The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Time to educate our judges > Comments

Time to educate our judges : Comments

By Barbara Biggs, published 22/9/2006

Apparently women and children are more prone to lie than men - and some really believe it!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. All
Did anyone else happen to catch this article in Saturday's Age?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/public-softer-on-crime-than-judges-study-finds/2006/09/29/1159337341315.html

The second and third paragraphs read:

"If anything, people who were made familiar with the circumstances of a violent crime and offenders were more lenient and less likely to believe they should be jailed for long periods, said criminologist Austin Lovegrove.

The results include members of the public discounting by a third a jail sentence for a rapist who attacked a woman in her home. "When they realise they are sentencing a real person, then it gets trickier for the bulk of people," Dr Lovegrove said. "They have to think about the woman who has to look after two children, the armed robber who has a pathetic background, the white-collar criminal who has ruined his life."

It is also worthwhile remembering that in the vast majority of sex assault cases that go to trial, the decision is made by a jury, that is members of the public, not by judges. It is the jury who decides who lies, not a judicial officer.

Where a magistrate, in a committal hearing, declines to send a case to trial, the DPP can still bring the matter before a jury through the use of ex officio indictments.

Or are some here suggesting that jury trials should be abolished, judges 're-educated' to produce guilty verdicts in spite of evidence, or perhaps the re-introduction of the rack in order to get 'confessions' out of people (read: "men") who are accused of sexual assault?

If the problem is with Family Law, then maybe evidence, and accusations, gathered in those proceedings should be able to be used more in (or perhaps be automatically be referred to)criminal courts, after all the best way of removing an abusive father from parenting is to put him in gaol. Pity that fathers in gaol cannot easily pay child support, which is maybe why that course is not followed.

Also, criminal courts tend to take perjury very seriously.
Posted by Hamlet, Saturday, 30 September 2006 12:53:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women do not lie more than men - they simply change the truth into something more convenient more often. It always amazes me how many women's ex's turned out to be complete bastards/losers whatever especially when another woman is finding exactly the same qualities in that man that his wife found before she needed to build a custody case against him ala Heather Mills McCartney.

Hasnt it ever occurred to any women that it is completely untenable to assert that so many men undergo complete Jekyll and Hyde transformations just at the time that she wants custody?

Women have only the other women who have abused the advantage of being automatically believed to thank for delivering the current situation where they have to 'shock horror' provide proof just like everyone else running any other sort of case before the courts. We used to believe women whenever they said they had been abused now we know - as was said by one young girl quoted in Odd Girl Out 'There is an evil in girls that there just isnt in boys'.
Posted by Rob513264, Saturday, 21 October 2006 1:48:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YOU ARE SO...RIGHT ABOUT EDUCATING JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES REGARDING ISSUES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. HAVING JUST COPPED ONE OF THESE MAGISTRATE'S, WHO ALLOWED A WHOLE DAY'S QUESTIONING OF MY 10 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER BY A Q.C. - I AM TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU. THE MAGISTRATE WAS INSENSITIVE, RUDE AND ARROGANT TOWARDS ME IN THE WITNESS BOX. HE ALLOWED THE ACCUSED REPRESENTATIVE Q.C. TO ASK WHATEVER HE WANTED OF ME AND THEN LEAD THE ACCUSED THROUGH HIS TESTIMONY (WHICH WAS JUST ONE LIE AFTER ANOTHER) AND EFFECTIVELY "SILENCED" ME BY ALLOWING EVERY OBJECTION MADE BY THE ACCUSED Q.C. TO QUESTIONS PUT TO ME BY THE POLICE PROSECUTOR. THAT'S WHAT WE CALL A "JUSTICE" SYSTEM. THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS A SHAM AND A TOTAL DISGRACE TO THIS COUNTRY. THESE MALE JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES SHOULD NOT BE SITTING ON SUCH CASES AS THESE - THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT FEELS TO BE ABUSED BY A MAN AND IN FACT I REALLY THINK THAT THEY COULD BE IDENTIFYING WITH THE ACCUSED. I KNOW THE MAGISTRATE THAT SAT ON OUR CASE WAS COMPLETELY BIASED TOWARDS THE ACCUSED. HIS SUMMING UP OF THE CASE WAS PATHETIC, AS WERE HIS REASONS (SUPPOSEDLY BASED IN LAW) FOR FINDING THE ACCUSING 'NOT GUILTY'. I WILL NOT STOP HERE - TAKING THIS MATTER FURTHER AND EXPOSING THESE CALLOUS PIGS FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE - PEDOPHILE PROTECTORS - IS NOW HIGH ON MY PERSONAL AGENDA.
Posted by MumAgainstChildAbuse, Saturday, 11 November 2006 11:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We need to bridge the reality divide here.

The cases of child abuse in the original article where the Family Court failed to protect the child are inexcusable. We obviously need to protect children from child abuse !

According to the ABS Personal Safety Study 2006, about 0.9% of people experienced child abuse by one of their parents, about 94% perpetrated by the father, 6% by the mother.

(I believe the data to be somewhat inaccurate, and even the ABS says that this statistic has a relative standard error of 25-50% and should be used with caution. But for the purposes of argument, let us assume it to be accurate).

So child sex abuse is highly 'gendered'. However, its incidence is less than 1% of the population.

The question is, can we assume a father to be guilty, based only on the claims of the mother, where there is no evidence ? Can we assume 'guilty' until proven 'innocent' ?

The 'Prevent Child Abuse' campaigners refuse to admit that there are many instances of false accusations. True - here I do not have reliable figures, and we need reliable surveys into this diffult area. But I know from personal experience it happens. And judges know it too.

(hopefully the moderator will allow me to continue on the next post)
Posted by Geoff H, Friday, 18 May 2007 6:28:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued from my last post)

Further, parental alienation happens, and mothers appear to be far more willing to engage in parental alienation than fathers. Again we need studies and statistics to verify this. But from regular anecdotal evidence it is obvious.

Forget 'Parental Alienation Syndrome'. Who cares about whether the behaviour phenomenon accords with precise psychiatric definitions of a 'syndrome'? Until the 'Prevent Child Abuse' movement recognises this behaviour pattern which is most prevelant amongst separated mothers (over-protection, insecurity, controlling behavour - who knows ?), it will not win support from large sections of the community - who also want to improve the protection of children from child abuse.

So how do we distinguish between legitimate claims of child abuse and false claims ? That is the question hopefully we can all agree on as a key question.

Firstly, if there is no evidence of child abuse, the child must not be deprived of access to the accused parent.

However, where there are unsubstantiated allegations made, a case worker (or two) should be assigned for regular interaction with the child or children in question, and BOTH parents should be scrutinised. Parents should have access to the reports by the case worker(s) and there should be some sort of Ombudsman if it is felt there is bias or unprofessionalism on the part of the case worker.

We can teach children over the age of about three years to express themselves if they feel they have been touched in a way which made them feel uncomfortable. We can also teach them not to keep any secrets which either parent may have asked them to keep.

There is no need to make the child suspicious of a particular parent - it can be a general learning which can be applied by the child to either parent. Perhaps these lessons can be taught to groups of children.

There are probably many more ways to protect children from child abuse. This is what this forum should be about.

(one final post to come)
Posted by Geoff H, Friday, 18 May 2007 6:31:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy