WTF? This has got to be a joke

Shakeel Mirza, a medical student at the University of Queensland, tried to give an 11-year-old boy a penis massage.  The Pakistani-born medical student had been appointed as a mentor to the 11-year-old boy under the Lions Club’s “Aunties and Uncles” program when he tried to force his hands down the youngster’s pants at the family’s Brisbane home.  In court, it was said he had been rubbing the child’s head to relax him when he offered to massage the child’s penis instead because “it would feel better”.  The boy managed to fend off Mirza’s advances.

Mirza escaped with only 12 months probation.  No criminal conviction was formally recorded after his defence lawyers successfully argued that a black mark against his name could prevent Mirza, 27, from getting a government Blue Card - or security clearance - allowing him to treat children in hospital. Mirza’s defence barrister Brad Farr argued that in some cases, shame was enough to deter people from reoffending, and that a jail sentence - even a wholly suspended one - was not warranted.  He also maintained that a criminal conviction would cast a pall over his client’s promising future as a doctor.

What about the fact, entirely within Mirza’s control, that maybe he should have thought about the consequences before trying to grope the boy?

Regardless, the judge bought the defence’s arguments.  Piss weak!  Why not look at the alternate view that Mirza’s actions revealed a character flaw that should disqualify him from being a doctor?  Or anything involving contact with children?

At least in this case, the State has appealed against the inadequacy of the sentence.  Its barrister asked the court to resentence Mirza to 12 months’ jail - albeit wholly suspended - and record a criminal conviction.  Still pretty soft, but better than nothing I suppose … I think he needs at least some jail time to send a message that his behaviour is completely unacceptable.

Why does the legal profession always seek to justify the unjustifiable, mitigate the unmitigatable, defend the indefensible?   Does a client ever get told - “you fucked up, no excuses, front up and cop your medicine”?  And when they get appointed as judges, why do many seem so inclined to accept (often farfetched and lame) excuses for people’s bad behaviour?  Do their standards get distorted by constantly dealing with the scum of the community …. so that compared to the worst criminals, most seem halfway decent and reasonable?