feel very elated or even relieved by Mr Button’s damnation?
Maybe the judge knows better than I what the families feel, but I can’t help a twinge of remorse about the ferocious sentence given to Button. A screw up should not be judged more harshly than so many acts of malice that also destroy lives.
