Following on Polycarp's thread perhaps someone out there would care to debate the following.
In South Australia there has recently been a court case in which someone was convicted of manslaughter. The offender 'lashed out in anger'. In doing so he mistakenly hit a man he believed to be someone else but who was innocent of anything apart from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He died after hitting his head on the ground.

The offender identifies himself as 'aboriginal' and was sentenced to 3 and a half years after a sentencing conference in which an aboriginal welfare agency participated. His 'aboriginality' was taken into consideration in sentencin.

I do not wish to comment on the rights or wrongs of this particular case but I would raise the question that a writer to the Advertiser raised, "If we give special consideration in sentencing to someone who identifies as coming from a particular group in society, do we also need to give special consideration to other groups (as opposed to individuals? If we do, where do we draw the line? If we don't give particular consideration to other groups, why not? What are the implications for society?"

If we havent got a proper system to look after special groups then we have to be more lenient.

For 200 years we have overlooked the Aborigines giving them the scraps and not the love...not the real love that keeps a people alive.
Even K Rudds great SORRY was tinsel and sad.
It had a "now go and die" feeling to it.

Special groups would also include the Jewish people.

They have been persecuted for centuries by inumerrable cultures (click on Pogoms and Holocaust).

Neither do we look after them...and not much here on OLO.

Theres has been an increasing number of anti-jewish articles of late...i.e. 'Israel has really overstepped the line' and 'Should jews leave Israel' just two of them.

GY needs to monitor better.

Anti-semitism spreads like wildfire and so it is, all over the world in early 2009.
And all Israel is doing is trying to survive when everyone wants to kill them.

Until GY does filter the hate more...Im absent from OLO.

Adios chappies.

Gibo, what garbage.

With your namby-pamby approach we will end up with uour "special" groups who can commit murder, & get away with it. It appears some can all ready get away with manslaughter.

Kennedy said it all with his "ask not what your country can do for you" speach. These people will never become useful citizens while they are given an easy out for their excesses, by people like you.

In the same way, crimes committed under the influence of drugs, or grog, should be penalised nuch more harshly, as the offenders are very likely to get themselves into the same condition again, with the same loss of self control.

Communicat “His 'aboriginality' was taken into consideration in sentencin.”

One of the principles of English law is illustrated by the blindfold covering the eyes of the statue atop the Old Bailey, holding the scales of justice.

The implication of the statute and the law are the same,

The law is blind to the circumstances of the person before it and all are equally entitled to “blind justice”.

It avoids the older notion of the divine right of Kings and, to a degree, the separate treatment based on ones class or position in society.

It is a good principle.

Now it is inevitable that laws which are applied in one country will differ from what laws are determined in another country but the principle that all men and women will be treated equally before the law within the territories which are subject to a given set of laws is a moral as well as a legal principle.

I find the notion of some folk being treated differently because of their ethnicity, race, religion as well as their social standing, class etc a wholly offensive and divisive notion.

Hence, Australian views on aboriginal courts or the use of (Say) Sharia law for Muslims, replacing the common criminal and civil codes, is a corrosive influence on social cohesion, which will undermine the long term equal treatment of individuals before the law.

Aboriginality or religion or social standing are not justifiable reasons for different treatment.

If we are going to live as a community we should all be judged under the same laws. Ultimately it is individuals who make up a community, and as individuals we have to take responsibility for our behaviour.

If concessions are made to various groups indeed, where do we draw the line?

This does not mean that in individual cases arguments cannot be made to defend the actions of a person where there may be extenuating circumstances. But this is different to making concessions to a group whether it be by nature of their beliefs, history or culture.

Gibo,
Equating the historical mistreatment of aborigines with current political criticism of Israel is a bit of a stretch I'm afaid.

I think one of these groups is more than capable of looking after itself.

Although justice may be blind and despite all philosophical arguments to the contrary, there is still a difference in how some people are treated in the legal system, depending on social background and available financial resources.
The rate of imprisonment may give some indication.