Oceania The Official Oceania Political Debate Thread! Current Debate: **The Pauline Hanson Verdict**

Having some idea of E_S's background, I won't touch much on the police issue ...God knows we gots our own Royal Commission over here up to its armpits in suppressed names, rollover witnesses, diamonds going missing and all the rest of it. The only concern I have is the oft-repeated line of various Police Commissioners and Police Ministers over here when asked whether the conduct of officers under investigation reflects present practices, to which the reply is usually words to the effect of "We don't do things in the Police Force that way anymore."

...so when exactly was the cease-and-desist order given, and precisely what impetus led to it being given? Obivously not any event that was made public. In either event such a statement is suspicious.

Passing onto other points raised, mandatory sentencing: no way/. (Just to be nice and convoluted about it. )

Why are criminal lawyers against mandatory sentencing? Not, as the West Australian would have you believe, because we actually enjoy seeing these crimes on the news and are only out to fatten our pockets; any lawyer in Perth (and I suspect Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane...) will tell you you'd be nuts to go into criminal law for the money, since generally the bread-and-butter of a criminal lawyer's business comes from the lowest end of the economic scale...and Legal Aid will pay the rent, but not much more than that. Kizon, Bondy, and Ray Williams are the exceptions to the rule--they're criminals of a different class. Or different breed, shall we say, rather than give them class.

No, the reason lawyers despise mandatory sentencing is because it invites politicians to mess around with the independence of the judiciary whenever they feel it is politically justified. There's a separation of powers between the legislature (the Parliament), the judiciary (the courts), and the executive (the civil service) so that no one of these bodies has power enough to impose its will arbitrarily on the people without recourse. And please don't come back with the Frank Herbert line "A tripod is the most unstable structure politically"; it's a very stable system we've got here. The independence of the judiciary is vital to any organised democracy, because it gives the individual a final recourse, a final playing field as it were where it can meet the State on equal terms.

When Parliament (State or Federal) comes up with mandatory sentencing, to me it is saying to each of us "You do not deserve the scrutiny of the courts. Your cause does not deserve the consideration of an independent person. We will decide what is best in all the circumstances. We know what is best."

More to the point, a judge sitting in the criminal courts is empowered with a discretion to hand down a sentence that he thinks is commesurate with all the circumstances, not just what the Prosecution says. It is very easy to devote four columns in a newspaper to the circumstances of an assault, and one column or less about the person who actually did the crime and why they did it...and as everyone knows, there is always another side to the story.

Let's assume a mandatory sentence of ten years' imprisonment for any burglary. Now assume a young man with a clean record is out with his friends celebrating his 18th birthday, is drunk, and gets convinced in his drunken state to climb a chain-link fence and take a swim in the local pool. Technically a burglary: the entry is without the owner's consent. The defence lawyer pleads with the police to reduce the charge to being on premises without lawful excuse, which the police consider but refuse on the basis of not wanting to be seen as cutting deals, especially in this age of Royal Commissions at the drop of a hat. Thirteen-year-old child is sent to prison for ten years. And the judge, who ordinarily would have the power to modify or lighten the sentence taking into account the boy's young age and his drunkenness, can't do a damn thing about it.

An extreme example, perhaps, but consider tha

 

Spend the money on rehab centres and on drug detox programs.

But if we do that smarty pants, how will we fill our need for vengeance against those who dare commit heinous crime?

Surely it is our right to humiliate and destroy any and all criminals? I swear, you bleedingly hearted leftisms have been cutting into our revenge quota every since you got rid of lynching. Bastards.

 

Spend the money on rehab centres and on drug detox programs.

Saintheart, if we do spend the money on rehab programms and the like, I'd like to see a concurrent program of tougher law enforcement for those who abuse the privledges we offer them. It's one thing to offer such compassionate alternatives to Rudy Guliani style zero-tolerance, but it's not necessarily a mututally exclusive concept to punish those who abuse that which we offer them.

E_S

 

True. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't punish crime; but our seeming-obsession with thirty, forty, fifty year sentences has to be curtailed somewhat. Thirty years in prison: think about it. Or watch "Shawshank Redemption" again and bear in mind what's shown there is a whitewashed version of the way life in prisons really operates. Whoever came up with the idea of prisons as glorified country clubs has never paid a visit to Hakea or Bandyup Women's Prison up this neck of the woods.

 

I often laugh at the idea that prison is some how comparable to a country club. I get the feeling one idiotic right wing "pundit" commentator on the radio (Laws or Jones, maybe?) Has started this idea and people have thought, "Well, I'm an average joe with a variety of concerns, I might as well blame another minority!!!".

However, i don't think that it's unreasonable by any stretch to come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone who commits the same offense more than once. You steal more than one? Bye bye. Battery x 2? You're outta here. You get the idea.

E_S

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, E_S...I stand by criminology and my own sad experience that imprisoning someone doesn't stop the crime in the long run.

Out of interest, would you apply mandatory sentencing to "serious" crime (burglary, rape, murder etc) only, or apply it also to "less serious" crime such as driving without a licence (in situations where the person hasn't caused an accident, been drinking while driving, etc...?) The majority of imprisoned offenders here in WA are actually in custody for offences like this.

If it ever did come down to mandatory sentencing being imposed (and it's my sad, pessimistic view it isn't far off in this Banana Republic, er, State of WA) I think there'd have to be some sort of legislative controls on authorities abusing it.

For example: a young man's doing five years' imprisonment for three burglaries, been high on drugs, and has committed them solely to support the habit. He's three weeks away from getting out on parole. The authorities are aware of a fourth burglary he's committed through the wonders of DNA, but they decline to charge him with it until he's just about to get out. That surely is an abuse of the court process; he most likely would receive a modified sentence if the police bring the charge at the same time as the others. As it is, under a mandatory sentencing regime, the court again has no choice but to order X number of years' imprisonment because of the legislation.

It has happened over here. Not in the precise terms as above, but in very similar situations.

...thoughts, class?

 

Out of interest, would you apply mandatory sentencing to "serious" crime (burglary, rape, murder etc) only, or apply it also to "less serious" crime such as driving without a licence (in situations where the person hasn't caused an accident, been drinking while driving, etc...?) The majority of imprisoned offenders here in WA are actually in custody for offences like this.

Well, I don't think I meant to imply that I actually support mandatory sentencing, so I'll just clarify; I support harsher sentencing with repeat offenders. If you get cahrged three times for burglary, then the third punishment should reflect the severity of your transgression and also society's disdain at your contempt for it.

E_S

 

However, i don't think that it's unreasonable by any stretch to come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone who commits the same offense more than once. You steal more than one? Bye bye.

Uh, I don't think we should lock away kids for an indefinate time just because they did something stupid like stealing

 

Hence why I repeatedly state, ad nauseum (and seemingly to no discernable effect with you guys) that you are hard on them not the first, not the second, but the THIRD TIME. This explains the oft stated "repeat offender" caveat that you've ignored.

E_S

 

Well, stupid kids steal more than once

 

...and again, the use of an appalling American baseball catchphrase doesn't seem to have done diddly-squat over here to stop the burglary rate.

Understood your point, though.

 

I agree, ignorant kids are more likely to commit crime. Repeat offenders should be given serious sentences, but before that maybe we should try educating these kids. These no point letting a kid off twice and just letting them go back out into soceity without any rehabilitation or education, and then wonder why they do it again.
However, such crimes as rape are inexcusable. Rape is worse than murder. If a child commits such crimes they are seriously disturbed. They need to be locked up and seriously assessed by psychologists. This is the same for adults.

 

If a child who is not educated commits rape or murder, I do not see it as some appalling darstardly crime because the child knows no better. A child on the streets is a slave to his drives, to his internal machinations be they hormonal or psychological.

A boy get's the pant anger, he will react instinctively. A boy or girl is angered or attacked, they will react violently.

It is unfortunately, a natural process, that only the civility and understanding that comes with Education (don't read this as "going to school" so much as simply having a family to teach you simple values, or a guardian or friend to instil a set of morals into you) stops such barbaric activities from taking place.

A member of a community who does aforementioned acts needs rehabilitation. A child from the streets etc. who knows no better needs Education. A rare case be as it may, but still a crucial difference that must be addressed. Laws are seldom so simple as to offer a "one-size-fits-all" solution to socially unacceptable behaviour. This is why the integrity of the judicary and indeed our legal fraternity is so paramount to Justice and civility in this country. The laws are guidelines, that should be loose enough to allow for a fit (body of) mind(s) to conform the standard of the law to the context of the situation and the offender.

 

My concern lies with an offender who shows a repeated disdain for society by continually committing the same crime, then one could safely conclude that they are beyond rehabilitation. I know full well the dangers of mandatory sentencing - it'd put us on par with such "legally advanced" states as China - but I was never advocating mandatory sentencing. If one kid gets done for shoplifting 3 times, then the third punishment should be more severe than the first two. Or something to that affect.

I have a hard time, I'll admit, accepting the modern societal disposition towards an "I'm not responsible" attitude, to which we can thank our Great and Powerful friend to the North. You're not responsible for killing someone because you had a messed up childhood. You're not responsible for stealing something because you're poor and maybe it's advertising's fault, who knows?

I caught a shoplifter once at work. He'd stolen 2 CD's, totalling about $60. He offered to pay for them. I put him in the office, sat with him, and called the police. The guy was ****-scared. And of course we charged him. People said, "Didn't you feel sorry for him? You could have made him pay for them or something." My response stands to this day; he made that choice. He decided to commit a crime, and as a result he's fully responsible for the consequences. So, if I seem a little intolerant of criminals it's because I feel that as a citizen, I've chosen to respect the law. If I chose to break that, I've made a choice and should bear the responsibility of that choice. The same goes for most things; I can't abide people who argue their way out of speeding or parking fines when they know they were wrong. Irresponsibility is a sign of weak character.

E_S

 

I can accept the need to deal with truly repeat offenders by very substantial punishment; there is a provision, for example, under the WA Sentencing Act for a person to be classed as such and thereby subjected to an indefinite sentence[1]; the old "detained at her Majesty's pleasure" sentence...and as we know, her Majesty is seldom pleased That's in the case of serious sex offenders. That is a situation where a point of last resort has been reached, and where, for the protection of the community, you have no other option.

One point I would like to clarify: in WA courts, when making a plea in mitigation as we call it, it's actually detrimental to your client's position to suggest that the person is not responsible for their crime, and indeed most magistrates and judges take a dim view of any person who tries to minimise their involvement. What is important is that you place the offending in context, so the accused has their say, brief though it may be.

In the Children's Court (and I'm not sure how it works in states other than WA) the focus is on rehabilitation as much as the protection of the community. The reasoning is this: if you deal with the offender in a supportive manner, trying to better educate him as to the consequences of his conduct and what law-abiding alternatives there are, the community is better protected in that there is a good chance the person won't offend again. Hence rehabilitation and the protection of the community are in concord. Judges and magistrates know only too well that chucking a first-time offender in the slammer is only going to place him in contact with other, more experienced offenders. In particular this will occur where the offender is Aboriginal, since there is obviously an ethnic division and a much stronger notion of brotherhood among that population, and in particular among young Aboriginal males.

[1] I much prefer the legal slang for this exercise, where we say the Prosecution is calling for "the key"

 

Right, the community needs to take a little responsibility. Fair enough to say that the person is responsible, we can't just blame it completely on that person's experience in society. But if we do account for it, I think it would help stop his person from offending again. Find the problem, put things in place to solve it.

Oh, and fair enough PoT, about the rape comment. Being female, I guess that kind of topic gets me very angry.

 

As I can only begin to understand and not truly ever comprehend. Jokes about Male rape aside, it is not a topic any of our side would be versed in.

And Ender, I agree completely on the taking responsibility thing. In cases where the person has made a deliberate choice to act in a way he/she knows to be a violation of the law or of even a moral responsibility, a just punishment should ensue.

My only arguement was to keep in mind that to this day people in society are ignorant of what we perceive to be the most basic tenants of right and wrong, of lawful and unlawful.

But I am utterly against the BS that we must understand that Lil' Johnny had a traumatic childhood and that's why he killed people. Fine, that may be a factor and we can consider it when sentancing, but it is not an opportunity for Lil' Johnny to escape punishment, or to avoid responsibility for the crime(s) committed.

It's the same with Gambling "addiction" to skew off on a tangent. Claiming a "psychological addiction" is a nice way of saying "I don't want to feel responsible for being so pathetic and utterly weak, so I'll pay a therapist a few k to call it a "syndrome"". The only dependance is physical, and I hate to break it to the pill-popping, depressed "I need a therapist" generation, but most of all that garbage is comfort food, a safety blanket, and utter trash that is only helping you avoid facing up to your responsiblities.

Do the crime, face the consequence. And face it with courage, not like some weak pathetic animal unable to muster the backbone to admit a wrong.

 

A new topic has been suggested!


We will now explore the political and moral implications of the current issues surrounding same-sex relationships, their legitimacy, and the role of the State in sanctioning or opposing same-sex unions.

Of special note is the recent Papal eddict claiming homosexuality to be immoral and against the teachings of God. This same eddict claimed it was the duty of every Catholic - clergy or otherwise - to actively oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriages so as to preserve the sanctity of marriage and of God's union between Man and Women.

Prime Minister John Howard has recently weighed in on the debate, oddly claiming that it is not only to preserve the santity of marriage that homosexuality should be sanctioned, but to "preserve the human species". Obviously he's afraid we may all become infected with homosexuality, and that no one breeds outside of Marriage these days. Halycon rule anyone?

I hand the floor to Ms. BecJedi.

 

Thank you, PoT.

Well, what can I say, apart from ?what idiots voted Howard in?? I believe that homosexual people should be able to marry. Howard claims that it would be ?damaging? to the institution of marriage. But what is marriage? It is THE UNION OF TWO PEOPLE WHO LOVE EACH OTHER ENOUGH TO WANT TO SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIVES TOGETHER. How is this country supposed to go forward with this bigotry? If Howard claims that he has no problems with homosexuals, then why are they not allowed the same rights as heterosexuals? Gay marriages will not impact those that are heterosexual. Some people say it offends them. How? These people are living their owns lives with their own beliefs. This state of offence comes from the ignorance that people like Howard are breeding within this country. Let?s have equal rights for all, despite race, gender or sexual preference.

As for the moral implications, I am a person who believes in Buddhist ideals, I don?t believe in a god. But I think that if this ?God? existed, he made no mistake. Homosexuality is no disease. I have a wonderful friend who is gay. Why should I, being heterosexual, be treated with more respect in this country than him? Anyone want to disagree, please do! I want to understand how Howard?s point of view can be justified rationally, if it can at all.

 

Howard's point of view is that of a sexually repressed homophobe.
If people adopt a certain lifestyle, and it's one that they are comfortable in, it harms no other and frankly has nothing at all to do with you and has no immediate effect on you or your life, then what has it got to do with you at all?
On the "preserving the human race" slant our little adolf has suggested, let's suppose for a minute same sex relationships are suddenly outlawed, will this cause all the now former gay & lesbian community to suddenly run out, get married to the opposite sex and pump out 2.3 children? i think not.

 

PoT, I don't think you'll have much debate in this one, it'll be hard to find an opposing view... Where is Gath?

Well, I don't have any objection to what has been said thus far, however I do have a few comments.

Marriage is a supposedly a sancted unity. It is a process run by the church - primarily - and involves a lot of "godly stuff" (about which I know very little). What I do know, however, is that the church is possibly the most backward, narrow minded and archaic institutions in the world. This is not limited to any specific church either.

I think what has to be considered here is not the actual process of marriage, as that is not a huge issue for many homosexual couples, it is the way that homosexual couples are legally recognised. If a gay man dies and leaves his fortune to his partner, however the gay man's family - who rejected his being gay - claims the money, the partner is, potentially, unable to obtain what his loved one left for him. This doesn't work the same way with "straight" couples and it is almost as backward in nature as making the act of homosexuality illegal (like it was in Tasmania until very recently - no wonder ince... nevermind).

If homosexual couples want to marry, then they should be given the choice, I have no objection to this. For me personally, however, I feel that the church is a backward institution which shuns homosexuality, thus why should they support its vows? It is the law which must be changed so that legally same sex couples are able to obtain the same rights as "straight" couples. This should include adoption (provided that the same standards are met), access to IVF for lesbian couples, and various other legal loopholes which currently elude certain members of our community. Howard has to leave the 1950s and his hero Menzies behind if we are ever to progress as a nation, and this would be a good start.

 

BecJedi said pretty much what was on my mind.

Now, I'm not up on this whole marriage thing, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there two types of marriage: civil and church?

 

I'm not sure on that one, however I've always associated marriage with the church... It was initially a church thing, so that's how I've seen it regardless of how it's "officially" carried out.

 

But what is marriage? It is THE UNION OF TWO PEOPLE WHO LOVE EACH OTHER ENOUGH TO WANT TO SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIVES TOGETHER.

Uh, well, that's not the actual definition It's the union of a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. It's not man/man or woman/woman. If homosexual people want their own thing then, I say, they should have it; but "marriage" does not fit the bill.

 

Now, I'm not up on this whole marriage thing, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there two types of marriage: civil and church?

The First Lady and I got married in a Catholic Church. My best man later married his wife with just a celebrant with no religious connections whatsoever. Horses for courses.

As for the whole John Howard/ homosexual thing - he sure is determined to drag this country kicking and screaming back to the 1950's.