How about I suspend YOUR sentence?

With a knuckle sandwich. Yeah, that's right, you heard me.
Background to that confusing opening:
It's a very easy bandwagon to jump on...and so I shall.
I reckon any judge who lets a child sex offender off easily is suspect, and in unrelated news I'd like to point out this case where a man called RODNEY PETER SMITH downloaded 40 hours of child pornography video and 7569 images (with most of the children between five and 10 years old, even some babies!) and was given a suspended sentence.
For the non-legal among you, that means he walked free.
Here's an idea - the cops should have the power to check the computers and secret passageways of any judge who doesn't give a child sex offender a harsh penalty. For Christ's sake, the maximum penalty for one of the charges was 10 years' jail!
Knock it up a notch, judge!
Don't make potential right-wing nutjob Steve Medcraft, the spokesman for People Against Lenient Sentencing, spell it out to you: "Suspended sentences are a farce on most of the charges... Sex offenders should not have the luxury of suspended sentences. It sends a poor message to the community that our standards are this slack."

Of course, judges don’t suspend sentences for cyclists who hit cyclists, but maybe they empathise more with child sex offenders, that's all I'm saying…
Note: None of this constitutes contempt of court. I totally promise and affirm.

Speaking of prisons...

...as I'm sure everyone does...
Here's a submission I made to the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council last year. A warning: it's a little more serious than my usual rants. Not so much of the sarcasm...

Dear sir/madam
I wish to make a submission regarding the inquiry on Continued detention orders (which I read about in The Age this morning).
I support the suggestion that it may be possible for a judge to order that sex offenders remain imprisoned beyond their sentence if a judge is of the opinion they may re-offend.
I do not think that imprisonment is the right punishment for all sorts of crime - particularly some property offences and drug offences which do not physically harm others. However, sex offenders cause untold misery to innocent members of the public (whether children or adults), and, once such a person has been found to have a committed such a crime by a court of law, the public has the right to expect that that person will not be allowed out again unless it is absolutely certain that they will not re-offend (admittedly, I probably come to this view since I feel that life sentences for such crimes would not be unreasonable).
For the record, I am not in favour of such measures, or even lengthy imprisonment, for all crimes. I have heard it said that the Opposition wants the measure extended to murderers and arsonists. Although murder is a horrible crime, there are many different reasons why someone may kill someone else, and not all murderers prey on vulnerable members of society in the way that sex offenders do (except for, say, serial killers and perhaps contract killers). For example, if a wife kills her abusive husband, or even has a melt-down and kills her loving husband, once she has served her time as determined by a judge, I would think that was enough.
With respect to arson, again there can be different reasons for setting a fire, although I do think that firebugs who deliberately light bushfires should be locked away for life - in a country like Australia, that is simply insane, and tantamout to terrorism. But formulating rules that allow for such distinctions may be difficult.
Thanks for your time.
Yours faithfully

(Ranty McRant)

The Council got my submission.

And ignored it.