And then…there is the appeal system.

Appeals must be set in a higher court. For example an appeal emanating from a District court will be heard in the Supreme Court.

This process will be more expensive to the defendant than the initial hearings and sentencing outcomes.

There are twenty eight days in which the appeal can be considered before application for an appeals hearing.

Both parties may appeal an outcome.

The defendant will die from a thousand cuts before the conclusion.

All this is ruthless stuff. No mercy here.

Then come the long prison sentence for the defendant if he loses.

Effectively he will lose vast sums of money and his life.

Become a monk.

Mhaze

Yes, the suggestion about locking men up was tongue in cheek, but I wanted to illustrate what a dumb idea it is to lock people up on the basis they may be harmful (or whatever it was IF meant by “First we need to identify, and then separate harmful persons from the rest of society”).

Also, the stats are accurate. Give the crude misogyny of many commentators here, and Arndt’s preoccupation with male victimhood, it is worth reminding people where the bigger problems actually lie

To clarify:
I thought it obvious that 'harmful persons' meant those persons who steal or resort to violence.
Until someone behaves 'improperly', he is just as 'innocent' as anyone else.
We all have the capacity to be harmful, but having that capacity is not, in itself, a crime.
Most of us use reason to control personal behaviour.
Being unreasonable, to the point of causing some form of harm, is really the 'crime'?

Arndt’s preoccupation with male victimhood
Rhian,
Hers is a way lot less of a preoccupation than that of the femmo nazi affiliates & pseudo intellectual discount Uni degree recipients !

IF
We already lock up people convicted of serious crimes – so what are you suggesting we do differently?

Rhian,
Some bad criminals get locked up but many who cause much misery to others are free & & at the end of the day collect Superannuation.