Recent events in Melbourne have again illustrated another serious failure in the Parole system. Yet there are no end of experts, telling us that by and large, Parole is a very useful tool in assisting offenders to review their previous lives of crime, and by so doing, manifestly assisting with their own rehabilitation ?

If we the community accept that notion, would it not be better and much safer overall for society, if certain offences occasioning aggravation and extreme violence, having previously been established, then any possibility of Parole, should be forever, extinguished ?

Those category of offences would include, but not limited to, violence against the mentally disabled, women, children, the elder, and all emergency workers, who are pursuing their duties ?

o sung wu

secular humanism has led to a hopelessly balanced set of values in community. a couple of years ago in wa a man went to prison for chopping a few trees down on his own property. He would of received a lighter sentence had he belted someone. Parole frees up full prisons to receive more prisoners. The no smacking brigade and the enemies of fathers have reaped what they have sown (ie streets full of violence). Violent criminals are now convinced they are the victims. Parole very rarely works. Simple fact that the judges in Victoria who only gave the criminal a few years after 8 plus rapes and a string of other offences should lose their job. Parole just continued the mockery of the victims of crime in this instance and led to the enivatable. How the police must despair.

Hi there RUNNER...

I reckon you're right ! That WA example sounds really stupid ? Despite how many trees the man felled (on his own property!) a custodial penalty is quite absurd.

I will agree with many of the experts when they claim that gaol is a facility, for turning petty criminals into harder, more serious criminals. The only way to stop that, is to keep the younger offenders quite separate from the 'hard heads'. But that would cost huge money, and the public don't like seeing precious resources spent on criminals, for whatever reason.

Prison classification is vital in my opinion. Separation, and then segregation, is part of the solution. Keep 'apples with apples', and so on. Carefully sort through the various offenders ensuring none are coupled with divergent groups, thus creating a dangerous environment where one inmate is submissive or yielding to the other. A tough and economically prohibitive ask, I do realize, but it must be done, if the authorities ever hope to curb the high levels of recidivism.

Many thanks for your contribution RUNNER, I appreciate it.

The whole legal system is a failure.

1)In August 2011 Burmese refugee Habiburahman assaulted a serco guard he was initially given a three-month suspended jail sentence.
Concerned the decision would result in him failing the character test to stay in Australia, Habiburahman successfully appealed.
The Northern Territory Court of Appeal has decided not to record a conviction against a refugee .
All at Taxpayer expense.

2) A VIOLENT Tongan man jailed for bashing police, prison officers and a shopping centre security guard has beaten his deportation order.
He has spent 15 of the last 18 years in jail for violent crimes including assaulting police, beating a prison guard with a shower rail, and stabbing a security guard.

In what the sentencing judge described as a "completely unprovoked" attack, the man followed a security guard into the toilet at Campbelltown Mall in 2006 and stabbed him four times.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) says the man has a "very extensive criminal record" and a "long history of violent offending" - but has ruled he should stay in Australia.
Again all at taxpayer expense.

There are lots of more examples that show the whole system is failing.

How long before it is safer to be locked up because all the violent criminals have been released into the community.

You know me o sung, As far as I'm concerned the whole point of law & law enforcement is protection of the public. You would have to be crazy to believe this concentration on the well being & rehabilitation of criminals is in any way successful in that objective.

I want to elect our judges, or at least be able to vote them out if they don't do what the majority want. I also want minimum sentences, with no judge able to listen to "mitigating circumstances". Until we can remove bleeding heart judges we will continue to suffer this stupidity.

Then the parole boards are full of people who feel for the criminal, & don't give a dam which poor innocent is likely to suffer from their releases.

How is this for an idea. Any parole board ordering parole, or judge who gives bail to have to serve 10% of the sentence of any criminal who commits another crime while released on their decision. That just might cause them to be a bit more careful who they let out.

Sentences for rape with violence & armed robbery are far too light. First offense should attract at least 10 years, & a second life. Violent rapists just aren't worth trying to rehabilitate.

About three weeks ago a woman was attacked at work & she only just managed to free herself from her young attacker. He is out on bail. Last weekend a young girl got gang-raped & I'm not sure if her attackers have been found yet. I spoke with some young fellers & said to them "why do you young blokes play up so much". I was told that first of all they do it because they know there's no punishment or hardly any & second if they do go to jail the conditions are exceptionally good in fact much better than at home in the community.
Just think those Magistrates who treat them so nicely are University educated !

G,day o sung wo.
I have seen this current seemingly proof the system is not working all my life.
Justice seems very blind.
This morning press tells of a very brutal murder and maximum sentence is 24 years, parole possible after 18.
I think the wrong people sit in judgment.
And that , unknown to us,costs of prisons play a huge roll in our short sentences and early, maybe all parole.
Best quote so far in the ABC womans murder is she was killed by parole, harsh but true.

From my perspective, recent reported issues with the parole system are indicative of a much more basic problem, namely the abysmal lack of accountability at all levels of gubmunt. Whilst there isn't much to like about yankee culture, the policy of public election of at least some members of the judiciary has much to recommend it. The typical judge / magistrate in Australia is a supremely arrogant upstart who obviously believes he / she gives orders to the Almighty. Our present system fails to provide any recourse for idiotic decisions by the ostensibly 'independent' judiciary. Given the propensity for people in power to grow too big for their boots, a major review of judicial appointment & management is well overdue.

Adrian Bayley still has more charges to answer, in addition to the Jill Meagher case he's accused of a series of brutal rapes which were carried out in St Kilda a couple of years ago.

Praxidice,
There have been papers written on the example of "Wild West" societies as the model for a libertarian community, where the sherrif, his staff and the judge are all elected and paid by the town council. Contrary to popular belief towns like Tombstone and Deadwood, though rough frontier communities at their founding were peaceful places once they began to grow, Tombstone went five years without a murder at one point.

Jay of Melbourne

I don't doubt that story in the least. Mind you there wasn't such a concept as corporatization back then. Actually those 'wild west' towns had more in common with anarchy than democracy, however despite claims from contemporary 'experts' that a political system based on anarchy could never function, I suspect it would indeed prove a considerable improvement in many cases over our quite obviously rigged so-called democracy.

Prax,
Islamic Law, for all it's bad press is a similar polycentric system, the point is though that even where two nominally "free" communities might start of from a different ideological perspective over time their legal systems are going to develop along similar lines, just with slight cultural differences. So even if say, the people of Bendigo decided on some form of Anglo Saxon law as their system and the people of Dandenong adopted Sharia the basic legal code will be the same, a man from Bendigo visiting Dandenong is still going to know that he shouldn't steal, rape or kill anyone while he's in that area.
If we're going to be forced to live in a "multicultural' society then a polycentric approach will have to be adopted to ensure harmony, so say if a miscreant from Bendigo did offend community standards in Dandenong he'd be dealt with under Sharia law. The question of parole would also be dealt with since there would be no universal standards for judges and jailers to comply with, no sensible community would allow early release without rehabilitation and in all likelihood a life sentence would mean spending the term of one's natural life in the city/shire jail or prison farm.

Jay Of Melbourne

The reason islamic/sharia law is so similar to judeo/christian law is they have exactly the same origin, namely the Ten Commandments. Mind you hebrews & their jewish offspring always had a thing about complicating everything beyond recognition and the islamics have never been any better. There was in fact no significant divergence from mosaic law until the first century when islamic / non-messianic jewish idealogy split with christian / messianic-jewish idealogy. The New Testament was intended to replace Old Testament law, (just like a later will replaces an earlier one) and regardless of popular opinion, its not totally relevant to civilizations that developed from christian roots.

Good afternoon to you; PHILIP S, HASBEEN & INDIVIDUAL...

I firmly believe all three of you should cease immediately from using your 'common sense', otherwise how can you ever hope to become sufficiently erudite and enlightened, to understand the causative components of recidivism in crime ?

That ladies and gentleman is the sole preserve of the academics. The criminologists, psychiatrists, the judiciary, psychologists, sociologists, and to a certain extent, the demographers. It is rare indeed, that police and prison officers, at the 'coalface' are ever consulted apropos the merits or otherwise as to whether an offender deserves access to early release, parole.

Apart from Victims' Impact Statements, furnished during the sentencing stage of the initial Court proceedings, very little regard or opinion is ever considered from the VICTIMS themselves, when an offender is considered eligible for a parole hearing ? It's thought many victims aren't sufficiently objective or impartial, to give a fair hearing to an offender.

Where it's thought our learned academics are essentially non-partisan, and will give a much fairer, unbiased hearing. And they're much more skilled in determining, whether or not sufficient remorse has been exhibited by the potential Parolee ? Remorse is very important when seeking parole.

In my feeble thinking, we should follow what's practiced in normal criminal jurisprudence in America. Where an eligible offender applies for a parole hearing, his victim may also be present, and heard, during that hearing !

That's an essential part of 'real' criminal justice, in my opinion. The Parole Board, may then place whatever 'weight' they wish, on the thoughts and opinions of the victim ! A much fairer process ? And the victim feels they're part of the justice process.

Interestingly, I've had offenders say to my face. '...you just tell them idiot's on the Board what they wanna hear, they're too bloody stupid, or up em selve's to know any difference...' ?

I having given it much thought am still unable to think other than the failures could have been avoided.
Some doubt may be found that all parole is a failure.
But I think parole boards are very often, thinking of the perpetrator not the victims.
20 serial rapes, that is the number Jill,s Murderer has been convicted of, and no one knew, until he pleaded guilty.
Parole boards however know that and still open the gate.

Hi there Folks...

Sharia law for some of our more heinous crime does sound very attractive ? The trouble is (pardon my ignorance), sometimes the punishment far outweighs the gravity of the original crime.

HASBEEN...

I must say I like your novel approach to encourage those in power, to come down much harder on offenders. If not, they're obliged to serve a 10% portion of the original head sentence, of any offender they've been too lenient with, who again re-offends as a result of their indulgent ways ? I could just imagine some old, overweight Justice being carted off to gaol for his/her sentencing error ?

Though, I was acquainted with one job where the former NSW Minister for Prisons, Rex JACKSON was gaoled for corruption. He was initially taken by 'Four Wheels' out to the Bay, most reckon he was quaking in his boots ? Not so apparently, he emerged from the truck, head held high, and ultimately did his boob pretty easily by all accounts, most of which was served at Berrima (protection) Gaol. Seems old Rex was a bit of a pug in his younger days and could hold his hands up ?

Parole is a useful tool and a valuable aid in which to assist in rehabilitating 'some' offenders. Apparently, the judiciary have this belief, that when sentencing an offender, you must leave a window of opportunity open, for their ultimate release back into society. Without this opportunity, the offender simply gives up all hope of ever being released, and he transforms into a total intractable and becomes a dangerous menace to inmate and warder alike ?

There's evidence to support that belief too. But at what risk ? The least of the two evils, I'd suspect ?

o sung wu

'Interestingly, I've had offenders say to my face. '...you just tell them idiot's on the Board what they wanna hear '

I spent a bit of time in the NSW system when Jackson was the Corrective Services Minister. He spent time playing cards at Berima. I was at Goulburn at the time. Crimminals learn to play the system very quickly. If you or I had nothing to do all day while being locked up we would to.

My personal view is that the victim of the crime should determine if the offender gets parole or not. As someone else has already said judges should be elected not part of a dismally failed ideological mob. Remember Vincent and then you know everything wrong with the system. He was supposed to be a progressive making it very hard for good officers to do a very difficult job. He insisted a murderer of a prison officer be treated well even after displaying nothing but evil inside and outside of prison. Also if a person has already broken parole conditions (and most have) they should be disqualified from ever getting it again.

o sung wu

There are countless good ideas implemented elsewhere on planet earth that the virtual imbeciles we elect appear incapable of discovering on any of their 'fact finding' junkets. The dying duck himself advised me in person that all citizens are entitled to demand an accounting when politicians return from a junket, however I've yet to see any explanation of what the clowns do. There does appear to be a good case for input from victims. This wouldn't by any means be the only situation where educated idiot do-gooders have a disproportionate influence, in fact they appear to be breeding like flies.

Your story about erstwhile 'honorable' persons doing time in the big house is interesting. For what its worth there have been more than a few of the Queensland mob who have also managed to get themselves a few years free accommodation. Ex police commissioner Terry Lewis (an ex-knight no less) is probably the most notable, but he had company with a few of his mates from the Fitzgerald Inquiry. Seems most of them got let out pretty quickly, guess that happens when one has mates in positions of influence. Presently we have a certain Gordon Nuttall who appears to have offended all his cronies to the extent the DPP keeps finding ever more stuff to throw at him. Seems the early release won't apply in his case, but then he's likely to have company shortly with an LNP member who has done quite a few naughty things. Meanwhile a few of us are hoping some of the Blighter gubmunt get their come-uppance re the zillions squandered on various schemes. Never a dull moment in the deep north :)

My personal view is that the victim of the crime should determine if the offender gets parole or not runner,
The victim should most definitely have a say in that of course. Any village idiot can see that. It's our academic background morons who can't see. Then there is the question of compensation. I & many of my acquaintences are out of pocket to the tune of many thousands each & the offenders got a week in a luxury detention. I have not heard of any victim ever having received compensation of any kind. Why can't a victim of crime who gets no compensation be at least exempt from paying tax until such time that they have at least recovered their material losses ?
Simple & cheap !
I had my gear insured & when it came to claim it was replaced months after I already replaced it myself. I had the top model computer with expensive add-ons & programs but the insurance bought me the most basic model which was at least 8 times below what I paid for. The other electrons to the tune of 12 Grand didn't get replaced because I had no proof that I had them. Apparently invoices aren't sufficient proof. What proof should their be, registration plates for a GPs or a camera ?
Btw. the craphead who broke into my place was let out on bail. In the 18 months since he has honed his skills with other break-ins & he is still running free despite him being on security video footage.

Hi there...

RUNNER, you made a very interesting point, where you said that those who broke the conditions of their original parole should not be eligible again. I couldn't agree with you more !

Regrettably, it's a sort of revolving door policy where the Board will do everything possible to grant a parole. Actually, I think many such decisions are made more on economic grounds, rather than for rehabilitative reasons ? I don't wish to bog down discussing the many shortfalls of prisons, besides I'm not sufficiently appraised to make informed decisions in any event. But you also referred to Dr Anthony Vincent (now a Professor?), and the many anomalies that now exist as a consequence of his administration.

Though his heart may've been in the right place, he had absolutely no knowledge on 'real' hard edged criminality. What he did know, came from his many academic tomes ? I've heard he'd not take advice, nor seek counsel from senior prison officials, who daily toiled within the gaols themselves ? That in itself was a pity too ?

PRAXIDICE...

Along with the systemic corruption at the head of the QPS, weren't there a number of politicians with their collective snouts in the trough ? Emmm, that sort of behaviour gives the entire industry a filthy name. And that's patently wrong, moreover it's also very unfair, to the decent coppers !

Before my retirement, I heard of an individual at the station I was attached, had received some robust counselling, from two or three of his shift (GD's uniform). It would appear, post an organised (night) bust at a large store, our enterprising friend decided to avail himself to a few but quite expensive tools ? After all, one or two, more or less from the thieves overall cache, wouldn't matter, not even to the Insurance Assessors ? But, it did matter, because the overall integrity of the entire shift was compromised ? The member concerned was on sick report for several weeks, having received his counselling ? Justice can be both swift and savage, amongst coppers ?

The member concerned was on sick report for several weeks,
o sung wu,
I wish I could have gotten paid leave when I went through the stress of break-ins at home & having to deal with incompetent bureaucrats who cost me months of lack of sleep.
Apparently I couldn't get stressed because I'm only a worker. A couple of the bureaucrats however were so stressed they had to go on a cruise to Canada & the Caribean.
Ain't this democratic & equal society great ?

Sorry INDIVIDUAL, I don't think I made myself clear ? The police member concerned, who needed to go on sick report, it was caused by his own disgraceful actions, which brought disgrace upon other member's characters, members who were part of his own squad ! That's a real no no - It's all to do with squad dynamics.

From what I understand, a couple of squad members 'counselled' him 'vigorously' in the anonymity and darkness of the police station car park, at the conclusion of their shift ? I think you know exactly what I mean, INDIVIDUAL my friend ? :)

Parole must be retained for those individuals, who've made some serious mistakes in their lives. And as a consequence, have found themselves in gaol. But, during the course of their incarceration, have adequately demonstrated to the prison authorities, that they've learnt from those mistakes. Perhaps, one may well say '...there but for the grace of God, go I...'?

However, with respect to most of the other, more violent offenders currently in custody today. It's my opinion, access to the Parole Board should be denied permanently. For offences where any 'aggravation' is implicated, or extreme violence is occasioned against (as I stated earlier), certain classes of vulnerable individuals. That would indubitably include any offence occasioning violence, perpetrated against any child, or any female, regardless of age.

Moreover, the Bail Act in NSW is perhaps deserving of an award better suited to a comedy feature ! How A N Y NSW politician, can standby, if totally impotent, without immediately strengthening ALL Bail criteria, I just can't understand ? When police oppose Bail, well take their bloody advice ! After all it's the police who know the real character of an alleged offender, therefore the judiciary should heed their recommendation ! Police will NOT oppose Bail, if they're of the opinion, there's little or no risk to the community.

It beats me, it really does ?

o sung wu - weren't there a number of politicians with their collective snouts in the trough

You are 100% correct, in fact a number of them won their free holiday in the big house. Mind you they got paroled pretty quickly & managed to stumble into well paid jobs courtesy of friends on whom they hadn't ratted. One particular slimeball got a management level position in the Catholic Church .... hmmmmmm The Fitzgerald Inquiry was fine as far as it went, but unfortunately it didn't go nearly far enough as we saw a year or so back with the then head of Ethical Command who got nabbed by Customs. Turned out he had a nice little sideline importing military weapons for the mob. Shortly after that episode, a whistleblower 'disappeared' before he could spill his guts. Incumbent police minister Dempsey had while in opposition demanded many times a Royal Commission to clean up the corruption Fitzgerald had been prevented from attacking (too many politicians on both sides with skeletons in the wardrobe, including a certain Johannes Bjelke Petersen). Funnily enough, Dempsey has changed his tune since getting into the Ministership. as Colonel Klink was wont to say ..'veeerrryy interesting, but not very funny'

Recently the probity of the CMC has been brought into question as a result of the ostensibly 'Independent' Costello Inquiry, the appointment of various drones to high level positions for which they were neither qualified nor entitled & the 'interesting' doings of more than a few LNP ministers (inquiries that promptly get dropped by the CMC for 'lack of jurisdiction' or somesuch crap). The well publicized demands by Newman / Seeney / Nicholls for the CMC to keep its nose out of 'sensitive government business' haven't gone unnoticed.

In the end no one surely wants to flog prisoners.
But for far too many in my view parole has been given without thought to the victims, both those that saw the prison term, and those who are harmed by those on parole.
Again this morning ,surely with every right?
We are hearing the killer of Jill had 20 convictions for rape in23 years.
Who could support him walking our streets?
And the ever present question, what thought went in to his early release?

o sung wu "For offences where any 'aggravation' is implicated, or extreme violence is occasioned against (as I stated earlier), certain classes of vulnerable individuals. That would indubitably include any offence occasioning violence, perpetrated against any child, or any female, regardless of age."

I think that attitude is part of the problem. If you treat people as less important, less valuable than others it's going to have impacts. Men are given the message over and over again by society that our lives are less valuable than the lives of others. That's going to impact on the attitudes of some and their response to both themselves and society. There are others who are going to be vermin regardless of what messages society sends but I think the problem is compounded when people are told over and over again that their lives are less valuable than that of others.

On the broader topic I'd rather see prison treated as a method of protecting the rest of us from those who are too dangerous to have loose than as a punishment. If someone needs to make restitution for wrong doing I think we would be better off with them out of prison and making restitution unless they prove unwilling to cooperate with that or are too dangerous for that option.

R0bert

i suspect part of the problem is the lack of big house accommodation. Letting seasoned cons out provides room for fresh ones.

Only a few days ago they had a show on TV that gave an insight into some prison in England. Some inmates wanted to die & harm themselves, real crapheads. The authorities were trying to find ways to make the prisoners feel better & safer etc. All the typical do-gooder nonsense we have here too.
Not a single mention was made regarding their victims or the reason they were in prison for.. It was simply sickening to watch.

I'm sorry, I must ask for your forbearance, for not answering any of your 'threads'. A case of the 'black dog's' emergence I'm afraid.

o sung wo, there is a link, the *Black Dog* once I counseled others and they never knew what you have guessed.
You mate,even when differing with my view are a *star* here.
I see a common sense, in you and own, as others do too, that dog.
It does not show in your posts and I am SURE not mine.
Our past is gone, in my case I understand my past mates mostly too, because I think as I do.
Bloke let it go front up to tomorrow but stay here you have much to give in your wise level headed words
I ask what truly do we want from our justice system.
Longer sentences for some crimes seems safe.
A better way of handing down judgment too.
And parole? surely we both want the true reformed to be able to use this while not the dangerous ones we hear about too often?
Yesterday we heard in NSW a killer sent to prison for years out after one on day release?
Is that not an insult to a dead [knifed] kid?
I am not looking at American justice for answers a thousand years is too harsh, but funny and spam sandwiches three times a day cruel.
But why must this country stick to a old system?

Belly

I believe what 'we' (ie the majority) want from the legal system is exactly the same as 'we' want from the political system, ie, officials, whether elected or otherwise, who regard 'us' as the bosses / employers. All these turkeys are public servants, ie servants of the people, they are most definitely NOT the little tin gods they would like to believe they are. Most if not all issues in contemporary society are derived from low-life slimeballs who grew too big for their boots. The people / sheeple must wear part of the blame for this situation as they (we) have become far too apathetic to take an active interest in the running of the country.

Praxidice, I think you're wrong. People have never been more interested in the way the country is run and that's because people have never been so dependent on Government, both as provider and as regulator.

On the other hand, because government is so entwined with individuals, there is very little that can be easily done by an incoming government that will not cause some group to be resentful at a perception that they have missed out, which will draw the attention of media and cause a whole cascade of politicised professional whingeing.

So as a result, a change of government is generally (yes, I know that Rudd was an exception) a case of "the more things change the more they stay the same". Also as a result, what politicians are extremely loath to do is seriously differentiate themselves.

It's not the "sheeple", who are at fault, it's the lazy and poorly educated media who want to see themselves as being a part of the political class and as a result become little more than loudspeakers for the vast number of journalists who really are a part of politics as the propagandists for the parties.

On the subject, I am of the view that violent crimes, especially murder, should require special circumstances for parole to be granted. On the other hand, many lesser crimes, including many drug offences should be reduced to the level of summary offences that carry mandatory fines or other impositions instead of jail. That way minor crooks are able to remain within society and contribute as they probably were before being caught and the jails are genuinely places for hard people to be kept away from the rest of us for our good.

Antiseptic

Earlier in this particular thread, mention was made of the (probably disproportionate) input from educated idiot do-gooders. If this is then norm with the parole system (as appears to be the case), change is needed so that victims have far more input than some disconnected clown who happens to wear the title of 'expert'. My personal experience has been that any government employee who claims to be an 'expert' immediately disqualifies themself. As you observe, Victimless crimes could well be down-rated although I don't believe drug-trafficking can be considered victimless..

I think we differ on a couple of small points. Firstly, the focus on victims is not constructive or in my view healthy. The idea of retributive justive is an old one and it doesn't mix well with a Westminster model. If the crime is heinous, it is heinous and no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth from victims or their relatives will change that. I have no idea what purpose it is actually intended to serve.

Second, I'm not just including victimless crimes. There are lots of minor crimes against the person or against property that are essentially not worth the trouble to pursue. If a custodial sentence is deemed an essential part of the process, then it should be in a functional working environment doing something that is genuinely useful, not simply jug and it should be well away from the real baddies. Members of crime gangs should attract an automatic extension on any sentence if the crime was related to their gang membership. for example a bikie caught dealing drugs on a large scale or doing standovers would be liable, but the same person caught nicking something from Myers should not.

I don't have any problem with personal consumption of illegal drugs and I similarly have no problem with the local small-scale dealers who make them available. If the intent is to stop crime following them then it is important to get rid of the organised criminals, however.

I reckon you have that completely wrong Antiseptic.

Most of your druggies only contribution is by break & enter with the odd mugging, & bag snatching thrown in.

I have no interest in punishment as such, or attempted rehabilitation, which I see as mostly a waste of time, & merely supports a bunch of psychologists. I just want them off the street, & out of peoples homes.

A few months in work camps, cleaning out national parks, & state forests, eradicating noxious weeds, & reducing fire risk would be suitable repayment of the community, allow them a chance to dry out, & do something useful.

Well hasbeen, I reckon most people I know use an illegal drug of some kind or have done so at some time in their lives. I only know one person who's been to prison and that was for having a pretty large hydroponic marijuana setup. I used to buy his product and it was good.

Of all those people I have only perhaps one or two I'd be wary about putting in temptation's way and none at all I'd hesitate to allow in my home. The couple of exceptions to the first point are unemployed and I'm sure if they saw a bag of buds on the table they'd probably grab some, but I'm also sure they wouldn't otherwise steal. They've had lots of opportunity around here and haven't. I'm the least security conscious person you'll ever meet.

All I'm saying is that the biggest causal factor in petty crime is poverty. Sure, if the poverty stricken person has a drug habit they might be prepared to steal to feed it, but if they're in work, it's easier to just buy it, even if we don't consider personal morality and ethics. On top of that there are no doubt scum-of-the-earth who would be that way regardless and any drugs they take are irrelevant to their basic lousy character.

Anyway, it's not an important aspect of my view, just a personal bias based on my own history.

Well I understand my thoughts may not seem clear to some.
But in law and order health education welfare, indeed in many things I want us to lead.
Rather than Australia follow I think given the chance our bright young people in our bright young country can do it better.
And should.
This thread has not asked why SOME TIMES parole fails the victims and us all, remember some victims come after parole.
I others do not, think costs of imprisonment are in part the reason for early release.
Maybe we can cut those costs, or retrieve some of them from criminals.
But if we became a think tank right here, tasked with answering this question, rebuilding current practice, some truly brilliant thoughts would come.

All I'm saying is that the biggest causal factor in petty crime is poverty.
Antiseptic,
Unfortunately there are people who because of others are poor. We're not talking about them. We're talking about indecent & criminal people who are too lazy to put in an effort to make a Dollar so they take the the easy & far more thrilling route of theft & assault. Now, if the victim were to be allowed to retaliate then the number of crims would naturally be reduced very quickly. However, the academic do-gooder infiltrating the law brigade who need to satisfy their perverse needs of seeing innocent people suffer are persecuting the course of justice at every turn. Low life criminal defence Lawyers edge into politics & you get what we have, a dysfunctional society held to ransom by the prospect of persecution.
Where are the decent defence lawyers & the funding to support the victim ?
If the situation is not reigned in soon vigilantism will will rise with a vengeance.

individual - Where are the decent defence lawyers & the funding to support the victim ?

The words 'decent' & 'lawyer' are for the most part mutually exclusive. Basically if there aren't multiple pots of gold involved, lawyers aren't interested. There is a certain high profile lawyer who is wont to crap on about civil liberties. I'm aware of a person who requested this leech write a simple letter. Response was 'gimme a thousand bucks & we'll think about whether or not we'll take you on, and if so we'll want $1500 per hour up front, and incidentially if we do accept the job it will be attended to by a minion ... the great man is far too busy to attend to such trivial clients'

Indi, yes, I'd agree that some people are basically no-hopers. I've had one as a flatmate for the past 3 years, but he's by no means criminally inclined.

The thing is that it's hard to work out which direction the causation runs. Does someone who does poorly at school or acquires a king-size chip on their shoulder while there who then can't get reliable work and becomes a petty crook simply express their nature, or are they responding to circumstances or some psychological kink?

I reckon in most cases its one of the latter and that the proverbial bum who wouldn't work in an iron lung is pretty rare.

Another factor is that petty crime is a pretty hard row to hoe these days. It's hardly worth the effort of carting off consumer electronics and what with surveillance and the panoply of modern policing it's not going to be long before the petty crook is looking at the world through a set of bars.

On top of that, people don't carry cash much any more and it's a big leap from pinchng a wallet to forcing someone to disclose a PIN, both conceptually and in the penalty it attracts.

Then there's the fact that the workforce participation rate is below 70%, meaning that 1/3 or thereabouts of people are not even regarded as part of the workforce, but get DSP or some other undemanding benefit. Being a hard worker is becoming something of a novelty.

In a nutshell, it's cheaper to give them the dole and buy some more cameras than worry about whether they're pinching the loose change.

it's cheaper to give them the dole
Antseptic,
that's academic reasoning & of extreme short-term effectiveness. To counter & improve the ability of people to become more useful to themselves & others & most importantly, offer people the opportunity to regain self-esteem only one option exists & that option is National Service.
Those who deliberately will not see the benefits of a Nat Serv are no better than the maggots who call themselves defence lawyer & civil libertarians. Most normal people are in fact in favour of Nat Serv as much as the do-gooders try to disprove it.
One of the great dilemma of our generation is the mentality of 'if they have it I want it too'.
Our education system is the culprit in nurturing this mentality. No-one's taught respect, decency, responsibility etc. why many teachers can't even spell. Teachers above all should be made to attend Nat Serv before they are permitted into a class room. Just remember this, better education results in better people.

individual

National Service for **ALL** would indeed be a brilliant idea, providing it involved 'proper' discipline administered by the old school RSM type with a voice easily sufficient to raise the dead. There is absolutely no point of a system embodying contemporary 'kids have rights' male bovine dropping, it needs to have teeth that make a sabre-toothed tiger look like a pussycat ... no educated idiot do-gooders allowed within a thousand kilometers. Unlike the previous half-baked event at the time of the Vietnam war, ability for the favoured few to cop-out needs to be squashed. This just might knock some semblance of decency into those destined to become banksters, captains of industry, legal leeches and / or bloodsucking parasite politicians.

indi, I'm not sure how National Service fits into what I said, or what it would avail. By all accounts the bikie gangs of the 80s and 90s were full of ex nashos.

It's a nice idea to be able to take a person who is barely able to take responsibility for finding the toilet to defecate and turn their life around, but it's fanciful. Besides, as I pointed out above, there's not much point in making a young bloke all job ready if there's no jobs for him to do, which is fast becoming the case as male employment continues to decline with no sign of slowing.

I agree with you vis a vis the sense of entitlement that seems to pervade our culture, but I think you're looking in the wrong direction.

Antiseptic - the bikie gangs of the 80s and 90s were full of ex nashos.

There were, and still are, plenty of motorbike gangs based on nashos, however by an large their thing is breaking all possible ties with the utterly moronic system that sent them into harms way but which did its utmost to ignore them when they returned with who knows what afflictions. I know many of these people & I'm not aware of any who peddle hard drugs, run brothels or get in to seriously anti-social activities. Their situation could well have been avoided had successive waves of bloodsucking parasites exhibited as much as a shred of decency by making reasonable attempts to provide proper care for them. I don't condone 95% of wars, and none that are no concern of this country, but surely its reasonable to expect all possible aid to be provided for those our erstwhile supposed leaders put in harms way. Note the very bloodsucking parasites who have no qualms about lining their own pockets invariably regard returned military personnel as expendable. Not good enough.

By all accounts the bikie gangs of the 80s and 90s were full of ex nashos.
Antiseptic,
National Service note not MILITARY Service.
As for any other info needed due to unfortunate short-sighted thinking paxidice summed it all up perfectly. Those who still don't get it really should be put out of their misery.
Turn 19 & off you go to National Service for 24 months, no if's no but's. If you have two left hands or are short-brained you can always sweep somewhere. if you can eat then you can lift a finger to help towards your next meal. Those unfortunate who are handicapped can participate in whatever capacity they feel they can. I'm sure your carers can do with a break. Nat Serv will teach you to think of others.

I'm sorry folks, I've not been travelling well lately.

BELLY my good friend; even though we don't share each other's political belief's, nor do we have any vocational similarities ? Nevertheless, what we DO share inexorably, are the same identical aspirations, visions and dedicated loyalty for our beloved country. And similar to most other like mined individuals, we'd defend our precious country from those who'd seek to render it harm, either from external or internal sources ! And, thank you BELLY for ALL your generous support too.

I can't speak with any authority on NSW Prisons. I can speak with some measure of authority on; (a) the (corrupt & broken) NSW Parole system; (b) the NSW Bail Act, equally beyond repair.

Both of these Criminal Justice institutions are a mess ? Just ask any working copper ? Firstly - Bail; Parole & Bail are inextricably linked, both permit crooks access back into the community ? Bail; the concept permitting a person Bail, is the 'presumption of innocence'. A person charged MAY well be innocent, thus why deny him his freedom ? I'll not attempt to answer, because of the many complexities governing the Act.

To continue, as long as you've money you'll generally be released from custody. Despite the severity of the crime ? Once, if charged with a capital offence, Bail was denied. Now, many crooks with criminal records, are getting Bail, often by means of a Surety, 'Certificate of Fitness'). The crook disappears, thus they estreat their bail, and the coppers again have to locate them for a second time - All costing valuable resources, and will put the public once more at risk.

I've dealt with Parole in some measure, in earlier threads. However, I believe any politician with foresight and enterprise who'd thoroughly overhaul, both Parole and the Bail Act, would indeed be hailed a hero/heroine in this State. Goodness knows it needs attention. If you're still undecided, look at the facts surrounding the rape & murder of that poor young ABC Lass down in Melbourne ?

Just to clarify where I was going with motorbikes & nasho ... during the Vietnam business, males who didn't join the cut-lunch commandoes before conscription date were actually sent to what was then known as 'the funny country' (obviously different to the 'funny countries' that migrants came from in the 1950s - 1960s). Once in Vietnam, conscriptees were to all intents & purposes 'proper' soldiers in that they got the same exposure to lovely stuff like Agent Orange & those bits that pop out of gunbarrels that tend to perforate human flesh. Unfortunately on their return, they were virtually ignored by the powers that be, so its hardly surprising many didn't exactly fit back into the society they had left a few years previously. Both those who stayed in Australia (cut-lunch commandoes) and the ones who got shot at were nashoes ie they were forced by gubmunt decree to devote part of their life to stuffing around with weapons and training to kill people. All are eligible for full RSL membership but only those who went to the funny country qualify for what meagre active service benefits are available.

o sung wu - as long as you've money you'll generally be released from custody.

Doesn't happen that way in Queensland. Its not at all uncommon for people charged with quite trivial offences to be held on remand for considerable periods, in fact I'm personally aware of one particular individual with no history whatever who spent over a year on remand. (and yes I've read all the paperwork / record of interview / charge sheet / warrants / blah blah). Impossible ?? .. not in the deep north. Some lunatic politicians a few years back saddled us with terrorism legislation that can be as easily MIS-used as it can be applied to situations that warrant its use. For what its worth, our 'terrorist' was eventually released after the DPP discovered the arresting officer had mistaken identity. Mind you we have a history up here of clueless legal happenings, for instance double-jeopardy legislation was repealed by the Blighters (around the same time they legislated to make lying by politicians 'legal') & now the f**wit chief justice is attempting to repeal the right to not self incriminate.

Hi PRAXIDICE...

What you've described with Bail in QLD doesn't surprise me at all ?

Ideally, those charged with offences that don't include any aggravation or violence (aka 'property' offences), with little or no flight risk, should be granted Bail. That really is the true intent of allowing a person Bail.

Pretty well in every instance, the Magistrate or Bail Justice, 'should' heed closely, what police recommend apropos a person's suitability for Bail. Determining whether there's a risk of flight, or a danger to the public, or likely to recommit an offence, or the chance he'll fail to answer his Bail (failure to appear), even trying to intimidate the witnesses in his case ? That aside, the NSW Bail Act is relatively complex, and for some reason, our politicians fear coming to grips with its complexities ? However, it does need to be overhauled completely. Somehow, I don't believe I'll be around to see it, I suppose ?

"was repealed by the Blighters (around the same time they legislated to make lying by politicians 'legal') "

I thought they make it mandatory ;)

For those not across it my understanding was that the Beattie government repealed section 57 of the criminal code which made lying to the Parliament an offence during a scandal involving Gordon Nuttall. At the time it was alleged that he had deliberately mislead a Parliamentary estimates committee.

Nuttall later went to jail over other matters.

There was talk last year that the LNP would reenact those laws but I can't find any indication that has been done yet.

There is some info on it at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3488171.htm

I tend to think that Graeme Orr misses the point a bit regarding safeguards (the other safeguards are unlikely to work when the person lying is part of the party that holds power).

R0bert

o sung wo thanks,while we differ in part I think we both want better for our country.
And my wants are different than most.
LAW first ,is costs a factor in short or no sentences or not, if so parole for some is too.
The grubby Rex Jackson, for that matter both a Police commissioner and Minister in QLD is a warning to us all.
Why not take from every major criminal all assets to cover prison costs.
Why not use for gun crime and such, a rule no short sentence and no parole.
At times like now, read the thoughts of a former serving Detective I have grown to respect, who tells us how bad certain sections of community crime in Sydney are.
Then target them!
Mate we can not all be police, I left as a youth the Redfern, as it was then, training center after seeing a dead man shot many times on the picture wall. , knew it was not for me.
Am happy with my life as it was and is and learn some thing every day
Politics? at its current worst, and that is our position, my team gets 30% of the vote.
Those of us voting for them, like your self served in war and peace are as Aussie as me, and we must never let that truth go, just as I till death will struggle to take my union brothers hands away from my party,s throat so it again can be the party of the people.

R0bert - I can't find any indication that has been done yet

Nor I. They were talking about the issue, but then the Newman / Seeney / Newman dictatorship talked about a lot of things that didn't happen quite the way we all expected. What makes the Queensland situation worse than it would otherwise be is the effective lack of an opposition, the lack of an upper house, the AWOL governor the very definite signs the watchdog has been de-barked

Belly, your union brothers have a death grip, because they know that if they loosen it for a second your union sisters will take their place.

And whether brother or sister, the aim is the same - personal power.

That's the probem, in a nutshell, with the labour movement.

The people at the top see themselves as business owners and their business is taking as much money as possible from working people and giving them back as little as possible that has to be paid for out of the business.

It's contemptible hypocrisy at the heart.

Antiseptic from within the movement I saw no brothers fighting sisters.
I hold the highest hope for some of the union movement.
And bar its hands on my party,s throat put mine at the top.
Power all too often blinds some.
No longer remembering why they joined our great movements.
I see and believe I know, the end of extremist unions, in the eyes and thoughts of members.
But in time unions too need face the challenge of change and see what should be, not what is.
Service is the best and in the end, ONLY recruitment tool.
Unions with 22% need to concentrate on lifting membership, not bringing Labor done to that level.
Both movements must again, and then again, move with the people.
Labor is damaged because of this woman.
We will see in time great books written by great men about this attempt to *Murder my party*
And in time, for the good of both union and party we will learn the lesson *Unions must*
Every child grows up, must stand on its own feet, go its own way, hopefully towards its people, not the current way charging away from them.
Gillard , said to have had a hand in stealing from the AWU now counts on them, to save her, and ignore my party and my mates Australian Workers, we once stood for both not against them.

Belly, the sisters are the labour movement. White collar female workforces in teaching, nursing, bureaucracy, childcare, finance outnumber the men in blue collar unions by 3:1 or more. They are not "workers", they are "professionals". They are not for solidarity and standing shoulder to shoulder with your mates against the forces that seek to oppress, taking a hit in the paypacket to support those on strike, a decent living wage. They will march in protests, but they want to be back in the office for morning tea. They "can't afford to strike" and frown on the idea of such uncouthness. They want a full-time wage for part-time work, not an opportunity to do a couple of hours OT so a carton of grog can be slipped under the missus's guard on Friday.

The union was a needful thing for blue-collar workers when they were paid by the amount of sweat they produced, the bosses Rolls was paid for in blood and more muscles on the floor meant more production. Because such industries are now heavily mechanised, every aspect of the job has a process that defines it, and employment depends on having the right certificate and license, which means the union has little to offer other than a hand in the wallet every week and the biggest whinger in the shop coming around and annoying people who have work to do.

Hawke saw it and Hawke made it happen. The unions had no idea what was happening and nor did anyone else. he made sure workers were bought off with pay increases in exchange for conditions that were not needed in a white collar workforce. Hawke rode the wave of feminisation of the unions and he ended up ditching his lovely working class wife for a committed middle-class feminist "progressive". He's a disgrace to the Labour movement, but cunning as the proverbial sh1thouse rat. Gillard is his natural successor - a middle-class female professional shyster.

I suggest to you that the ALP will inevitably become a party for women and that men will only have minor representation within a generation or less. When that happens it will never gain power again and a new political centrist party will have to emerge. the only reason it hasn't already happened is because the Greens exist.

Hello BELLY ol' Chap...

Don't lament too much for your beloved Labor Party. I think most of us believe they will lose the September Elections, and then the Liberal/National Party will 'ruin' the roost, whoops, I should've said will 'rule' the roost for another three years. And like all modern politicians of today, they'll further 'bugger up' our precious country a little more, and retire with squillions of dollars and benefits you can't jump over, for the rest of their miserable lives !

You know BELLY, I wish we could raise a special 'Politician Squad' with a very hard, tough and brutal Act intended to curb and interdict the overt avarice and mercenary pursuits of politicians, against the desperate needs of the poor old taxpayer. I'd immediately come out of retirement, and work for that squad without pay ! Sorry folks, I must've been having an old man's dream ?

Where our beloved country was once more governed by men and women possessing of high ethics, and of moral persuasion, that when they made mistakes, or errors of judgement would immediately own up to them, and promise to do better in future ? Where the word 'lie' meant relaxing in either the supine or prone position, whilst peacefully resting, not cheating those of whom who voted for you, and who put their trust in you, to carry out their wishes and to faithfully represent them in Canberra, that's all.

o sung wu - 'Politician Squad' with a very hard, tough and brutal Act intended to curb and interdict the overt avarice and mercenary pursuits of politicians

Now that is something I would like to see, we could even give all our hitherto unwanted wearers of tea-towels something useful to occupy their time. Gotta be a few good homocidal maniacs tucked away in various big-houses, what say we offer them pardons once they sanction a predetermined number of bloodsucking parasites ??

Good evening PRAXIDICE...

PLEASE, don't give me any ideas, I'm just as likely to follow them up, with or without our friends ?

Seriously, you'd offer a potential politician, a really decent salary together with a mighty nice package to accompany that salary. Conditional of course, that he/she does exactly what he's supposed to do. Integrity, ethics, hard work, and above all - total transparency and clarity, should all be part of their lifestyle ! Similarly, words like obfuscation, deceit, and other almost identical language should never pass their lips, in fact they shouldn't even be present within their vocabulary...sorry there PRAXIDICE I'm dreaming again ? Another example of one's rapidly approaching dotage I'm afraid ?

o sung wu

Re-introduce capital punishment for anyone on the public teat & who misuses their position. Judgement of what constitutes 'misuse' to be wholly the province of the people ie politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, judiciary & captains of industry expressly disqualified in perpetuity.

o sung wo morning mate.
Do not be too concerned for my state of mind.
My party as yet does not understand, but it is at war.with its self.
We tragics who knock on the doors and letter box, stand endless hours handing out the how to votes are known as foot soldiers.
I remain one.
In the front lines of what,without change, will be our near death .
But it had to come, and must be won, the thought Labor is a Social Democratic party is a false one.
It currently has more heads than that snake headed woman from legend, with most *OUTSIDE THE PARLIAMENT*.
We will reform and march the path voters march, they have no intention of following our decent in to madness.
Yet pain and all, Rudd,s return while chastening the PIRATES, will still leave us a party that MUST serve its followers by cutting its controllers loose.
A century of waiting for a revolution? not me, until our party,s brainless men with faces this time, put forward the view *bugger the voters*

The red-headed witch cares only about herself, particularly in respect of the higher PM perks on retirement. Its interesting that some commentators are suggesting the ALP might just scrape back with Kevvy at the helm. I see Clive Palmer has picked up on this as well with his statement that KRudd would almost certainly opt for an earlier election, thereby potentially causing him a bit of angst with registration deadlines. The LNP would probably far a lot better with Julie Bishop instead of the RAbbott, seems the LNP power-brokers are just as thick as their ALP equivalents. Personally I hope that Big Clive cleans up big-time as both major parties are far too arrogant to be allowed to be in government.

You get a kick out of that do you?
I am prepared to concede early release can be of use.
If Gillard and her support team get early release from parliament my party can breath again.