| Submit your comments on this article |
| Down Under |
| Lodhi sentence 'should punish' |
| 2006-06-29 |
| THE aim in sentencing convicted terrorist Faheem Khalid Lodhi should be to punish, deter and incapacitate, a Sydney court has been told. The sentence should "secure the proper measure of protection for society", Crown Prosecutor Richard Maidment SC told Lodhi's sentencing hearing in the NSW Supreme Court today. Lodhi was convicted last week of three terrorism offences, one of which carries a maximum life sentence. The 36-year-old architect was accused of planning to bomb the national electricity supply system in the cause of violent jihad, or holy war. A jury found him guilty of acting in preparation for a terrorist act, by seeking information about chemicals capable of making explosives in October 2003, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of life in prison. The Pakistani-born Australian citizen also was found guilty of possessing a 15-page "terrorism manual" with recipes for poisons and explosives, and of buying two maps of the electricity grid, connected with preparation for a terrorist act. The two offences each attract maximum 15-year jail terms. Making submissions to Justice Anthony Whealy, Mr Maidment did not specify what sentence the Crown was seeking. But he said the sentence should "act as a real and significant deterrent to others" and "secure the proper measure of protection for society". There was little local authority on sentencing for terrorism offences, as "these are the first convictions on these offences that have occurred in Australia", Mr Maidment said. But he referred Justice Whealy to an English judgment involving an IRA terrorist, which stated the court's object was to punish, to deter and to incapacitate, with the need for rehabilitation playing a minor role, if any. "We submit that these are principles which your honour should adopt," Mr Maidment said. He said Lodhi had inquired about buying chemicals capable of making explosives that could have caused "very substantial damage to property, and potentially the death of many people". He said that although the location, timing, precise target and participants in the terrorist act may not have been decided, Lodhi "was central to the scheme". Lodhi had shown no remorse, his plan was premeditated and he had acted surreptitiously, Mr Maidment said. His object was "to strike terror amongst members of the community ... so that they should not feel free from the threat of a bombing attack within Australia". |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #2 I'd rather they say negate the possibility of recidivism, and there's only one sure way to do that......(evil laughter) |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-06-29 19:00 |
| #1 It's just a small point but... I agree with the article, I'd prefer the title was "sentencing should incapacitate". While punishment does deter - the main point of imprisonment is to incapacitate and protect. It does little good to punish a rabid dog and it's questionable how much good punishing a rabid dog does to detering other rabid dogs. Terrorists are like rabid dogs. I'm sure that for each and every one there is a story as to why the are damaged that is similar: disappointment in life, Saudi money and a mosque. But, as with the rabid dog, it's irrelevant. The bottom line is that once they are infected and we need to protect society from the their ability to spread misery. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-06-29 09:12 |