the Australian government is doing no more than what it is legally required to do.
Paul1405,
Legal requirements would stipulate jail for those openly joining a terrorist group ! Let's see if the Law will be upheld.

"So 85 kids blown up by Israel and America with 3 schools attacked."

The school was 'attacked' by an Iranian rocket that misfired. There's footage on 'X' showing the rocket being launched right next to school, rising 100 meters or so and then falling back onto the school.

Exactly the same scenario as the hospital 'attack' in Gaza that you feel so heavily for. Do you NEVER learn?

_____________________________________________________________________

"You’re the one asserting that sentencing outcomes are predictably skewed by identity."

You're the only one talking about predictability. I've never used to word. So you make a claim about what you think I said and then demand that I prove your false claim. A daily occurrence these days.

mhaze,

You're now wriggling out of the word "predictable" because that word forces you into evidence territory.

You've said there's bias and that certain groups are favoured under the law.

If that bias doesn't systematically affect outcomes, then what are you actually claiming?

Individual judges making discretionary decisions you disagree with isn't structural bias. That's just contested sentencing.

If, on the other hand, identity regularly influences outcomes, that's a serious empirical claim.

You don't need to use the word "predictable." But if the bias you're alleging has no consistent effect, then it isn't doing any real work.

So which is it - occasional controversial cases, or systemic influence?

"then what are you actually claiming?"

Go back and read what I wrote. Oh, and try to read the actual lines, rather than between the lines.

I have read what you wrote, mhaze.

You've said there's bias in sentencing, that certain groups are favoured under the law, and that courts relieve responsibility in ways that concern you.

I'm asking you to clarify what that amounts to.

Is it:

1. Occasional sentencing decisions you disagree with?

or

2. A broader pattern where identity influences outcomes?

If it's the first, then we're just arguing about individual cases.

If it's the second, that's a structural claim.

I'm not reading between the lines. Quite the opposite. I'm asking you to state plainly which of those you mean.

This gentleman (JD) has a careful and clinical mind.
He will 'harvest' your writing like a field of grain, and in doing so will find details you didn't realise you had written.
So whatever your response, it must be exact and logical.
No stray weeds lurking amongst the golden grain.