-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Justice?
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
antman said:
Yup. I thought the point of a forum was multiple points of view. It gets willing from time to time and some people have reasons to be more invested in particular issues. But reasoned debate about the duel nature of the justice system doesn't seem to me like brow beating. It is worth asking the question in relation to the ratio of punishment to rehabilitation IMO.
Of course not. If it were my family member I'd want to kill the bloke myself. But that's why we take justice out of the hands of the victims, or it would be a free-for-all of retribution.rosy23 said:
i'm not saying sentencing should take into consideration how jail might make people worse rather than better, I'm saying we as a society need to. Unless you throw away the key you need to consider what kind of person is coming out at the end of the sentence.
spook said:
I still don't understand. What difference would societys consideration make? I, as a member of society, am way under informed to form opinions on that. I have a far more qualified friend on the parole board who has to meke those considerations and they're doing it pretty tough at the moment due to recent events.
Can you please explain what you're getting at with the comments below spook? I'm obviously missing the point sorry.
spook said:
Do you believe drunkeness is a reason for a lenient penalty. What about drunk drivers. Same as a drunk throwing a punch they probably don't think about killing someone.
No, rosy, I don't believe drunkenness is a reason for a lenient penalty. I also don't think someone throwing a punch intends to kill someone. Do we punish the intent or the result?
I am no fan of thuggery; I've been the subject of it more than once. If someone violently caused the death or serious injury of someone I cared about I'd want to smash them to a pulp.
Society, via legislation and judicial interpretations, decides how we will punish offences. As stated earlier, I don't believe violent offenders deserve to be let out early for behaving in prison.
There are no easy answers. Prison is often described as a finishing school for criminals, in that many come out better criminals (and worse people) than when they went in. At some point most offenders get out.
Personally, I would like to see rapists castrated and would happily give victims of violent crime 10 minutes alone with their tied-up assailants and a baseball bat.
I am no fan of thuggery; I've been the subject of it more than once. If someone violently caused the death or serious injury of someone I cared about I'd want to smash them to a pulp.
Society, via legislation and judicial interpretations, decides how we will punish offences. As stated earlier, I don't believe violent offenders deserve to be let out early for behaving in prison.
There are no easy answers. Prison is often described as a finishing school for criminals, in that many come out better criminals (and worse people) than when they went in. At some point most offenders get out.
Personally, I would like to see rapists castrated and would happily give victims of violent crime 10 minutes alone with their tied-up assailants and a baseball bat.
spook said:
Intent would more likely be murder rather than manslaughter and a much heavier penalty. Of course we punish the result as well. A blood nose from a punch doesn't cop the same penalty as a lethal punch.
It comes back to punishment being a deterrent too. I'm all for things like castrating sex offenders, crushing hoons cars, community service for lesser offenders etc. If you don't behave in a responsible lawful way and inflict tragedy on others you should be penalised whether you intended it or not..
There are jails and there are jails. I've visited a family member in Beechworth jail and it was like a holiday home compared to the heavy jails. I have a friend who killed his little girl driving while he was drunk. He was jailed for a short period but never mixed with the heavy criminals. Maybe his lenient sentence wasn't harsh enough. He still drink drives. The drunken yobbo in this example will get out of jail in a few short years. His victim will never do anything again and his family will suffer forever. I agree with the family that he got a lenient penalty considering the consequences of his actions.
The manslaughter law in NSW allowed to judge to sentence the smile up to 26 years.
But he got 6.
How bad do you have to behave to get 26?
But he got 6.
How bad do you have to behave to get 26?
Our system is merely the evolution of what we inherited from the British and European "settlers". Incarceration for its own sake has come to include "rehabilitation". But has the idea ever been truely tested? It defys logic to think that forced social grouping of individuals under stress and under-stimulated would have any positive outcomes. The proliferation of drugs and weapons inside gaols certainly ought to lead to questions about the way they are structured. The disproportionate rates of incarceration of minorities (esp. indigenous Aussies) suggest racial issues within the system and society at large creep into our courts. It is a very difficult thing to test in the real world but it would be worth it.
I don't know MB, it is the question that is important and the fact legislators and legal practitioners don't seem to ask it. What I would support is for our legislators to ask for a study into it from the ground up. When we have conservative governments with a hard-on for "law and order" the chances of a truely open process seem slim to me though. I can't imagine VIC or QLD being open to less penal prisons at the moment. But I mean a study that asks whether the entire method of incarceration has any rational basis? Is there another way? Are there anthropologists, behavioural psychologists, biochemists, neuroscientists, statisticians, etc whose studies might be informative? Whether our courts can adopt a more scientific approach to evidence? Eyewitness reports are among the most unreliable forms of evidence yet they form a large part of both the police investigation and court proceedings. Can we categorise evidence into areas of probability so that they have a proportional influence on the outcomes? I'm just throwing ideas around but they are important questions and I don't hear anyone asking them.
KnightersRevenge said:
While we're asking all these "experts" maybe we should ask the victims families as well.
Just a thought.
poppa x said:
Without wishing to seem harsh. No, I don't think they need to be included. Not in the portion that looks at the effectiveness of incarceration as a deterrent/rehab system. They might have a role to play when looking at the straight punishment. What portion of the sentence should be purely punitive? There is part of us that needs that to see people punished (natural justice if you like) and it needs to be considered as a society. Can we agree on what a punishment should be for a specific crime, not including rehab or any other factors, just punishment. An eye for an eye.
what are peoples thoughts on the legislation to keep julian knight in jail? personally i believe he should have been put to death or life without parole... but at the end of the day, he received a 27 year minimum. so does the govt have the right to interfere to ensure he stays in jail? surely the answer has to be no...?
Ian4 said:
Yes from me. He's being judged on his time in jail. There are accounts of him threatening and plotting to kill again, being a trouble maker inside and showing no signs of remorse. I'm far happier and feel much safer knowing he won't be let loose on the streets of Melbourne again.
