I'm sure most people on facebook have seen the posts about how prison inmates get better care than the elderly in nursing homes. I'm sure that most people that have kept up with American current affairs heard about the tent prison in the South.

My topic question is, Why, if people within society choose to break the law, they still receive many of the benefits that come from association in that society? Is it unfair to remove the comforts of life from these criminals? Is there room for the chain gang to be reemployed?

Random Guy
Only yesterday the Queensland Attorney General hinted at tougher sentencing & naming juvenile criminals. Even a TV survey showed 905 to 10% in favour yet that Goose Terry O'Gorman of the civil Freedom criminals got his non-existing gonads in a twist. As long as we have to waste time, money & effort because of such morons defending the criminals then, well, we'll be making social progressive regress.

Random guy, do you not think many others have considered the 'good ol days ' return of bread and water and general rock bashings of the old jail system?

If those criminals didn't go in there bitter and twisted, they certainly would by the time they come out.

Unfortunately , many prisoners do get parole and leave after finishing their sentences.
So treating them basically well, and trying to prepare them to make their way lawfully into the community, would appear to be the right thing to do.

I don't hear of many ex prisoners wanting to go back into jail, do you?
So I doubt it is as much fun as you think it is.
Sexual and physical assault are daily occurrences in jails, so it doesn't sound good to me.

Loss of freedom can be a very powerful deterrent on it's own.

I stay away from face book, it has a generation of our young sitting for many hours self promoting while life passes them by.
Some good and much bad, comes via that page.
Suseonline has her views I mine.
We are over run with the cry,s of victims of early released criminals.
And crimes that see short terms in prison but demand more.
So your task to gain any support for much change is a hard one.
But the system may benefit greatly if we include changes in prisoner reforms as one leg of reform in law and order.
I am not advocating bringing back the chain gangs quite the opposite .

Loss of freedom can be a very powerful deterrent on it's own.
Dear resident OLO ignoramus.
Simply being confined yet having many modern commodities at one's disposal is not a deterrent as has been proven at the cost of many peoples' lives & losses.
Penalty has to have more psychological long-term effects than simply not being let out for a long time. There are many good people who are confined to staying at home yet they're not afforded gym & other modern amenities/facilities. many victims exist in far worse conditions than their aggressors in so-called jail. Penalty has to involve considerable discomfort & denial of most everyday life facilities to make them think over & over again to regret their actions.
It must make them think about their victims more than about themselves.

RG,
I agree with you to the extent that prison life is far too easy these days.

Lets face it, one has to commit a very serious crime to be jailed and the jail is to prevent further crimes by that person and is supposed to be a deterrent. It should not be a three star Her Majesty's Motel. The amenities provided today are a joke and they even get to vote in elections and have contact visits.

The emphasis should be on removal from society and all that goes with that.

The early parole is a joke and has been proven so.

If they need the space, I would vote for the death penalty for those that commit heinous crimes. I would have no trouble in giving a needle to some that come to mind.

I think that many miss the point.
A criminal is not sent to prison 'FOR' punishment. He is sent to prison 'AS' punishment.
This then means that deprivation of liberty is the basic fundamental in the social equation.
Under the UN convention on human rights, where we always seem to be stuck, we cannot set about adding punishment to punishment.
Even if a further crime is committed in prison it is the courts that have to assess and convict and punish not the prison authorities.
So what needs to be done is the basic premise of prison restructured to reflect community expectations and then send them there. Its a bit like the 'horse and the gate'. Too late.
Yes I agree with the death penalty where the psychological assessments and the nature of the crime leave little chance of attitudinal change.
The primary reason why life in prison is relaxed is the involvement of unions.
Whenever prison reform involves purposeful employment the unions have stepped in and blocked it on the grounds that the prisoners are putting workers out of a job. They say if you want to work/train them then you have to pay award wages.
There age good examples in the Paramatta Linen Services which used to do all of the Sydney hospitals laundry. A 20 million dollar facility at Paramatta Goal is idle and derelict today.
All the bread for the Sydney hospital used to be baked at the Long Bay Goal. Not any more.
The crown forests used to be looked after by prisoners in afforestation camps. Not any more.

Why do you think we have so many re-offenders.

I have long held the belief that prison should be for hard criminals only and, it should be little more than a hole in the ground.

If you don't won't to spend the time, then don't commit the crime.

I know people personally who have re-offended just to get back in, no landlord, no rent to pay, no worries as to where the next meal is coming from.

Bit, like most things, we have to continually rob from Peter in order to feed Paul.

It's just a shame that the majority of Paul's in this case, are retired tax payers.

And people out there wonder why there is such a thing as tax evasion.

And thanks to this incompitent government, having squandered our mining boom spoils, the only way forward, is backwards.

Economic mismanagement by those who are entrusted with our tax dollars has no small part to play in the increase of crime. Instead of going into infrastructure for the future much of the funding goes to bureaucrats who are also responsible for the insane squandering. Because the money doesn't get to those who need it many turn to crime. Because there are no programs to guide young people onto the right track, again due to so much funding being syphoned away, many young turn to crime. Those who deny young people a dose of discipline by way of a national service are the same people who then whine blue murder when they get a dose of their own medicine. A two year break in having 19-21 year olds out of the picture can not have any other result than a reduction in crime.

Lets look at the very nature of a prison.

It's a place where the authorities' custodial
duties take priority over everything else. Its
a place of residence where the inmates are confined
for a set period of their lives, where they are cut off
from the rest of society, and where they surrender
personal control of their lives, submitting instead to
the almost absolute rule of a hierarchy of officials.

Prison, is usually used as a last-resort means of punishing
criminals and protecting society from them.

Many experts argue that society should waste little energy
on imprisoning petty offenders, for whom other forms of
correction - like probation, or community service - might
be more appropriate, and should concentrate instead on
incapacitating dangerous and persistent offenders by locking
them up - if necessary, for very long periods of time.

Without rules there would be no rule-breakers;
but where there are rules, there will always be people who
are tempted - or pressured - to break them.

When we live in a society with an unprecedented degree of
freedom, we have to face the fact that some people will
abuse that freedom. For example, if people are free to own
guns, some will use them to rob and kill each other. If a
society places greater emphasis on conformity to the rules,
like China, for example - that society has less rule breaking
at the cost of personal freedom.

Freedom implies choice;
the exercise of choice leads to differences; and one group's
differences may soon become another group's problem.
Perhaps in this sense, problems may be part of the price that
a free society pays for the liberty its members enjoy.

Lexi, "For example, if people are free to own guns, some will use them to rob and kill each other"

But it isn't the ones who are allowed to own guns who are committing the offences. You disagree with police and government statistics.

While there has always been very little crime involving firearms in Australia, the over-sensationalised gun crime that sells papers invariably involves:

- unlicensed offenders who could never obtain a licence in the first place for all sorts of very good reasons and wouldn't apply anyhow;

and

- firearms obtained illegally, usually through direct illegal import (with OMG bikes in some cases).

You doubtless know better than to attribute the drug connected firearms offences of criminals who get their illegal guns anyway, with the legal controlled ownership of firearms by licensed citizens of good character, such as farmers, target shooters and hunters who go about their lives in a very lawful and peaceful way.

Conformity
The rules are there already. How do you propose to convince these fellows to comply?

<OUTLAW motorcycle gangs are ramping up the violence and no longer care about innocent bystanders becoming caught in the crossfire, a new report into organised crime has revealed.

Crimes previously kept out of the public view are now exploding on to the streets, from massive brawls to drive-by shootings.

Gang violence seen on the Gold Coast streets recently includes Finks bikie gang members in a melee at the Cooly Rocks On festival earlier this year, in which an 61-year-old bystander was taken to hospital when he was punched in the head, and the 2012 Robina Town Centre shooting.>
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/07/31/455536_gold-coast-news.html

Lets look at the very nature of a prison.
Lexi,
I think I can safely assume you've got an australian prison in mind. There are prisons & there are prisons. Some countries have prisons so appalling where it would be more humane to just execute everyone. Australia's closest neighbor has some like that. The next closest neighbor also has some horrific conditions. In Australia prisons are generally very clean & with most mod cons, in fact I have young offenders tell me with glee that they're looking forward to go to places such as Lotus Glen in Nth Qld. If that is a deterrent then I give up right now. prisoners get better medical attention than most normal citizens, again no deterrent. Many prisoners end up leaving a prison with a degree under their arms whilst a normal worker can't afford to attend Tafe. Somewhere along the line the wheels came off our justice system & the victims are let down just too much. The only deterrent obvious in our justice system is that it deters victims from speaking up.

Individual ( our resident OLO know it all cynic) :
"...prisoners get better medical attention than most normal citizens, again no deterrent."

If the prison authorities were to let their inmates become ill and die from treatable diseases or illnesses, then they would be even worse than the criminals they house...because they are supposed to know better.

Imagine if we did have all jail inmates treated as badly as you obviously want Individual, how safe would the already difficult job the prison staff have be?

I guess if we had any 'problem' inmates who gave more trouble than others, we could always shoot them...as a deterrent to the others?

But wait, of course that wouldn't work, because only criminals without gun licences shoot others down in cold blood....don't they?

Conditions in Australian prisons are already worse than average, globally.

Some wrong assumptions made on this thread are that:
1. Prisoners are always criminals.
2. Prisoners are always serious/hardened criminals.
3. All prisoners chose to commit a crime.
4. All Prisoners feel in jail as in a hotel.
5. The laws by which people are imprisoned are always just and moral.

At times those assumptions are true. At times they are not.

No absolutely-objective test exists to tell whether a person is a criminal or not. Innocent people get into jail for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. People get into jail for following their conscience and/or religious convictions. People get into jail for momentary loss of attention/control. People get into jail for helping their friends and family. People get into jail because imposed and unjust laws make their situation impossible.

Can anybody here claim unhesitatingly, "it won't happen to me"?

While the true criminals, say 1%, deserve to suffer, all other 99% of us, though with no intention to harm anyone, must suffer constant anxiety, lest it happens to us. That suffering, those nightmares of finding oneself in jail, those weighing-stones we carry on our necks, which for a real criminal may perhaps look like a hotel but for an innocent person worse than death and hell, that suffering is greater than all suffering from crime put together (not that the latter is negligible). The least we can do is to make conditions in our jails more humane - who knows, it could be you in there one day, God forbid.

If we keep splitting hairs we'll end up splitting them again & again until there's nothing left & the whole silly cycle of no resolution will start another cycle of no resolution. Of course there are cases which do not fall into the average category & that's what magistrates & judges should be for.
The arguments of rights for prisoners is that after having done wrong you waive some of the rights that come with the privilege of normal life.

The line from Suseonline just smacks of utter ignorance & a deliberate trying to destabilise.
"If the prison authorities were to let their inmates become ill and die from treatable diseases or illnesses,"

There is a huge difference between treating a life threatening decease & having dental work done worth thousands of dollars on the outside. And, yes criminals without gun licenses would shout others.

Yuyutsu,
At times those assumptions are true. At times they are not. Again hair splitting. Yes quite a number of prisoners should not be in prison. So why are thy ? Because some incompetent magistrate or judge is totally out of whack with reality.
There are many points of Law that send innocent people to prise. Just one of the examples is when you drive an unregistered or defective vehicle & despite driving perfectly safe you can go to jail because a drunk ran into you. By all means cop a fine but if the accident is not your fault you should not be made accountable for it.
You could be 0.6 on the blower, drive perfectly safe & some other incompetent sober driver runs into you & you cop the brunt of the Law. That's just so wrong & immoral. Australia really needs a legal sea change fast.

People are sent to prison "AS" punishment and not "FOR" punishment. End of story.

@chrisgaff1000 I suppose my question and thinking is more along the lines of, is prison effective? I am quite confident that prison can still be the punishment of breaking the law, yet could be changed to more effectively deter people from breaking the law also.

@individual Sorry I dont agree with your last argument. To say "they broke the law worse than I did" or "I only got caught breaking the law out of luck or accident" is not good. The last thing we want to encourage people is that breaking the law is only breaking the law when you are caught by a police officer. Breaking the law is exactly that regardless of whether you are alone in your house or in the middle of a crowded street.

My personal view on the matter of prison effectiveness comes back to the effectiveness of our laws and society. We are always told what we are not allowed to do (do not speed, do not drink drive, etc) but we are rarely, if ever, taught what we should be doing instead. We as a society in general should be encouraging people to do the opposite, helping people, sharing our wealth, etc. rather than just "dont break this rule.e

"they broke the law worse than I did" or "I only got caught breaking the law out of luck or accident"
Random Guy
That's your interpretation, I did not say that at all. If someone runs into me if I'm 0.5 yet driving perfectly proper then I should be charged for being 0.6 not for being responsible for the accident caused by a sober incompetent driver.
Our prisons are not deterrents, they're training camps to hone criminal skills.

OTB,

I was speaking in generalities and I merely gave
guns as only one example. Deviance arises from
the very nature of society and the necessity for
establishing and maintaining social order.

Without rules there can be no rule-breakers, but
where there are rules, there will always be people
who are tempted - or pressured - to break them.

Some societies have more deviance than others.

The United States, a nation embarked on the historical
experiment of giving its citizens an unprecedented degree
of freedom, is confronted with the fact that some people
abuse that freedom. I gave guns merely as an example.
Most countries severely restrict private handgun
ownership, but there are at least 60 million handguns in
the United States - and weapons of this type are used in
44 per cent of the 19,000 or so murders that occur each
year. The American handgun homicide rate is 77 times the
average rate for England, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland,
Australia, Israel, and Canada combined. By the way,
bringing up certain issues in a discussion does not
mean that one is pro or anti what is being raised. It merely
means that issues are being raised to be discussed. It does
not necessarily mean that the poster personally believes in what is
being presented. In other words its a discussion and in a
discussion we should look at issues from all sorts of angles
not just as an either/or issue. That way we can all learn
something from the discussion.

Dear Individual,

I'm not sure that I buy into your sweeping generalisations
that things are so great in prison and that some people
actually look forward to going there. Perhaps they do.
Overall though, I think the evidence points the other way.

Who would want to be cut off from the rest of society, and
surrender the personal control of one's life,
submitting instead to the almost absolute rule
of a hierarchy of officials. This in the long run can
leave people incapable of assuming normal social
responsibilities. It's not something that any sane person would
want.

Who would want to be cut off from the rest of society, and
surrender the personal control of one's life,
Lexi,
1, when it's a part of a new youth culture as an initiation
2, when you can can look forward to getting out in a few years & all your proceeds from your criminal activities are still at your disposal.
3, when you have gangs lining you up to put you away for good then Prison is ok.
4, there are many who simply couldn't survive on the outside so they prefer stints in prison.
If prisons were somewhat less comfortable then yes they would be a deterrent but as things stand they're not effective in the long run. As long as a prison provides better service to criminals than to decent people then it will not be as much of a deterrent as it should be. We had an attempted rape & the offender was not locked away so within two weeks he attacked another girl & now he is in prison until Terry O'Gorman's outfit sets him lose again. Tell that second victim that prison is a deterrent.

Lexi, "I was speaking in generalities and I merely gave
guns as only one example"

It is when you repeat wrong information like that despite being corrected previously, that you come across as a flakey Green supporter, out to air Greens' spin. When you leave that stuff alone you contribute very worthwhile introspection to threads. I would much prefer to read more of Lexi's thinking from her experience of life than highly questionable Greens Left spin from 'independent' sites.

While I believe we should be treating prisoners humanely. We have an interest in doing so. It is the only hope of a few being diverted somewhat from their chosen careers. Greens would probably believe that criminals all ahev excuses for their behaviour. That it is all society's fault. However, people are right to ask why the law-abiding poorly off and disadvantaged citizens are not treated similarly (to prisoners).

It is a cold comfort to recall that 'Virtue is its own reward' when Mum is on a long waiting list for hospital treatment but the very worst criminals in the land are given priority beds and courageous, hugely expensive medical intervention to save them from the consequences of their chosen lifestyles. A chain smoking criminal thug gets preference and first class care for a heart and lung transplant while someone's dear mum dies in an ambulance ramped outside Emergency. People ask, "How does that work?".

People ask why prisoners are advantaged and shouldn't they take their turn as must law-abiding citizens who have always worked to be independent. The same questions are asked by the poor employed, who work for less benefits and poorer quality of life than prisoners. They are also prisoners in that their low income severely restricts their choices.

to be continued..

contd..

Your US example is highly flawed and for many reasons. But as usual because you are starting with a Left prejudice and the researcher's fallacy. You find 'proof' for what you already believe to be true.

You want to make firearms, the simple tool, the cause of violence. The simple tool has malicious intent and makes them do it. Greens like the awful Lee Rhainnon and the foolish Shoebridge have ridden that wagon to death in lieu of coming up with policies of practical benefit to their electorates.

In doing so (your US example) you ignore the very obvious, incontrovertible evidence that violence in the US (and shootings if that is the only violence recognised by OLO's hoplophobes), is almost always by young black offenders from poorer areas. It is also almost invariably black on black. If you must draw comparisons with (say) China or Japan, you could just as easily hypothesise that diversity or lack of employment are the conditions for higher violence statistics.

I do not for a moment agree with the proposition that some societies have more crime because of 'freedom'.

Now that is all very basic information that has been put to you and others in previous threads. It has been argued out every time to where you have slammed the door and departed, declaring that the thread was claosed or you had said what you wanted to say.

Maybe the reason why thread discussions do not provide much learning as you say has to do with that saying attributed to the Chinese, which is, "When the student is ready, the teacher appears".

Green spin doth not an argument make.

OTB,

I shall try again.
I did not glean any information on this particular
subject from any "Green" sites. Nor have I ever voted
"Green." Nor am I interested in anything that they
happen to have to say - on any subject.

Your anti-Green stance is irrelevant and should have nothing
to do with this discussion. What is being discussed is
deviance and how society deals with it. Namely punishment,
and so on.

Since some societies seem to have more deviance than others,
I brought up the United States as an example - where its
citizens are given an unprecedented degree of freedom,
and where some people abuse that freedom. For example,
I stated, if people are free to own guns, some will use
them to rob and kill each other (I did say some people,
not all people),
if people have freedom of religion, some will join obscure
cults and sects; if people have freedom of expression, some will
produce hard-core pornography; if people have freedom to
travel, some will smuggle drugs. Conversely, a society that
places greater emphasis on conformity to the rules - like
China, for example - that society tends to have less deviance,
though at the cost of personal freedom.

After all, freedom implies choice; the exercise of choice
leads to differences; and one group's differences soon
become another group's deviance. In this sense, deviance may be a
part of the price that a free society pays for the liberty its
members enjoy.

I trust that this clarifies the points that were being made.
It is simply viewing things from a sociological perspective.
It has nothing to do with
any political party, and certainly not the "Greens."

If you want to be taken seriously in discussions - kindly
do not attribute things to people or misrepresent their views. Because subsequently you shall be ignored.
And frankly your attitude is starting to wear a bit thin.

Individual,

This has been an interesting discussion.
I've got a few more thoughts to throw into
the mix for you.

Selective perception and labeling - that is,
finding, processing and punishing some kinds
of criminality and not others - means that
visible, poor, nonmobile, outspoken,
undiplomatic "tough" kids will be noticed,
whether their actions are seriously delinquent
or not.

Other kids who have established a reputation for
being bright (even though under-achieving),
disciplined and involved in respectable activities,
who are mobile and monied, will be invisible when
they deviate from sanctioned activities.

They'll sow their wild oats - perhaps even wider and
thicker than their lower-class cohorts - but they
won't be noticed. When it's time to leave adolescence
most will follow the expected path, settling into the
ways of the middle-class, remembering fondly the
delinquent but unnoticed fling of their youth.

The "tough" kids and others like them may turn around, too.
It is more likely that their noticeable deviance will have
been so re-inforced by police and the community that their
lives will be effectively channelled into careers consistent
with their adolescent background.

Lexi,
If it is desired to prove a point or to be seen as winning a debate then excuses can be found even for the most heinous crimes. The argument that our prisons are not an effective deterrent is proven when released prisoners offend again. One could argue again that it was the incarceration caused him to re-offend or one could argue that he is just one bad piece of character. Of course you could defend him if that's what you want, most victims though would prefer to condemn him. I have been a victim several times, my wife has been a victim also. We are definitely not inclined to be lenient on those who caused us so much grief. I can not even begin to understand how people who lost much more than we did must feel. Again, I fail to see how they could feel anything but condemning the mongrels.

Lexi, "if people are free to own guns, some will use them to rob and kill each other"

Again, that is not the case is it? US citizens are not allowed to own and use guns however they wish.

They must obtain licences and use them in strict accordance with available laws.

There is abundant, incontrovertible evidence that has been put to you many times in previous threads. But you persistently attack the law abiding, respectable citizens who go through the various invasive character tests and other hurdles to legally obtain a licence and purchase from legal sources. Such citizens prove that they can also be trusted to continue with their demonstrated life habits of complying with laws, all laws.

You keep putting up your US examples and where the evidence goes against your emotional world view, you challenge the person not the facts. Where that fails, you ignore the evidence entirely.

It is all Greens spin and while you infer you are not a Green, you talk the talk and walk the walk of the Greens, but unfortunately not that of the original Greens, more that of the crazy authoritarian left and Marxists who do damage to both Labor and Greens, and embarrass the real Left as they do so.

Tell me, why do you persistently mislead readers, and trash law abiding citizens, while knowing full well that it is all lies and your deception serves to protect the very people who offend through their violence and criminal acts?

No law, no ban, no restriction will prevent an offender who sets out to break laws. That is what offenders do, they set out to break laws. Doubling and trebling laws, making more legal and procedural redundancy with higher mountains of bureaucratic paperwork, to waste police resources monitoring respoectable citizens, only puts more police behind desks, anchored in their stations and away from what they want to do, which is to detect and collar criminals.

You take attention away from the good work that is being done by police and authorities in attempting to deal with violence. Why?

Dear Individual,

<<Yes quite a number of prisoners should not be in prison. So why are thy ? Because some incompetent magistrate or judge is totally out of whack with reality.>>

Well that's a fact of life, it's human nature, so it must be taken into account and not ignored: magistrates will not become perfect saints before everyone else does.

<<I can not even begin to understand how people who lost much more than we did must feel. Again, I fail to see how they could feel anything but condemning the mongrels.>>

And so they may feel. Feelings are out of our control and nobody should be criticised for what they feel, but choices and actions are a different matter. Jails are full of people who acted out their raw feelings.

OTB,

The main types of crime in the United States can be
conveniently classified into four principal categories:
crimes of violence; crimes against property; crimes
without victims; and white-collar and corporate crime.
Information can be obtained from sources such as
annual reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), which compiles data provided by local police
forces. The FBI regards crimes of violence and crimes
against property as the most serious offenses.
These acts - homicide, robbery, rape, aggravated assault,
burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson - are known
as the eight "crime index" offenses, and the FBI reports
concentrate on them.

My husband and I lived and worked in Los Angeles for ten
years. I have a cousin who was a senior detective with the LAPD.
(now retired).

In international terms, the United States is an extremely
violent society, with a homicide rate far exceeding that
of any other industrialised nation. A single American city like
Chicago, Houston, or Los angeles records more murders in a
typical year than does the whole of England.

Most other countries severely restrict private handgun
ownership, but there are at least 60 million handguns
in the United States - and weapons of this type are used in
44 per cent of the 19,000 or so murders that occur each year.

Why then does the US permit the widespread access to handguns?
One reason is the persistent belief that, since criminals
have guns, law-abiding people need them for self-protection.

Yet according to studies -
gun-owning households are much more likely to
suffer fatalities from their own weapons than from those
of outsiders.

One study found that only 2 per cent of all slayings in gun-
owning households were for self-protection; the remainder
were suicides, homicides, or accidental deaths, almost all
involving family members, friends or acquaintances.

A second reason for the proliferation of handguns is the
belief, deeply held by many Americans, that gun ownership
is an individual right. For granting this liberty to the
individual, American society pays the price in the
deviance of those who abuse it.

cont'd ...

OTB,

Although blacks constitute about 12 per cent of the
population, they represent 45 per cent of murder
victims - and 94 per cent of these are slain by other
blacks. Whites, in contrast, are killed by whites in
nearly 90 per cent of the cases.

The high involvement of American blacks in homicide results
primarily from the profound social disaster - involving
broken families, drug abuse, poor education, and unemployment
that has afflicted a small segment of black youth in the
ghetto "underclass."

Much of this black-on-black homicide appears random, mindless,
wantonly malign, psychopathetic: the reason offered by the
perpetrators often run along the lines of, "He attacked me."
Murder of this kind is committed by people who feel that, even if
they lose their lives, they are not losing much; who see no
reason to adopt society's values, for society offers them
nothing; who get no nearer to affluence or success than what
they see on their TV set; whose repressed rage and even self-hate erupts against those around them.

My cousin, ended up working with troubled youth prior to his
retirement from the LAPD. We learned a great deal from his
experiences.

OTB,

One more thing.

Kindly show me where I have mislead or trashed law
abiding citizens.

And -

Where I have taken attention away from the good work
that the police are doing.

And -

You criticise me for stating that if people are free
to own guns some will use them to rob and kill each
other and yet in the same post you tell me -
that "No law, no restriction, will prevent an offender who
sets out to break laws."

Is that right? Then what's your problem exactly?

Lexi,

So once again you can find no evidence whatsoever to back up your sledging of the thousands of respectable citizens who are lawful, licensed owners in Australia?

No surprise there. None at all.

These are people who proved themselves to be of excellent character to obtain a licence in the first place and have an enviable record for continuing to obey all laws. It is a condition of their licence, but they would obey all laws anyhow.

Hundreds of words of disjointed bunk later and still no admission from you that you are wrong and of course, no apology.

One thing we can be assured of is that the people who hold firearms licences in Australia are proved to very stable people of high character who consistently do not put a step wrong. They are good peaceful citizens.

These respectable folk must wonder if their trenchant critics such as yourself who constantly excuse criminal behaviour, offering such weak indensible excuses that society made them do it, have always had good regard for the law themselves. Well, do you and what evidence can you supply that you are a good trustworthy neighbour for those who live around you?

Lexi, you are one patient lady, nicely explaining your obviously well informed views to such an aggressive writer as Onthebeach!

I would imagine that someone who has lived for years in the US, like you have, would be much better placed to have correct views on the gun laws and life in that country than a local gun-lover like him.

Onthebeach "One thing we can be assured of is that the people who hold firearms licences in Australia are proved to very stable people of high character who consistently do not put a step wrong. They are good peaceful citizens."
Is that right? That's a rather sweeping statement isn't it?
Where's your proof?

All the murders/suicides that seem to occur in a domestic/family situation usually involve their own guns don't they?

If they have a good old gun right there available when they are particularly annoyed with a friend or relative, it is so easy to just reach for that quick solution isn't it?

Unless you are in the military, a law enforcement officer, or a farmer, you don't need a gun....unless you like being aggressive and killing other humans or animals.

Luckily, we have jails for these sorts of people, where they can't take their guns.

OTB,

Be a good chap and go find someone else to annoy.
I'm no longer interested.

Dear Suse,

Thank You so much.

Patience is something we both know quite a bit
about. For us it comes with the territory.

Suseonline <Onthebeach "One thing we can be assured of is that the people who hold firearms licences in Australia are proved to very stable people of high character who consistently do not put a step wrong. They are good peaceful citizens."
Is that right? That's a rather sweeping statement isn't it?
Where's your proof?>

LOL. As OLO's most hysterical hoplophobe, your emotional outbursts are easily mocked.

Because despite all of the posts you have made sledging legal gun ownership (and never criticing criminals and their illegal guns!) you have obviously never acquainted yourself with the laws. I'd bet London to a brick you have never had even had a cursory look at the laws. You wouldn't want any facts challenging that shock, horror prejudice you hold so dearly.

Dear, you asked for proof. Is it impossible to obtain or continue to hold a firearms licence if you commit a crime. How about that for proof!

You have heard of people without criminal records I trust? Well, you have to be one of those people to even get within cooee of getting a firearms licence.

However the criminals you, Lexi and the Greens are soft on and don't criticise would never get a licence anyhow and they certainly would never get their guns from a legal source or register them. They get their gansta guns freshly imported, no questions asked. How about that? Did you think that a criminal would be concerned about breaking a few more laws to go about his trade? Hell no!

Dear Suse,

You're being baited.

Don't fall for it.

Simply ignore.

Not to worry Lexi, I am bored of his tactics already!
And I note I'm not alone...

See you for fun times on another thread.

Cheers,
Suse.

I own a gun. It is a very big powerful handgun. A .45 Glock. I have a permit to carry it in my line of work. The primary reason I carry the weapon is to shoot people who try to interfere with my line of work. I do not go out looking to shoot people with my weapon. If they were to get shot I can assure you it would be because they put themselves in a position to be shot.
If they did this then the police and the courts would agree with my right to shoot them.
Now if someone broke into my house and I caught them stealing my TV and I shot them I would be guilty of an offense under the criminal law. Even if they attacked me I could only retaliate with available means. If I went into another room and got my gun, loaded it and shot the offender I would be committing a crime because my actions would be deemed as being premeditated.
However if I lived in the USA and I shot the offender there is a 90% chance that I would not be prosecuted.
That is the difference here in Australia and that is why everybody does not have a gun in their house.

Dear Chris,

<<If I went into another room and got my gun, loaded it and shot the offender I would be committing a crime>>

What you describe is just how screwed up the Australian system is.

According to the Israeli "Dromi Law" (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3559940,00.html), you could do just that and not face any charges.

It is only natural and common sense for ordinary people to be able to protect themselves, their family and their property with whatever means they have.

The keyword is 'protect' - which is very different to 'punish'. If the burglar, on seeing you, dropped your possessions and ran out and still you pursued him with your gun, then it would be an attempt at punishment, which indeed should be illegal (even according to the Dromi law).

I mentioned above, cases where ordinary and innocent good citizens, which could be you or me, may find themselves the next day in jail - this is one of them, where draconian laws place us in an impossible situation when being unlucky enough to have our home burgled, where we are legally supposed to just stand and watch helplessly as our dearest possessions are being carried away before our eyes.

magistrates will not become perfect saints before everyone else does.
Yututsu,
They get paid as if they were before everyone else. Your admission that they are failures highlights my argument that we referendum on changing Law.

Sadly australian policy makers are the drabs of white society, they're an embarrassment to the white race.

Lexi & Suseonline,

Once again where your prejudice and negative stereotyping have been laid bare and your world views proved wrong, your reaction is to give the poster/s who posed the awkward questions a spray and depart lock-step in a huff, slamming the door as you go.

Another thread and you will repeat the same old, same old as though you have never been challenged before. A comfortable rut for you. LOL

Here's a link that may be interesting regarding
Australia's stand on gun-control:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/australia-model-successful-gun-control-laws/story?id=18007055

Lexi,

LOL, I didn't have long to wait for you to scour the Net to find something, anything that suited your prejudice.

Now you and I both know from so many threads before that university research that has been properly peer reviewed cannot show any evidence of any benefit at all from the mountain of bureaucracy the Howard 'initiatives' foisted on police and law-abiding licensed firearms owners.

Sad but true it is criminals, most likely ethnic drug gangs and their illegally held gangsta guns who are committing the gun crime in Australia. That is where much os the violence is coming from too. From booze and the usual suspects too. Houses is a fair representation of a certain culture you must find appealing.

But trust you to continue in the same old Green Left rut as before: soft on criminals and drugs, and desperately trying to lay blame elsewhere.

What a joke and an insult though. The ones you choose to sledge and blame, the law-abiding licensed owners, are the ones who sail through every police check of character to obtain and maintain their licence. Yet their critics such as yourself have never had to satisfied a similar test of their character and uminpeachable status as a law-abiding citizen. These are the same critics who are also trenchant critics of police when they are trying to do their job.

With police being overloaded with the bureaucratic paperwork of political correctness and Courts being soft on criminals, we never kno who is moving into out suburbs. I repeat what I said before to you:

"These respectable folk (licensed owners) must wonder if their trenchant critics such as yourself who constantly excuse criminal behaviour, offering such weak indensible excuses that society made them do it, have always had good regard for the law themselves. Well, do you and what evidence can you supply that you are a good trustworthy neighbour for those who live around you?"

My "Houses is a fair representation of a certain culture you must find appealing" in para 3 above should be,

"Housos is a fair.. etc"

Many police can't watch it of course, it is too close to the sad stuffed-up reality that confronts them every day. Courtesy of looney 'Progressive' Left policies.

Yuyutsu,
The operative word is reasonability. Unfortunately there is a gulf between what a policeman perceives as reasonable and what the citizen does.

What many do-gooders do not consider is the anger that comes with an assault or an intrusion. This anger can make a victim act irrational in the heat of the moment when the victim only has a split second to decide on what action to take. The offender who has watched your movements & planned to either attack or rob you has had time to think about how to to go about their decision to attack or rob. The victim does not have that luxury yet when a victim reacts in a perfectly understandable manner i.e. hit back or shoot the offender then our idiot Law persecutes the defender. Rights in prison ? Of course for the offender but none for the victim. Can anyone throw light on any outcome where a victim has been compensated for a burglary or assault ?

Individual,

All you have to do is Google the "victimsofcrime"
websites. There's enough information on the web
to provide you with what you're looking for.

Alternatively, the larger regional libraries have
as part of their reference collections Law Handbooks
that will give you assistance with legal problems.
There's chapters on victims of crime and compensation,
et cetera. Crimes are offenses that are regulated by
state laws - and there are many compensation programs
available that help victims to heal.

What the serially interfering 'Progressives' have done is forget the rights of the law-abiding, vulnerable victim. The 'Progressives' have concentrated on rights for criminals because they are soft on crime.

They have reversed the onus of proof and now it is the victim who is obliged to defend his act in self-defense. It makes it certain that defence of oneself and loved ones will result in detention, interrogation and serious charges.

The victim has to prove that s/he feared imminent serious harm or death and prove that s/he used the exact amount of 'reasonable' force to restrain the assailant. The Police and the Police Prosecutor are actively looking for ways to charge the victim and go to extremes to do just that.

The media too takes up the hue and cry for revenge on the homeowner who hurt the home invader whose 'alleged but not proved' nastiness was doubtless due to 'childhood disadvantage'. He was misunderstood, though he had a screwdriver or wrecking bar in hand and a lifetime of belting the bejesus out of anyone who got in his road. That sad reality for homeowners is evidenced by recent cases in NSW where citizens who defended themselves were themselves treated as criminals by police and the media published photos of them and their houses, with Google Earth images of the streets that could identify their addresses.

Of course it is not surprising that the Chardonnay quaffing elite, the self-styled 'Progressives' might side with criminals, where so many of them and their friends use illegal recreational drugs. No wonder the 'Progressives' are all for understanding and empathising with misunderstood criminals and are opposed to custodial sentences. Their risktaking might one day result in arrest!

However, if it were not for the windfall profits from supplying recreational drugs to these middle class educated professionals with money to spill, the ethnic drug gangs would be starved for money. They wouldn't be taking over bikie clubs and they wouldn't be having turf wars with their imported illegal gangsta guns either.

to be continued..

contd..

What the 'Progressive' elite who hold sway in advising Labor social policy don't comprehend either, is the truth of a retiring NSW Police Commisioner's assessment: that the culture of living and dying by the gun is rooted in the ethnic traditions that have been imported with some migrant groups. Their tradition is to resolve disagreements with violence and knives or guns, or with blunt weapons and boots if knives and guns are not easily to hand. They laugh at prison. It is a good place to re-affirm their ethnic brotherhood and meet up with their girlfriends.

The reason multicultural lobbyists and the excuse-making 'Progressives' don't want ethnic descriptions of offenders sought by police is that it is very obvious from the names given in Courts reports, such as in bikie shootings, of the recent middle Eastern origin of many of the violent criminals involved. That is why the police force has a Middle Eastern Division.

and there are many compensation programs available that help victims to heal.
Lexi,
Yes, i
I have many of those pamphlets but I wanted to know if there is any real compensation available. All the pamphlets given to me are about what a victim is entitled to & not what they actually end up receiving.

Individual,

What they end up receiving differs in each case
depending on the circumstances involved.
However, you can go into your regional library
and ask for help with specific examples of individual cases.
Or you can Google them on the web. That will give
you some idea of who got what, et cetera.

As I stated earlier - it will also vary in each state.
Because the laws are different.

Good Luck.

cont'd ...

Individual,

The following may help:

http://victimsofcrime.com.au/

They provide information for people throughout
the country (not just Victoria) and they give
a free-call telephone number for contact -
1800 000 055.
Crime Compensation can be up to $100,000 for a
primary victim. Less for a secondary victim.

Anyway, I hope this helps just a little.

individual,

I cannot tell you how much a victim might get from the taxpayer for what, but from my reading any compensation is based on reimbursement of actual costs and is likely to provide the victim with any return over the array of costs suffered as direct and indirect costs of the crime.

This will give you information for one State at least,

http://www.victimsofcrimeaustralia.com.au/finance-assist.php

While Lexi would be pleased it is the State, taxpayers and the poor old victim who must pick up the tab for losses suffered from criminal acts and she is always very keen to protect the rights and wellbeing of criminals, she continues to side-step the sad lack of legal protection for the victim who defends himself, his loved ones and his property.

Lexi is also unconcerned that the ambulance and sometimes the coroner's van arrive before the police.

To tot up the costs to the victim one also has to consider the legal risks of defending himself. As you say, the victim must instantly balance:

- the likelihood of his own injury resulting in physical and mental impairment (the victim's head is always a target) or death,

with,

- the certainty that police will be looking for ways to charge him (the victim) if the offender is harmed.

Lexi agrees with the Greens. That you should cop whatever is coming to you and hope for the taxpayer and Medicare (and the new disability arrangements if passed) to make you comfortable later.

The criminals have rights and excuses you know. It is all society's fault and they should be protected as they go about their trade of preying on the vulnerable citizens around them.

Dear onthebeach,

I've been otherwise entertained so haven't had the pleasure of your twisted redneck, bellicose ignorance for a while. And here it is in all its glory!

It almost brought a tear to my eye.

Yet I have struggled with something for a while so perhaps I might impose on you for a response. Why on earth do you live here in Australia when the US seems to embody all that you want in a society. I mean I'm not fussed either way where you live but it is quite evident you would be far happier in the States. Have you considered moving there? If not why not?

I mean there it is with its lax gum laws, opportunities for the ordinary citizen to put a few rounds in a perp and not face sanction, the world's highest incarceration rates by a country mile, no pandering to academics for policy initiatives. Mate it is your kind of heaven, what's stopping you?

Lexi,
I have tried to find out about compensation in Qld & yes there is plenty of support documentation but when it it comes to how much compensation is being considered it all boils down to a compassion devoid sorry mate, you're on your own.

Individual,

I'm not sure what it is that you're after.
I've provided you with links and telephone numbers
of contacts for you to ask your questions from
professional people involved with victims of crime
and compensation. It sounds as if you want someone
to give you a precise amount of what your compensation
will be. Nobody can do that in advance. There are
legal procedures that need to be followed, applications
need to be made and then the court will decide what if any -
the entitlements will be. You need to put in an
application and then wait and follow the proper procedure
as instructed.

Perhaps the following two links may assist you further.

http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/justice-services/victims-of-crime

And -

http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/justice-services/victims-of-crime/victim-assist-queensland/criminal-injury-compensation

Dear Lexi,

<<There are legal procedures that need to be followed, applications need to be made and then the court will decide what if any - the entitlements will be. You need to put in an application and then wait and follow the proper procedure as instructed.>>

ARE WE SHEEP?

Most losses cannot be compensated by any amount of money, let alone a mere $100,000.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for your comments.

I'm not for one moment suggesting that money can compensate for
losses. I am merely attempting to help Individual
in his quest for compensation.

Are we sheep? Some say - some are.
Although I was not infering it here.