Violent physical assaults are becoming alarmingly regular occurrences lately. In particular those with cowardly young offenders hitting on the defenceless elderly. Our Magistrates are so out of touch in their sentencing that it borders on idiocy. They claim legislation is preventing them. So, how about changing legislation ? I speak with Police Officers on a regular basis & they all, without exception put the blame for so much violence on the Magistrates. There simply is no penalties, nor compensation, nor other repercussions for the offenders. If a bystander lays a hand on an offender by trying to help a victim then the Law instantly puts the offender in the background & comes down like a tonne of bricks on the good samaritan. When helping a victim or defending what's yours becomes an offence then there are no winners, only losers.

Individual <" If a bystander lays a hand on an offender by trying to help a victim then the Law instantly puts the offender in the background & comes down like a tonne of bricks on the good samaritan.''

Really? Have you got any proof about that statement? Any examples?

"When helping a victim or defending what's yours becomes an offence then there are no winners, only losers."

When you say 'helping' what do you mean exactly, Individual ?
Do you mean bashing or shooting the offender?

So you are advocating vigilante behaviour then?
Shoot first and ask questions later?
We should have a possible instant death sentence by shooting for, say, breaking and entering then, or for bag snatching maybe?

It's because of people like you that we have the laws we have, Individual...

Suseonline,
Wrong, wrong & wrong again. It's because of people with your do-gooder mentality that we have criminals like that. It's because of people like you that we have gutless asexual magistrates who get some perverse satisfaction out of seeing decent people in utter dismay.
I do advocate vigillanteism if the Law makers fail to pull out their finger.
Aren't the latest bashing news sufficiently bad for you ? What perverse mind do you harbour ?

thanks to dr spock and co who fooled the gullible in to not smacking a couple of generations of kids. The end result is obvious.

"thanks to dr spock and co who fooled the gullible in to not smacking a couple of generations of kids."

Not everywhere, runner... in some places children are severely punished for failing to obey or show proper respect to their parents, are told what to do, have their movements restricted or always chaperoned, face caning, amputation or stoning for infractions (some even when there is no 'victim').

So how is it going for those societies?

"The end result is obvious."

Were things better when you could sell rebellious kids into indentured service; or maybe it is all just a little more complicated?

So where are your examples I asked for, Individual?
If I am a supposed 'do gooder', then that makes you a 'do badder'.
Fair enough.

No one who is a victim of a criminal activity is ever happy with the punishment of the perpetrator, but where do we draw the line ?
I suspect that with you, the 'line' should be nothing less than death by firing squad for all criminal activities.

What if they were innocent then?
To you, as a do-badder, they would just be collateral damage I suppose.
I hope you don't own a gun...

Suseonline,

The whole tone of your angry response to the OP fits the definition of violence. It is personal abuse.

It could easily escalate into physical violence, but usually the violence waged by women, especially against other women is cruel and derogatory, as evidenced by your reply. It is an example of the girl on girl bullying seen in schools and extending to the use of Facebook and other social media, that is proving so difficult to stop. As well, any attempt by other girls to intercede to calm the situation can make them victims of attacks as well. Girls usually operate as gangs in brutalising their victims.

Violence needs to be researched in the broad, independently, nationally and as a coordinated campaign.

Individual,

I'm not sure if the physical assault rate is out
of control - but we're certainly aware of it
happening in our cities due to the media coverage
that it attracts.

The high involvement of youth
in these attacks has been attributed to - alcohol
and drug abuse, poor education, and unemployment.

Much of the violence appears random, mindless,
wantonly malign, and even psychopatic. The reasons
offered by the perpetrators often run along the
lines of, "He insulted me," or "He pushed me."
Most of the people commiting these violent crimes
seem to be between the ages of sixteen and twenty-five.

Drug addiction is certainly a significant factor in
many of these crimes. Addicts have to find large sums
of money to support their habits, and they frequently
turn to crime to do so.

Few people believe that imprisonment does the offender
any good, rather it is used as a last resort measure
of punishing criminals and protecting society from them.

Experts argue that society should waste little energy on
imprisoning petty offenders for whom other forms of
correction - like probation or community service might
be more appropriate, and should concentrate instead on
incapacitating dangerous and persistent offenders by
locking them up - if necessary, for very long periods.

As one expert points out, the best deterrence is not
necessarily the most severe punishment, rather it is
punihsment that is "swift" and "certain," and if there
is little doubt that it will follow, the crime rate
will be low. But if people think they may escape
punishment indefinitely, then the sanctions will have a
much less deterrent effect.

OTB,
Female criminals will often rob, assault and stand over elderly people, also ask a prison officer who has worked in both male and female prisons which set of inmates are harder to manage,a former officer I know worked at male prisons for over a decade with no issues of stress or burnout, after only a year working in a women's prison this person was effectively finished as an officer, ended up on sick leave with PTSD and was eventually let go from the service.

Here's some interesting data released by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics:

Female prisoners have increased at a rate 21 times higher
than the number of male prisoners since 2011.
Females now make up 7 per cent of Australia's total
prisoner population. The NT has the highest imprisonment
rate in the country (826 per 100,000 adults) followed by
WA (267 per 100,000).

Most common offences for sentenced males were acts intended
to cause injury (17 per cent) and sexual assault (15 per cent).

While for females the most common were illicit drug offences
(17 per cent) and acts intended to caus injury (14 per cent).

The medium age was 33.9 for males and 34.6 for females.
Eight in ten prisoners were born in Australia and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people comprised
just over one quarter (27 per cent) of the total prisoner
population.

Over half (55 per cent) of all prisoners had served a
sentence in an adult prison prior to the current episode.

Indy we have our verbal wrestling matches you and I.
Looked in this morning,could have been third post here.
Then read your DIATRIBE to Suseonline.
Did you want to say that.
Do you think her question do not matter?
I thought they did.
And think you have difficulty's understanding, others are able to have views.
Your thread, until your blast, had a real chance of being a long one.
Apart from your quaint and constant wish to impose martial law, sorry national service, you are in part right.
Some thing is quite wrong here.
Is it in part the way they got bought up.
Is the costs of imprisonment stopping thugs being put off the street.
I would like you Indy to consider this.
IF your outburst to a women, was on the street not here would I be right in saying you should be spoken to by police be OK in your view?

Dear Belly,

I'm sure that Suse, as well as I, appreciate
your gracious act of coming to her defence.

Many of us have been abused in the most disgusting
and personal terms, but that just goes with the
territory these days. Often the chance of having
a sensible, thoughtful, intelligent discussion
is lost. And when being attacked it's a great
temptation to retaliate - (when the right
buttons are pushed). This spoils things for
everyone, as we all well know.

Belly whilst I'm not a great fan of Indi's style or some of the views just which parts of the angry response were so horrible?

Maybe this as that seems to have been the point that the thread got nasty.

"When you say 'helping' what do you mean exactly, ######## ?
Do you mean bashing or shooting the offender?

So you are advocating vigilante behaviour then?
Shoot first and ask questions later?
We should have a possible instant death sentence by shooting for, say, breaking and entering then, or for bag snatching maybe?

It's because of people like you that we have the laws we have, #######..."

R0bert

RObert,

I suggest you go back to page one and re-read
Indy's post to Suse.
It may help clarify things for you.

Lexi,

It might help clarify things if you dealt with RObert's argument rather than dismissing it and brickwalling.

How many years have you interacted on this site and that is the very best you can do?

Lexi, perhaps you could have a look at the order the posts came in. Susie chose to respond to the opening post which was not directed at her with some inflamitory comments. Individual's response was not out of scale with what was directed at him. Don't really like either post but the attack on Individual in this instance while ignoring Suseonline's opening gambit looks to be either sexism or team bullying.

There seems to be a recurring trend from some of you at the moment that its all so wrong when someone you don't like does something, all of when its one of yours. That seems to have gone well beyond the point of a little blindness to friends, well beyond not being able to address every point you don't like.

Suseonlines post was inflamitory and took a general question and responded with inflatory rhetoric to Individual and some of you cry foul when Individual returned in kind.

R0bert

Yes, Robert, the girl gang are at it again. Hard to reason with aren't they?

RObert,

I went back and re-read Suse's post as you
suggested and I find that she did not attack
Indy personally. She questioned his take
on "vigilantism" as she saw it. Whereas
Indy did attack her personally. Therein
lies the difference between the two posts.
Of course that's only my opinion.

Constance,

Welcome back.

Nice to see you back to your old form.

So where are your examples I asked for, Individual?
Suseonline,
Are you for real ? Haven't you got any clue at all ?

Do you think her question do not matter?
Belly,
No, they're too stupid & don't warrant reply. If you think my points were wrong you'd better read them again.

Victims are forced to defend themselves again & again because the Law is not for them. Just take an interest in such cases & you'll see what I'm on about & when you eventually get tell Suseonline.

Lexi,

You are silent on the import of Suseonline's last sentence,

Suseonline: "It's because of people like you that we have the laws we have, Individual..."

Coming at the end that directs the offensive slurs at Individual, wouldn't you agree?

Lexi I had a different finding from reading that post.

I think both Individual and Suseonline are both quite happy dishing it out, my interest is in what was in my view a seriously biased reprimand of Individual whilst ignoring Suseonline's opening gambit.

Individual, whilst I share some of your perceptions about legal risks associated with defending yourself and or stepping in to help someone else I can't claim that I could back that up with a clear set of evidence. Hard to separate out the background noise from the actual evidence without more facts than I have on hand. Others may be able to contribute better material but as a start I thought I'd have a look to see what I could find.

This one appears to be British but some interesting examples at
http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/self-defence.php

Some Australian content at http://www.ask.com/wiki/Self-defence_%28Australia%29?o=2802&qsrc=999

Some material seemingly from the Victorian Crimes act at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/

Queensland material, see the low 270's for self defence related material http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/

The overriding impression is that much of it is very subjective, even if innocent it may require a trial to prove that innocence.

There appears to be an assumption that most of have the resources to mount legal defence against charges when the reality is that for most the financial and personal impact could be devastating.

For many the cost of being found innocent at trial could be lifelong financial ruin with possible marriage breakdowns, loss of employment etc. along the way.

R0bert

Thanks again Lexi and Belly.
I fling off a response to an obviously vigilante-style rant by Individual this morning, then I come home after a long day at work to find all this controversy!

Always nice to hear from the charming Constance, by the way.
Any thoughts on the subject of the thread?

As it happens, I was reacting to an obviously aggressive approach to crime control by Individual.
I simply do not believe in anyone taking the law into their own hands, as Individual advocates.

I was pointing out that it is because of would-be lawless people that the original laws and criminal punishments were enacted by our forefathers originally, and later by our Parliaments.

I may not always agree with some obviously lenient punishments at times either, but am not in full possession of all the facts of each case, like the juries in the courts were...and neither was anyone else.

I seem to cause a flurry of rants whenever I post these days, I must be very popular!

The day of the 'vigilante' is fast approaching. With the repeal of the
'Vagrancy Act'
'Street Offenses Act'
'Consorting Act'
'Truancy Act'
and the implementation of the
'Bail Act'
'Juvenile Justice Act'
and the adoption of ' International and United Nations Conventions' on
'Human Rights
'Children'
'Refugees'
Left wing government under people like Whitlem and Hawke effectively destroyed Australia's ability to manage crime and social disobedience.

Chrisgaffe1000 talks about all those 'acts' that he/she thinks have ruined the criminal justice system in Australia.

And yet, here we are Chris, living in arguably the best country in the world.
One that many people in other countries strive to emigrate to.
Wouldn't you agree?

One does wonder why in such a fortunate country, the rate of assault appears to be rising.

I wonder if it's just that we hear of it more or if it's really increasing.

I'm inclined to think that it is increasing.

A while back I gave my eleven year-old permission to watch the regional news. I thought he'd be informed about issues in our region and other regional areas in our state, and that would be good for him. When his much older sister was his age, that particular news seemed pretty innocuous, the odd assault was reported, but for the most part it wasn't that startling.

Unfortunately, he was confronted nightly with about twenty minutes of the most horrendous crimes perpetrated by supposedly average citizens. Nightly news of assaults, batteries, murders, thefts - you name it, each night was a litany of man's inhumanity to man, regional style.

I had purposely steered him clear of national and international news to save him from just such an assault on his senses. (I happen to think that it's not so great to give a child a nightly dose of human depravity in the form of news)

So, apparently all this stuff is going on around us, in our communities, and we hadn't been aware of it before. I figured if he kept on watching it, it would make him fearful of his society.

So, eventually he stopped watching that news and I think he's better off for it.

RObert you are aware I respect you.
Have from my first post here.
Too that we come from different sides of politics.
And that we disagree often.
Show me one word that Suseonline used that matches the shocking words of our hostile and heated Indy.
Why are so many willing to put the sex of a poster first in comments.
I get in real trouble for highlighting SOME women.
Here in this thread some knives came out because posters are female.
And too, because some are Labor voters.
Fellas look no further than Abbott for your pain.
But look too at Indy,s posting style.
PS RObert I too defended you against an insulting trouble maker, I may get it wrong, do but see nothing wrong in feeling SOME insult too much.

separate out the background noise from the actual evidence.
R0bert,
I am fully aware of what you're referring to. Where the actual problem with such statistics is, is in the fact that once a magistrate has made a ruling it's all over for the victim. Be it a fair or unfair outcome. rarely does a sentence turn out satisfactory enough for the victim to feel justice has been done. In my case of several break-ins & an assault the Police did not pursue the matter as they would have had the perpetrators been other than indigenous.
So, when I got absolutely no compensation & the culprits are still breaking in & stealing I do not feel I got justice. I am not alone there, I know of quite a few who literally had to pack up & leave their employment because of the lack of justice whilst the offenders are given computer courses, dental treatment, & flights to go home after insufficient prove or incredibly short incarceration. Only recently a ranger had to pack up & leave after a knife was put to him in threat & he got no back-up from anyone in authority.

So, eventually he stopped watching that news and I think he's better off for it.
Poirot,
i know where you're coming from & it is a dilemma because we really don't want them to grow up totally ignorant of what's going on yet to expose them to reality can also have bad effects. The only answer there is harsher sentencing & total financial compensation. Many families lose out terribly in simply trying to get some justice.
That's why I advocate non-military national Service to put ALL on a track to responsibility & they won't have the excuse later that they didn't have the opportunity. There's no proof that common discipline & respect have ever produced bad outcomes. Ther will always be criminals & for them the Constitution should state that they immediately lose normal privileges. To treat them with kid's gloves has proven wrong.

individual,

He still accesses the news via the computer, but the good thing about that is that it's just a static page in which he can read the main stories, and click on one if he's interested. He's not being shown video after video of heart-wrenching images and narration, and often bloody atrocities.

I can see what you're getting at with your call for public service....yet I think that's like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. These values need to be instilled right from the start with young people, not foisted on them when they're raring to go as adults. They'd perhaps be resentful?

Wouldn't it be nice if we cared about our community to the extent that community service was something we took for granted as part and parcel of living in one.

yet I think that's like shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
Poirot,
I don't think that's the case at all. My reason for thinking so is the fact that each & every generation has that horse & that gate. If our generation ensures that gat is elf-closing & the horse is trained to stay in the yard then we have a very good chance that the generation after will improve upon this & that's how we'd get gradual improvement in society.

individual,

The problem being that in modern times, children are brought up in a very competitive environment. They are taught to compete, not to cooperate...and if a community service is required, they are taught that this kind of service emanates from an institution, not from spontaneous action by individuals getting together as in the old days.

Part of the problem is the "loss" of community, especially in big urban areas, where services have become centralised. So we lose the thread that binds us, and also the feeling that we're connected and that what helps someone else indirectly helps us also.

It's part of the paradigm that dictates how we live. In a fortunate consumer society, mainly concerned with its material well-being, this is the way things go.

(Just add here, that in place of the news at 5:30, we've been making our way through the Dad's Army series. This might seem a bit off beam, but apart from being funny, it's has been instructive on the sort of service that was inherent in the psyche of people earlier last century. Lot's of good community values coming through in that show - not to mention it's been an excellent vehicle to to teach an eleven year-old the history pertaining to WWII on the home-front in Britain)

Dear Suse,

Thank You for explaining your position so clearly in
this discussion. It clarifies things learning the point you
were trying to make. We all receive criticisms on
this forum and as I stated earlier that seems to go
with the territory on a public forum such as this one.
People tend to see things from a viewpoint of
subjectivity - and often may interpret things in very
different ways. However, it is important not to be
afraid of speaking your own mind.

Of course we might say to ourselves - "Gee, I shouldn't
have said that, or maybe I should have said it differently."
Well okay, maybe sometimes we all need to work on our
presentation - I've always felt it important to be
conscious and compassionate and act with great civility.
(Which doesn't always work when the right buttons are
pushed).

Keep on throwing down the gauntlet. The only path to
happiness is to really be all that you can be.
Secure and unafraid of speaking your own mind.

Lexi to her 'Suse',

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPtIHwbguO4

The thread always had potentual.
We in one form or the other have talked about it often.
We never reached a decision, a way to move forward.
A current affair, last night? maybe the one before.
A 60 year old shop employee ran after a theif, getting the goods back.
He was sacked for his efforts.
There is modern Australia, even I have while escorting a pay roll saw the gun locked away and been warned let them have it!
Courts back that up, with bond after bond, who would want to be a cop?
Mums and dads see stolen goods in the kids room, but say nothing about it.
Some crimes need fixed terms of imprisonment, not short but long enough for criminals to fear.
Bashing of unarmed folk should be 12 months no early release first offense 3 years second.
Too late to want change after a death on the street at the hands of thugs.

Belly,
In my day bashing (AGH) used to be 2-3 years in the High Jump 2nd 3rd offense 8 to 10 years. If the offense took place after dark and in a private home them life imprisonment was available.
The cost of prisons caused the offenses to be either remitted or bounced back into the Petty Sessions where beaks can only give 12 month sentences and then only 2 cumulative.

Here's another link on Australian crime
facts and figures:

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/australian-crime-facts-figures-report-shows-teen-are-the-most-violent-australians/story-fncynjr2-1226645615303

It shows that teenagers are the most violent Australians and gives
some plausible reasons for their behaviour.

onthebeach,

For some people irritation is a way of life.
The rest of us have to work at it. (smile).

Suseonline,
Yes I agree but your/our safety is rapidly being eroded by weak law enforcement.

Not sure if there is a newer version but the the 2012 edition of report mentioned in the article Lexi referenced can be found at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2012.html

I've not read this edition but noted from the article that age 17 was the peak age. Whilst the links to underage drinking and changed family structures make some sense the change in legal response to crimes committed after 18 are probably worth a mention.

It's a rare teenager with an inclination to do the wrong thing who is not aware that up until 18 they operate in a protected zone where it's unlikely the consequences of crime will be serious in a short term sense. They may be setting themselves up for some long term problems but teenage brains don't do well at evaluating long term consequences.

Our struggle seems to be in finding a working balance for dealing with crimes committed by those who are old enough to understand most of what they are doing but not yet adult. I don't want solutions that harden them up for more crime, that force them into even closer proximity with other law breakers. Nor do I want a continuation of the sense that where there is a problem the victims are largely defenceless and with little chance that the law can intervene effectively.

Whilst I think some are just a little to enamoured with smacking I think in a broader sense there is a good case to say that a lot of parents feel unreasonably constrained by the state when it comes to correcting a seriously defiant child and no I don't accept that the defiance is always a consequence of that parents poor parenting.

I think it's worth noting that in my experience threads about smacking seem to attract a lot of interest, threads on options for parents to discipline children that are not about smacking attract little interest.

R0bert

There's an interesting article in the New York
Times that might be worth a look - by Gary Scott.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/05/when-to-punish-a-young-offender-and-when-to-rehabilitate

Scott's feel that prison is too violent for young offenders.
He himself having been incarcerated at a young age.

What can one expect where fatherless families have become the norm and the institutions of marriage and family have been spurned?

But Hell will freeze over before the architects of the very broad and deep social changes will admit fault for the unintended consequences of their infernal endless dabbling.

The UK has had similar social policies and the same consequences. For a quick omparison, Japan seems almost immune. But comparisons are not necessary, the evidence is there in abundance from government stats.

There have been articles posted on OLO on the subject. Hopefully there will be many more.

A regards an individual's right to defend his/her life and limb, NSW citizens have the benefit of law introduced by the Shooters and Fishers Party (S&FP) that puts the onus on the offender and police to prove that the victim of assault in his home was not actually in fear of her/his life or harm when acting to defend himself against the assailant/home invader.

As recent NSW cases have shown, that does not prevent the tabloid media from victimising the victim further by negatively portraying and hounding him (the media even publised Google Earth maps and photos of a male victim's home), and police may still subject the victim to criminal-like interrogation, charges and threats (which would almost certainly assure further harm to the victim).

It is vastly better for NSW residents though than for the luckless residents of other States where the onus is on the VICTIM to PROVE he was in fear of harm and that he used 'reasonable' force. That includes your house pooch as well.

Lexi,
<It shows that teenagers are the most violent Australians and gives
some plausible reasons for their behavior.>
What it doesn't show that the bigger percentage of these thugs are4 of foreign extract or indigenous.
Lock them up like the animals they really are.

Lexi, don't worry, I will keep speaking my mind, but thanks for the wise words.
Onthebeach, I loved the 'Faulty Towers' clip, thanks for that !
Sybil and her acid tongue was always one of my favourites...

Individual, I would hate to be in charge of your 'national service' guys.
A large group of actual and potential young criminals forced to be somewhere they don't want to be. Sounds like jail or conscription into the armed forces.

If they weren't aggressive or violent before they went into the 'service', they sure would be afterwards.

Suseonline,

<I suspect that with you, the 'line' should be nothing less than death by firing squad for all criminal activities.>
Probably not such a bad idea really.
I bet it would cut the crime rate by a huge percentage.
Who needs criminals anyway? Perhaps you, not me thank you.

Chris, great plan.
Let's teach all our kiddies that if anyone does anything wrong, we will just shoot them dead!
Never mind the 'criminals' that were wrongly convicted, they would just be collateral damage I suppose? No problems really.

Chris, I think you may be more comfortable living in a society run by the Taliban?

Yes, Suse.

Chris appears to be fan of totalitarian society.

As opposed to egalitarian.

Suseonline,
The only crims I ever locked up, and there were hundreds of them, deserved to be locked up, many for ever. Wait till you are raped, or bashed for you purse or just for fun and the see if you really want them smacked and sent home.

Dear Chris,

Aren't we all of "foreign" extract?

The rate of repeated crime by those who have
been convicted before is alarmingly high.
Nearly three-quarters of all offenders released
after serving prison time are re-arrested within four
years - sometime for the same crimes. Since other
releaased prisoners presumably also return to crime
but are not arrested, the actual crime rate among
released convicts is even greater.

Clearly, prisons fail to rehabilitate. One reason,
no doubt, is that relatively few resources are
devoted to rehabilitation in the first place.
A major reason, however lies in the very nature of a
prison, in which the authorities; custodial duties take
priority over other goals. Additionally, the prison
environment guarantees association with other criminals -
so the inmates can scarcely fail to learn new techniques
and possibilities for crime. Imprisonment may therefore
lead to further crime - not rehabilitation.

Lexi
I can't believe that you are that innocent.
Prisons were never designed as rehabilitation centers.
They are there to lock up people who cannot abide by the rules.
Rehabilitation has been a dirty word for years.
You cannot rehabilitate someone who has been brought up in an anti social environment. Look at the Mafia and the IRA and the gutters of Redfern and the housing estates of London.
Build bigger prisons and many more of them. Make them self supporting and lock these parasite up for ever if necessary.

Lexi is really going in strong, extreme activism, in her defence of criminals.

The women who are soft on prisoners come from all sectors of society.

It is most likely fantasy projection and more likely one might suppose in women who don't trust men (locked up they can be trusted not to tomcat), don't really want physical sex and desire control of their caged male project.

I had a work acquaintance who was a warder for a time. He got out quickly and before the scum bent his mind totally. He confirmed what all normal, reasonable people know: that custodial sentences are given for very compelling reasons -a criminal must 'earn' a custodial spell- and no, they are definitely not men who are sensitive cases awaiting a rescuer of Lexi's ilk.

onthebeach,

To what do I owe your slithering in
Boredom, stalking, or just shedding skin?
I wait with baited breath to see
How much more venom you'll aim at me?

Dear Chris,

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.
I think few people believe that imprisonment
does the offender any good. Rather, it's
used as a last resort means of punishming
criminals and protecting society from them.
Several experts argue that society should
waste little energy on imprisoning petty offenders
for whom other forms of correction - like
probation or community service might be more
appropriate, and should concentrate instead on
incapacitating dangerous and persistent offenders by
locking them up - if necessary, for very long
periods of time.

We're told that the great bulk of the street crimes
that the public most fears are committed by a very
small minority of repeat offenders, who can sometimes
be identified quite early in their careers. About
7 per cent of youngsters, for example, are responsible
for about 70 per cent of juvenile offences.

Incidentally, the fact that so many criminals are
repeatedly re-arrested does not necessarily mean that
prison fails to deter people from crime. It only
means that it fails to deter "these" individuals, but
the example of their fate no doubt provides a
strong enough warning to deter most other people.
As I stated earlier, the best deterrence is not
necessarily the most severe punishment, rather, it is
punishment that is "swift" and "certain."
We're told that if punishment follows soon after the
crime, and if there is little doubt that it will follow
the crime rate will be low, but if people think they may
escape punishment indefinitely, then the sanctions will
have much less deterrent efect.

Lexi,

I believe you meant what you said in your post of 18 July 2013 10:53:08 AM and now all you are doing is a quick catch, twisting it a bit to make it seem more palatable.

It would be better for you to argue it out to give some chance of challenging your own world views.

Your choice but London to a brick you come back again in the near future with views exactly the same as in your post of 18 July 2013 10:53:08 AM.

Chris, I never said I didn't believe in locking up criminals forever, just that I didn't believe in shooting them all dead!

How do you know I haven't already been a victim of crime?
A family member has been, as it happens.

There are certainly many truly disgusting criminals that deserve never to be released.

For serial murderers, child murderers, paedophiles and rapists, I would advocate true life sentences with hard labour, no computers, TV's or other perks in jail.

I don't like the death sentence though...as I advocate they should have a lifetime of hard jail time for a better punishment.

Suseonline, "I never said I didn't believe in locking up criminals forever, just that I didn't believe in shooting them all dead!"

OK, so it is apparent you would impose limits on the law-abiding citizen's right to defend herself and loved ones. Where the offender is hurt you believe the victim (who defended herself or her child) should be charged with some offence, and murder or manslaughter if the offender dies through the defensive act of the victim. As well, you could include injury to the offender through his victim not providing a safe place for him to commit his crime.

What limits do you imagine you can impose on the home invader you find in your bedroom?

Home burglary is increasingly common. Few cases are closed. The criminals do not appreciate witnesses.

More women are working shifts and travelling alone. Many travel alone. Nurses are known to work shifts. Because of that they are targets. I have two young women doctors in the family and both were put through placements in risky country towns. Once safe country towns have become risky through changes in demographics. The offenders are cheeky, likely already have criminal records and operate in packs.

What would you be recommending? Remember that in the case of the hospital workers the Department of Health can't afford to provide security. Give a panic alarm to the young woman doctor and who comes? So often in the country the answer is no-one, or way too late.

What deterrent would you give the nurses and doctors or women travellers? My recommendation to my relatives was never to take the placement unless it was compulsory. Don't go back, ever.

It is all very right to protect the safety and rights of criminals, but it is NOT realistic to expect service deliverers like medical staff to work and travel where they are at risk either. It is not discrimination that reduces medical, education and other services in some areas, it is the very real and present danger of being mugged, molested and crippled or killed.

Suse "I never said I didn't believe in locking up criminals forever, just that I didn't believe in shooting them all dead!"

From that, onthebeach, extrapolates:

"OK, so it is apparent you would impose limits on the law-abiding citizen's right to defend herself and loved ones. Where the offender is hurt you believe the victim (who defended herself or her child) should be charged with some offence, and murder or manslaughter if the offender dies through the defensive act of the victim. As well, you could include injury to the offender through his victim not providing a safe place for him to commit his crime.

What limits do you imagine you can impose on the home invader you find in your bedroom?

Home burglary is increasingly common. Few cases are closed. The criminals do not appreciate witnesses.

More women are working shifts and travelling alone. Many travel alone. Nurses are known to work shifts. Because of that they are targets. I have two young women doctors in the family and both were put through placements in risky country towns. Once safe country towns have become risky through changes in demographics. The offenders are cheeky, likely already have criminal records and operate in packs.

What would you be recommending? Remember that in the case of the hospital workers the Department of Health can't afford to provide security. Give a panic alarm to the young woman doctor and who comes? So often in the country the answer is no-one, or way too late.

What deterrent would you give the nurses and doctors or women travellers? My recommendation to my relatives was never to take the placement unless it was compulsory. Don't go back, ever.

It is all very right to protect the safety and rights of criminals, but it is NOT realistic to expect service deliverers like medical staff to work and travel where they are at risk either. It is not discrimination that reduces medical, education and other services in some areas, it is the very real and present danger of being mugged, molested and crippled or killed."

Weird!

Suseonline
Lexi
I spent my hard-head days in what you see as entertainment (Underbelly)squads in the NSW Police Force (note the word Force) and believe you me the crims of those days hated the hoons who bashed and raped and terrorized women. When they got them in prison they kicked the crap out of them and they had to be placed in a separate prison for protection.
The ones that really got out of hand (socio/psychopathic parasites} we dealt with outside the legal parameters.
Progress and academics together with social do-gooders came along and me and my fellows became Dinosaurs and extinct. They even locked a few of us up to show the world policing had changed for the good.
So don't cry for the criminal of today, they deserve nothing more than a cell and hard labor for years and years.

Dear Chris,

At no time was I defending criminals.
If you go back and re-read my posts you'll
see that what I was doing was discussing
things generally regarding crimes of violence,
giving ABS statistics, results of surveys done by
experts, deterrence and incapacitation, what
according to experts works and what doesn't,
and so on.

I have a cousin who was a detective in the
Los Angeles Police Department(now retired).
Prior to his retirement he worked with
troubled teens in one of the worst
neighbourhoods in L.A. The stories he told us
would make anyone's hair curl. So I fully
understand what you're saying.

Thanks for your civility in this discussion.
It is appreciated. For me now, the discussion
has run its course.

Hopefully, I shall see you in other discussions
on this forum.

Till then.

Chris, when did I cry for the criminals of today?
I just don't believe in killing anyone...

You sound very bitter about your time in the police force, and I don't blame you, but this is an opinion forum where we all say what we think.

You and OTB seem to want to give lectures on what you think of the subject without taking one scrap of notice of what anyone else is saying.
Even worse, you put words in our mouths.

I've said all I have to say on this subject, so I will wander off to another fun thread now...

Just heard the tail end of some new program called tough love to teach juveniles how to respect others. I din't get to see how they were doing though. Anyone know ?
It could possibly be used as a kind of Kindy for National Service. National will work as soon as the very first lull is overcome. Once a few results start showing it'll be overwhelmingly supported by most.

My guess is that the party which offers the introduction of a non-military national service over the first term will win the election. No matter how many do-gooders object, the sensible know it is a positive for our society.

individual,

This link may be of interest to you:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7565987/Conservatives-plan-civilian-national-service-scheme.html

Lexi,
Thank you for this moral boost, there's hope yet that the Oms haven't lost it entirely. Will be interesting to see the reaction of their Muslim population, the Labor backbone there also. They'll more than likely ask to get military training.

That link to Cameron's National service scheme is from 2010' prior to the election in Britain.

Don't know if it came to fruition.

Any move towards a National Service Scheme would be a good one. The Israeli model is a good one. Basically it says if you want anything of your country you have to earn it. Military, collective (Kibbutz) even baby farms producing perfect physical specimens. Oops that's a bit closer to the Nazi bit I suppose but it is true.
You want a passport do your National Service. Simple.
I wonder how the good Moslem citizens would feel about serving in an army that could be taking on their own kind. I'm sure we could find some sort of exemption. I remember it was called 'conscious objection'
Perhaps that could be the criteria for settlement here. Two or three years in National Service.

If, by 'National Service', you mean teaching all young people how to use guns, then we don't want that here in Australia.

The numbers of people using guns wrongfully in this country is bad enough already...I would hate to see us getting any more like violent American communities than we already are.

teaching all young people how to use guns
Suseonline,
I don't know how learning to defend oneself is bad. Learning how to use a gun is akin to learning how to drive or fly. Once you have control there's no danger. Anyhow, you're confusing national service with military service.
, a totally different thing altogether. Learning discipline & respect & common sense is so overdue in our society it may actually already be too late judging by the mentality of your comments.

Of course people should be taught to use guns. The population should be armed again. You breach some persons private space with a deliberate criminal activity you get shot. Guns don't kill people mate. People do.
Only your weak lily levered left wing socialistic cultures want the people unarmed and vulnerable. Get real. Get a gun.

Ah yes, it all comes down to needing to have a gun in the hands to feel some 'control' does it Individual?
What a frightening world you must live in.

Wouldn't you feel more comfortable living in America? No, perhaps a Taliban run society would suit you better?

If you 'breach' ChrisGaffs private space he will shoot you down.
And you would go to jail to join all the other criminals who perpetrated physical or lethal assault...

What a frightening world you must live in.
Suseonline,
As a matter of fact I do live in a community where I hardly have any rights. Ever heard of Palm Island ? We're not as bad by a mile but the way left wing Government is going it won't be long before we become like New Guinea. Barbed wire everywhere & living locked in your home. Yes, little Susie I'm talking about communities in Australia. Why not find out more about your own country ? Why not find out what ALP Government has achieved in down-grading our society ? I bet you don't go to work stressing out all day wondering if your home has been broken into yet again. Before you say the standard leftie response of "why don't you leave" I tell you that some of us are hellbent on trying to undo the ALP Government damage, that's why we stay.

Suseonline,

Forgetting guns so as to not provoke your hoplophobia, it is apparent you would impose limits on the law-abiding citizen's right to defend herself and loved ones. Where the offender is hurt you believe the victim (who defended herself or her child) should be charged with some offence, and murder or manslaughter if the offender dies through the defensive act of the victim. As well, you could include injury to the offender through his victim not providing a safe workplace for him to commit his crime.

What limits do you imagine you can impose on the home invader you find in your bedroom? If the homeowner cannot defend herself through fear of herself or her pooch hurting the criminal, how then is she to convince the criminal that he should impose limits on his behaviour too?

What a frightening world you want for law-abiding citizens that you make criminals a protected species and a mother cannot defend herself and her children in her own home for fear of being charged and gaoled. Of course as a result of law changes over years to protect criminals, police already do charge citizens for defending themselves. Australia slavishly followed the UK in that and here is an example from there,

<A UK TV star warned over waving a knife at teenagers says she acted in self defence.

Myleene Klass, a TV presenter and model, was warned by police after she waved a knife at teenagers who were intruding in her garden in Hertfordshire after midnight local time on Friday, Sky News reported.

She was in her kitchen upstairs with her daughter when she spotted people peering into her window, before grabbing the knife and banging on the windows, scaring the trespassers away.

Hertfordshire Police officers warned Klass she should not have used a knife to scare off the teens because carrying an "offensive weapon" - even in her own home - was illegal.
..
(Klass said,)"I totally respect British law - but surely everyone has the right to self-defence in their own home if they are in danger?">

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/tv-star-myleene-klass-waved-knife-in-self-defence/story-e6frfkui-1225817854594

Suseonline

What I said was "private space with a deliberate criminal activity".
Please read before you speak.
Yes I would shoot you if you tried to harm me or mine either property or person. I have and walked away from both as a copper and a private citizen. I have a permit co carry a concealed weapon and I do so every time I step out of the house. It is a 9mm Glock and I intend to up-size to a 50 cal very soon.

I don't vote for the ALP Individual, so I don't know why you are trying to convince me about all the 'freedoms' you don't have.
Live by the sword, die by the sword...

Chris, I would agree with your right to carry a weapon as a copper, but not as a private citizen.
Doesn't the glock blow a large enough hole in your target then?

You wouldn't want to be someone who wandered into your backyard by mistake now would you?
Shoot first and ask questions later, yes?

You like to be in control yes?
Judge, jury and executioner...

Suseonline,
You're a moron & do not qualify to receive any more replies to your idiotic posts. Period!

Yes that's right Individual, you take up your dummie and run along then : )

Dear Suse,

I can understand your concern about guns.
For you to be pro guns, would be like
expecting Jesus to be pro nails.
(my apologies for this lame example -
it's the best I can do on short notice
to get the message across).

Why does a country like the United States
permit such a widespread access to handguns?
One reason is the persistent belief that, since
criminals have guns, law-abiding people need them
for self-protection. Actually, gun-owning households
are much more likely to suffer fatalities from their
own weapons than from those of outsiders.

One study found that only 2 per cent of all slayings
in gun-owning households were for self-protection;
the remainder were suicides, homicides, or
accidental deaths, almost all involving family members,
friends or acquaintances. A second reason for the
proliferation of handguns in the US is of course the
belief, deeply held by many Americans, that gun
ownership is an individual right.

For granting this liberty to the individual, American
society pays the price in the deviance of those who
abuse it. Guns will always be an emotive issue - and
politicians are not keen to impose restrictions.
Excellent as it was -
even John Howard implemented the "buy-back guns" initative
only after the Port Arthur massacre.

Suseonline (and your echo, Lexi)

BTT

Obviously you are determined to keep ducking the fundamental questions arising from the OP.

Forgetting guns so as to not provoke your hoplophobia, it is apparent you would impose limits on the law-abiding citizen's right to defend herself and loved ones. Where the offender is hurt you believe the victim (who defended herself or her child) should be charged with some offence, and murder or manslaughter if the offender dies through the defensive act of the victim. As well, you could include injury to the offender through his victim not providing a safe workplace for him to commit his crime.

What limits do you imagine you can impose on the home invader you find in your bedroom? If the homeowner cannot defend herself through fear of herself or her pooch hurting the criminal, how then is she to convince the criminal that he should impose limits on his behaviour too?

Suseonline
How the hell do you wander into someones backyard by mistake?
Do you really believe Martin Bryant wasn't a patsy?
Sure he was there but so were other people.
I've used a AR15 and I can assure you their accuracy rating over a distance outside 30 metres is woeful and he is credited with 28 (I think) kill shots out of 31 rounds and over some incredible distances. No one ever tested the cartridge cases to see if they all came from the same weapon. The man was a nutter true so he made the perfect patsy.
In all my years as a copper I never came across one case of murder where there wasn't a motive.
Martin Bryant had no motive.
No I don't think that type of weapon should be available to the general public.
John Howard had a different agenda when he took the guns out of society and it wasn't protecting the citizens. It was to protect the government.
Are you people so naive as to honestly believe that the government doesn't have "black ops" type people on the payroll. These are the 'make it happen' people.

Onthebeach , I don't mind having Lexi as a online friend. At least she doesn't try to put words in my mouth like you do.
"...it is apparent you would impose limits on the law-abiding citizen's right to defend herself and loved ones. Where the offender is hurt you believe the victim (who defended herself or her child) should be charged with some offence, and murder or manslaughter if the offender dies through the defensive act of the victim..."

Where on earth have I ever said anything like that?
I don't believe a woman defending her child from an intruder would be found guilty of a crime, unless she dragged out a bazooka and blasted the intruder and half the house next door into oblivion!

I believe the wording is 'reasonable force'?
I'm sure our friendly local policeman can tell us, hey ChrisGaffs ?

If we look at a country like the US for example, where there are guns owned by many private citizens, do you think there is less violence and assaults and murders in that country per capita because there are more guns?

No, there is MORE violence,and I don't want to see that happen here.
I think the current gun ownership laws should be tightened even further in Australia.

If any people want to go out and play shoot-ups like the old movies of cowboys and Indians, take up playing violent war video games, or move to the US...

If any people want to go out and play shoot-ups like the old movies of cowboys and Indians, take up playing violent war video games, or move to the US...

This ignorant comment by the previous poster is just so typical of the silliness that's out there.
The last part of that post should state take up the fight against the new invaders once there have been enough boats.

Suseonline,

I said before, kindly disregard the tool used for defence, which could be anything. The issue at stake here is whether a law-abiding citizen is penalised by the State for defending herself in her own home.

Yes, you do imply you support restrictions and you now mention 'reasonable force', while assuring yourself that a woman is unlikely to be charged anyhow. You are thinking of the favoured position of women in society no doubt. You do believe in protections for the offender.

You may not have seen some of my posts. This one for example,
Wednesday, 17 July 2013 7:08:48 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5915&page=7

The first problem with the law of States outside of NSW is that anyone who defends herself or her loved ones in her own property from a home invader is that if the criminal is harmed, charges will be coprogressed against her and she be required to prove that she had reasonable grounds for believing that she and her loved ones were in imminent danger that couldn't be avoided somehow, some way, and she will also be required to prove the force she applied was reasonable.

All I am arguing is that the onus to prove either of those should be on the police and prosecution. It should be the police who have to prove that the woman who defended herself was not in fear of harm. What do you say to that? Because you once had that right but over time the State has withdrawn that right from you. Now the onus of proof has been reversed and it is you the victim who must defend yourself against the police as well. You are a victim twice over. This has parallels with previous rape law, where the onus of proof was on the victim to prove she was not at fault herself.

Suseonline,
Reasonable Force has a vastly different definition for police forces as it does for the public and its use is sanctioned by the "force" of the day.
The old adage was "don't leave the subject in a state where they can give evidence against you" remember Suseonline "When there are two or more police gathered together there IS TRUTH" and the truth will set you free.

Commissioners of police are appointed by governments and generally speaking reflect their views.

I don't know that police agreed with the policies of the previous Victorian Commissioner of Police, Christine Nixon, for example, but they were obliged to follow her direction.

There is a lot to be said for the NSW laws regarding home invasion.

onthebeach

Christine Nixon was "tarnished goods" right from the day she got the job. Anybody who worked under or with he in Woolongong NSW where she was a acting sub Inspector was glad to see the end of her. She should have been locked up for her failings in Victoria and whoever appointed he as well.

chrisgaff1000,

Big Blue was a disaster. Just as Big Red in Canberra was one too. They both have the same excuses and nothing to do with them of course.

Onthebeach, why do you keep going on about a woman protecting her child from invaders? Shouldn't it be one rule for all?
Or are you just trying to get me to agree with your stance of 'shoot first and ask questions later' with regards to criminals who break into homes, by putting a woman as your victim? Surely not?

Are you advocating that the penalty for attempting to or actually breaking into someone else's home should be death by shotgun?
What if it was a child breaking into your home? Death by shotgun as well?

Why don't you ask yourself why those sorts of laws were put in place in the first instance? And don't go on about so-called 'do-gooders', because no one has ever actually put any names to these fictitious people...

I do believe that if someone is threatening your life then you should be able to defend yourself with equal force if possible, but we can't have people taking the law into their own hands just because they have a big shiny gun.

In any case, I think this thread has run its course for me.
We are never going to agree on this (and most other) subjects Onthebeach.

Suseonline, "why choose the woman?"

Wouldn't matter either way, however it was a woman Myleene Klassin the Press report that I gave as an example.
See my post onthebeach, Sunday, 21 July 2013 1:19:30 PM

However, women are more likely to be carers and regretably, probably more likely to be targets where alone, or with dependents (as applied to Myleene Klassin).

Suseonline, "Or are you just trying to get me to agree with your stance of 'shoot first and ask questions later'"

No. Can you show me where I have suggested any of that? You are again misrepresenting what I am saying and the reasons I have given.

Suseonline, "I do believe that if someone is threatening your life then you should be able to defend yourself with equal force if possible"

You miss my point.

What I am saying is that it is manifestly unfair in a case of self defence, for example where a person is the victim of a home invasion, to reverse the standard of proof (as discussed in my previous posts). The onus should not be on the victim to defend her/his defence of self or loved ones.

All Australians should have a right of defence as in NSW, where a person has the right of self-defence or defence of others if they felt threatened or had a reasonable apprehension of fear of a threat, not just in the home but anywhere at all.

NSW also has the safeguard built in in that a defence must be broken off where the assailant gives up his attack, or runs off.

Where do you have a problem with that?

Sorry to post twice in a row, however I chanced upon this simple description of the self defence law in NSW,

http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/web/page/criminal_defences-self_defense

It is a pity that all Australians do not appear to have a similar right to defence.

This relates to the Original Poster's question,

"When helping a victim or defending what's yours becomes an offence then there are no winners, only losers"

In NSW, people have recently been given the right by amendment to the Crimes Act. Well done, NSW!

The UK is pursuing a similar law change.