Why do people get so worked up about capital punishment? It makes no sense to give it such a priority on questions of justice. Out of a prison population of 2.3 million in the United States, there were 39 executions last year. While I am opposed to capital punishment on both moral and economic grounds, the 99.9% of inmates not on death row surely warrant more thought?

One thought is that violent criminals are more dangerous by consequence of their size. Allowing prisoners to bulk up in prison makes life more dangerous for prison workers and other inmates whilst in prison, and for the police and general public when they are released. Witness the shocking brutality of a bashing at a Sydney train station recently. Had the prisoner instead been placed on a calorie restricted diet when incarcerated such thuggery would not have been possible.

Physical brutality is the modus operandi of violent offenders. Allowing them to become or remain bulked up in prison simply enhances their thuggery. Calorie restriction, at least for violent offenders, represents a simple measure with the potential for substantial benefit.

I am against capital punishment too Fester, but I would hate to be working in a prison where the inmates are hungry all the time!

Essentially starving the inmates is a form of torture, and that would make the state (and us) no better than some of the inmates themselves...

I would like to see gyms removed from prisons, and allow the inmates only traditional walking or running as exercise. They aren't there to build muscles.

Hi Susie,

I am not advocating starvation, merely a restriction of food intake to prevent violent offenders from bulking up. Violent offenders are incarcerated for their thuggery and it seems silly that the state should help them preserve their capacity for it. I'd feel safer with a chihuahua than a pit bull. Wouldn't you?

Well, I think restricting calories for already thin violent criminals wouldn't be too good Fester, and imagine how many dining rooms they would have to have if they also had to cater for differing calorie intakes for different inmates?

No, I could probably go with restricting high protein foods for the higher security areas, but other than that I would imagine restricting gym equipment would work better.

By the way, having worked in the homes of many community patients, the only dog that ever did actually bite me was a chihuahua! : )

When I was small I was told: "If you don't eat your soup, I'll call the police, then a policeman will come and take you to jail".

I had to drive past a jail today. It's a distressing experience to think of all those locked inside and imagine that had I not been this lucky, it could have been me instead. All it could take, for example, is for the government to legislate that one must eat their soup and me being caught flushing my soup in the toilet. Or it could be that I would be distracted out of distress thinking of the people inside, thus causing a fatal accident which would find me in their place.

Yes, historical prison conditions used to be harsher and it's shuddering to conceive of the conditions which convicts sent to Australia had to endure, often for stealing a loaf of bread. Today however, Australia is one of the few countries where a prisoner is not allowed to have a birthday-cake made by his/her visiting mother (notwithstanding that this punishes their mother even more than the prisoner him/herself).

Don't you realise that hardening of prison conditions will exacerbate the nightmares of innocent people?
Don't you realise that the fear it creates would drown the voice of conscience when it comes to civil disobedience?
Don't you realise that some of those in jail ARE innocent people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

How can the members of this forum be so ruthless?
Don't you realise that it could happen to yourself?
I don't wish this even for my worst enemies.
I cry and pray to God that this never happens to any of us.

And BTW, if it happened to me, I'd rather have the capital punishment than the horrors of life in prison.

The logistics would not be so hard. For one thing separation of prisoners already happens. And prisons must cater for the dietary requirements of prisoners as it is, so controlling the nutritional intake is hardly complex in comparison.

< I think restricting calories for already thin violent criminals wouldn't be too good Fester>

The measure is about de-bulking violent offenders, not emaciating already thin ones. How many thugs would enjoy prison if it were no longer a place they could bulk up in?

< the only dog that ever did actually bite me was a chihuahua! : )>

Yes, they are aggressive little buggers. I have been bitten by one too, at least a part chihuahua. I'm glad they aren't bigger.

Hi Yuyutsu,

So calorie restriction on the inside is a serious human rights violation, whilst on the outside it is called Jenny Craig. You do realise that a healthy weight improves your health and quality of life, dont you? How is enforcing this a human rights violation? Perhaps because you might deny someone the cherished right of dying young from heart disease or bowel cancer? But I think you take my idea out of context. I am not advocating starving people of healthy weight. I am advocating the de-bulking of violent offenders with the aim of reducing their capacity for violence and minimising the danger to those they share the world with.

Yea, 3 slices of bread, & a liter of water a day is too much for this scum.

Dear Fester,

<<So calorie restriction on the inside is a serious human rights violation>>

I do not believe in human rights - I believe in freedom.

I understand that sometimes freedom must be restricted in self-defence, but it must not be restricted beyond what's required for self-defence.

For example, forbidding a prisoner to have their Mom's birthday cake cannot be justified on the grounds of self-defence. Instead, it seems to be an act of retribution, which I consider unacceptable.

Freedom includes the freedom to do stupid things, so long as others are not hurt: this would include the freedom to die young from heart disease or bowel cancer. Without the freedom to do evil we have no freedom to do good and without the freedom to act stupidly we have no freedom to act wisely.

<<I am advocating the de-bulking of violent offenders with the aim of reducing their capacity for violence and minimising the danger to those they share the world with.>>

The question is whether this specific measure is indeed necessary in self-defence (and if so, why it hasn't been used before).

A person locked behind bars can hardly harm others, can they?
The current practice is to place violent prisoners in solitary confinement, in order to protect the other prisoners.

I have no objection to the idea of making a contract with a prisoner in solitary confinement with a violent history to the effect of "if you follow this diet and lose weight then you can stay with the other prisoners", so long as it is consensual: otherwise they can remain in solitary confinement, harming nobody. I also have no objection if this diet is offered as part of a consensual parole-program.

Another option (and a cost-saving measure) is to offer violent prisoners who would otherwise be in solitary confinement, to be moved to a special "violent ward" among other prisoners like themselves. So long as they agree, if they are injured by each other in that ward, then they've got only themselves to blame, while at the same time other, non-violent prisoners, are safe.

Get rid of prison gyms for a start, also computers & restrict TV. We just got one of our top break-in merchants back & his skills are now more honed than before he went to jail. Thank you Labor supporting magistrates !

In my perfect world we would bring back capital punishment for violent predatory rapists and pedophiles as well as some of the more evil murderous offenders. There are some very bad people who cannot be rehabilitated and they don't deserve to live. They loose their right to life once they commit a horrendous crime.

And in my perfect world those in prison would have the security of their own individual cell that also includes a little device on the wall similar to a fire alarm that requires breaking the glass, but instead of setting off the bells, a straw with cyanide would be exposed for those wishing an early exit.

No violent or cleaver robbery videos to watch, nothing even remotely pornographic or sexually stimulating and no daytime TV... just feel good innocent movies in my prison. If the thought of such harsh punishment deters even one bad guy then we have an improvement. Dead bad guys don't re-offend.

Why not just maim them. Break their legs or cut off an arm. Blind them or drug them. Give them lobotomies and electric shock therapy.
That will stop them better than starving them would.
But what does that make us?
Evil scum no better than the nazis I say!

mikk,
the new nazis are in the judiciary, the ones who treat the criminals with more passion than the victims.

If governments had much longer terms and could plan long term and carry their plans to fruition and be held (properly) accountable, it is more likely that gaols would be (largely) self-supporting communities. Prisons should be farms with light industry as well.

I am not going to waste a long explanation on this, because I reckon the reasons are self-evident.

Of course there will always be some criminals who must be held separately and constantly guarded.

Yes, I would like some shot for their awful crimes. However that is an emotional reaction and the head says otherwise, particularly because the grubs should be locked away forever as examples to others and never 'heroes' to their followers or getting the easy way out. Bryant for example should be forgotten by the feckless media who continually give him columns to gloat over and the publicity to encourage others.

Yuyutsu, you speak about ones freedom to abuse their bodies and die young. No problem there, until they turn up at the emergency department and EXPECT free medical assistance and often VERY COSTLY TREATMENT for their self induced problem. That's where the problem lies, not with their choice to abuse their bodies.

Perhaps the $7 fee will discourage some of this.

As for reducing ones calorie intake in prison, nobody is talking about staging them, just denying them the excess protein they require to bulk up. Of cause, as usual, if they don't like it, don't allow yourself to be there. Works for me!

...dead bad guys don't reoffend. Too right sbr108

Nice rant there Mikk, except only the likes of you are talking bout starvation.

My take on prison is that it should be for hardened crimes only and, it should be a hole in the ground. The worse the crime, the deeper the hole and the likes of TV and gym equipment should be supplied as pictures on the wall to remind them every day what they have given up by their actions.

You know the system is broken when people reoffend just so they can go back in.

Yet another area that's been ruined by the do-gooders of society.

I guess we differ a bit about how people who violate the rights and freedoms of others should be treated, Yuyutsu. I think that such people should have their rights and freedoms restricted beyond simply being unable to walk out of prison. And as you observe, prisoners who continue to violate the rights and freedoms of others deserve further restriction.

I think it costs at least $100,000 per year to jail an offender (I know of one facility housing ten inmates that cost $90 million), so I am all for reducing the cost of the community. I'd also want the business kept in Australia, so I guess that rules out offshore prisons. I proffered the suggestion of de-bulking violent offenders as a measure with no harm to the offender other than to their self image, and the potential benefit of a reduced capacity for harm. If the lack of the option to bulk up in prison and the prospect of being de-bulked dissuades violent offenders from re-offending then all the better.

Fester, the main problem with your suggestion is that it "assumes" size and bulk are the primary cause/tools of violence. If a violent man (and 99% of seriously violent people are "men") can't use his bulk he'll simply use a knife, a gun, any weapon at all and also can simply hire goons to do the dirty work.

In other words, taking away the muscles from a prisoner will NOT take away the violence from that prisoner when he is released.

Hi Nhoj,

Yes, I agree that the correlation of size and violence is unknown, but I am considering the assumption that a de-bulked offender has less capacity to threaten and harm even if their inclination remains unchanged. It would be interesting to hear a perspective from a prison worker.

Dear Rehctub,

<<until they turn up at the emergency department and EXPECT free medical assistance and often VERY COSTLY TREATMENT for their self induced problem.>>

I fully agree: people who want medical services should be expected to pay their own medical costs just like any other service (and/or have it paid by some medical insurance they took in advance). Those who cannot afford to pay but still want the service, should be able to enter a contract with government whereby in return for free medicare they commit to follow certain healthy guidelines.

<<Of cause, as usual, if they don't like it, don't allow yourself to be there. Works for me!>>

Be careful, one never knows what misfortune awaits and who will be next to fall in there - it could be you, or it could a member of your beloved family.

<<dead bad guys don't reoffend.>>

Nor those who never offended in the first place. Some people find themselves in jail just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or for following their conscience instead of immoral legislation.

Dear Fester,

The concept of "punishment" depends on the concept of "crime". A "criminal" is someone who betrayed their contract with society by breaking a code of behaviour which they previously agreed to follow.

As currently the state is an involuntary institution, where "social contracts" exist only in some academics' imagination, there are almost no criminals (but note the exception in my reply to Rehctub above, where an actual contract is made; other possible exceptions could be contracts made upon entering the public-service or upon receiving welfare handouts), hence no grounds to punish.

Despite the absence of a voluntary contract, society is right to protect itself by stopping anyone who harms or places others at risk, even if they aren't a criminal. However, any action beyond what is needed to stop them, is unduly violent, hence immoral.

A cheaper and fairer way is to provide the option of exile, sending dangerous offenders to some 3rd-world country, paying its government to receive them and stripping them of their Australian citizenship.

They are criminals, stop treating them better than their victims !

Dear Individual,

<<They are criminals, stop treating them better than their victims !>>

All of us who have not consented to become subject to the state's jurisdiction, yet have its laws imposed on us regardless, are its victims.

You call yourself 'individual', but instead behave as one of a herd.

Yuyutsu,
You have obviously not been at the receiving end of criminals. I have & I have no more compassion for these low life. So quit carrying on like an off pork chop about me being one of the herd. I am one of the herd of victims which the likes of you have apparently no regard for. I just hope you cop some reality one day then talk to me again about how to treat crims.
Until then refrain from such nonsense lecturing.
You'd score much more credibility if spoke up for the victims instead of the low life. Not only do we get robbed & hurt but we also contribute to their defence against us with our tax dollars. On top of that they also have better facilities courtesy of our tax dollars than decent citizens victims can afford.

<A cheaper and fairer way is to provide the option of exile, sending dangerous offenders to some 3rd-world country, paying its government to receive them and stripping them of their Australian citizenship.>

By this reasoning you might exile a convicted paedophile to work as a bus driver in Pakistan. That would neither be fair, sensible, nor moral. How would you feel about an influx of criminals from another country because our pollies couldn't resist the financial incentive? Would you envision Australia offering other countries cheap convict labour? The World today is awash with virtual slaves already, so what nation would want them?

De-bulking violent offenders is very simple and innocuous in comparison.

Dear Individual,

<<You have obviously not been at the receiving end of criminals.>>

But I was doing time at the receiving end of incarceration without crime, so I was at the receiving end of a crime of state. I wasn't even convicted of anything: my only 'crime' was to be born and reach the age of 18 in relative health.

Prison and conscription are very similar experiences. Give or take, one is harsher in some ways, the other in other ways, but overall they are about equivalent.

<<I have & I have no more compassion for these low life>>

But I do, because I was treated like low-life.

Though I was helplessly exposed to all manner of low life in there, which I would never otherwise meet in my normal civilian life, I do not wish this trauma on anyone. Let the past be the past and as Jesus prayed: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they're doing".

<<You'd score much more credibility if spoke up for the victims instead of the low life.>>

No victim is restored by having their assailant suffer too. On the contrary - it makes the victims responsible for further suffering. Sometimes incarceration is unavoidable for fear of repeat-offence, but otherwise the resources wasted on revenge should better be utilised to help the victims directly.

What possibly could help a victim more than lifting vengeance from their hearts?!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/25/interview-samereh-alinejad-iranian-mother-spared-sons-killer

Dear Fester,

My idea of exile does not involve slavery, but giving someone a second chance to begin again in another country. In poor countries, the economic incentive, which could for example mean a whole town getting clean water or a new hospital built, can outweigh the danger of having a former criminal living among them. Obviously that foreign government would know exactly what the person did and are always free to take it or leave it. It's cheap for them to keep the person under surveillance and if they re-offend, the punishment is likely to involve a painful-death. I should mention that the prisoner must also consent: otherwise they remain in Australian jail.

Yuyutsu,
that's no valid explanation why you have compassion for low life if you haven't been hit by them & lost a lot of equipment.
In my case it literally has ruined my life & as far as I am concerned any criminal should have to pay back for the damage caused & also be punished for causing so much harm.
If you believe this shouldn't be expected then you're worse than the low life.

....Nor those who never offended in the first place. Some people find themselves in jail just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or for following their conscience instead of immoral legislation.

Yes Yuyutsu, and that's why I believe jail should be reserved for hardened crimes only.

....<A cheaper and fairer way is to provide the option of exile, sending dangerous offenders to some 3rd-world country, paying its government to receive them and stripping them of their Australian citizenship.>

Yuyutsu This has merit, and perhaps could be funded through foreign aid. Of cause we would help build the prisons to house these crims.

It would save us a fortune due to IR laws for a start and, it would boost the economies of these countries., not to mention act as a serious deterrent towards crime. A win win perhaps.

I knew a man who in the 1970's had worked in jail admin for 30 years. I asked what was the biggest change in prisons that he had seen. He said diet. Previously they were given just enough to eat and not get fat. In the event of any trouble it was so much easier to starve them out of it.
We should not have any gyms and the process should be on knocking these people out of swaggering around thinking how tough they are. Start with uniform and then if they still want to be tough shackle them and attach a permanent taser so if they want to play. ZAP! Hard to strut around with a tazer on your testicles.

Criminals can't be rehabilitated neither through kindness nor common sense. The only language they understand is punishment. They need to be made to work to compensate their victims as much as possible finacially because psychologically the criminals inflicted permanent damage which can never be rectified.
Those who don't agree with the criminals having to compensate their victioms can do it for them. let me know when you're ready & I'll send you my bill.

< It's cheap for them to keep the person under surveillance and if they re-offend, the punishment is likely to involve a painful-death.>

You would be insane to choose exile under such conditions, and insane people cannot give legal consent. So it is catch 22 I'm afraid.

Thanks JBowyer for providing that story. The prison system would undoubtedly be cheaper, safer and more effective were such people listened to.

Dear Fester,

<<You would be insane to choose exile under such conditions, and insane people cannot give legal consent. So it is catch 22 I'm afraid.>>

Sane/rational people can choose to not re-offend!

Dear Individual,

If what you mean by "pay back for the damage" is financial compensation to their victims, then I agree without reservations.

If their assets come short, then the state should top the rest for failing in its duty to protect the victims (what else are states for, anyway?). The compensation funds could come from the reduced prison budget.

I do not agree however that someone else's suffering is in any way paying back or provide any true solace to their victims: they may experience a momentary flare of unhealthy joy, but ultimately it will weigh on their conscience.

Dear Rehctub,

<<Of cause we would help build the prisons to house these crims.>>

Sorry, while I agree with everything else you wrote, this may be your idea but mine did not include them being incarcerated in their new country (unless of course they re-offend there, in which case they would be subject to a different-altogether set of laws). Rather, to give them a last chance to start again while, knowing they cannot ever return, their victims' sleep is not disturbed.

Yuyutsu,
Anyone who deliberately & knowingly takes or destroys anothers property must be put to the task of compensation & yes if their funds are insufficient the State should pay up or at the least give an equivalent value tax break. It's simply not good enough for some limp-wristed Magistrates to just wave away the victim's right to protect himself & deny him compensation as well. That's what's happening now & it must change. We could stop waffling on about Abbott lying etc. when we should instead bombard him with this proposal. We need legislation & we need it soon. It shouldn't be too hard to get past Silly Billy.
I say let's push the idea.

Yuyutsu,
You fail to understand the true import of the criminal justice system as we have today in the western democracies.
Perhaps a clue would be the number of unions that are involved in the criminal justice system.
First thing of the economic and physical chaos that would result from the complete removal of crime and criminals from our system.
Right from the base juvenile levels through to the adult platforms of crime and criminal process there are hundreds of thousands of jobs involved that would be lost and the resulting unemployment would bring down our society.
There are whole cities that depend on crime through the physical location of prison systems and police training facilities.
There court systems and legal networks, university research programs and rehabilitation structures, education and training programs, social workers, support workers, probation and parole services, police, insurance investigators and a whole raft of akin workers that would all be out of a job if crime closed down.
Then on the other side of the coin is the fact that the human race is capable of producing so very aggressive, violent and dangerous individuals that will engage in abstract behavior regardless of the consequences.
You can kill them, starve them or reduce their protein intake but you will not stop them.
The criminal justice system is a true perpetual motion that keeps on replicating itself and in doing so provides a form of economic, social and community self sustenance.

'evening all...

An interesting concept imposing a strict diet on everybody in gaol. However, apart from the normal catering personnel in gaols who take regular dietary advice from the medical staff, I think it would be quite difficult to impose a particular dietary regimen on those who would and could resist it.

It's my understanding prisoners are permitted to partake in weekly 'buy ups' from the gaol canteens which involves purchase of items like tobacco, toiletry products as well as all manner of confectionary and soft drinks eg coca cola and similar. Furthermore, these buy ups involve quantities that would easily sustain an inmate with sufficient calories to subsist entirely without partaking in any of the normal gaol food, thus negating any attempts to closely regulate their diets.

Concerning the provision of fitness apparatus in gaols ? It's held by prison medical staff that it's far better and safer for everyone concerned, when inmates can 'burn up' their aggression, by using the weights and associated equipment, rather than going around the gaol acting aggressively and looking for trouble.

In fact back in the seventies and eighties at Parramatta Gaol (a maximum security gaol designed to house 'heavy' criminals), regular boxing was allowed every weekend. Consequently, outside fighters were allowed access to the institution for the purpose of training and later fighting inmates under proper ring rules and conditions ? One such notable, was Tony Mundine, father of Anthony Mundine, a current title holder.

This practice would never have got off the ground, without the strong support and backing of medical staff, of the benefits of fitness for men locked up for protracted periods of time. Without such measures, there'd be more serious assaults, homosexual rapes, murder and stabbings, due to the enervated tension and listlessness of caged men without any ability to 'let off steam' !

Accordingly, I offer this purely as my opinion only.

'burn up' their aggression
o sung wu,
How about burning up aggression via physical labour such as making cement blocks for breakwater or culverts or other physically demanding activities. From the sales of these things victims can be compensated.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

A very good point - the old penal servitude aka 'genuine hard labour' ! Sounds good my friend, but do you have any idea how many 'rights' these crims have in gaol these days ? With the 'Prisoner's Action' group and other 'do gooder's constantly monitoring what happens in 'boob', you'd be absolutely amazed ?

It's all they can do, just to keep 'em locked-up, without making; 'little ones out of big ones' (breaking rocks). The public perception of what gaol entails, is quite erroneous. The best the community can hope for is to keep most of these buggers locked up safely, is all.

Meaningless platitudes like; reformation or rehabilitation, the concept of punishment, 'corrective behaviour modification' et al, are mere words emanating from some minor academic whilst languishing at his little desk in some dusty office, is an underfunded, long forgotten university somewhere ? Mate it's all just bulldust and nothing more !

I tried without success to get comparative crime statistics between Western countries, China and Saudi Arabia. I am curious to know how many people in Saudi commit theft, given the consequences. And the death penalty in China is usually carried out within days of sentencing... does that serve as a better deterrent than our system of endless appeals. I have a gut feeling western repeat offenders know they are more likely to get a slap on the wrist than to serve serious time. No deterrent at all.

We're going the New Guinea way here by locking ourselves behind barb wire whilst the rascals run riot. All because of the Big Goaf do-gooder brigade. Now we're stuck with masses of little goafs.

Dietary restriction is the single simplest and among the most certain method of extending life and reducing chronic diseases for "western-style" earthlings. It is not a punishment but an ideal to strive for. Prison might excise a segment of a criminal's life and dietary restriction extend it, releasing the criminal an "older and wiser man" who might yet serve our civilisation just as long.
Others here desire the premature death of inmates, the original post expressing concern that they leave in a muscular state, these might be blunted not by dietary restriction but by dietary indulgence. Let commercial fast-food and snack-food companies (and by all means their moral equivalents the tobacco firms) provide their needs in abundance and it is almost certain they will die young, fat, wheezy, and incapable of chasing a victim.
Remember that heavy exercise releases endorphins, widely regarded as pleasant......
Rusty

Oh, yes, daytime television seems like a punishment in and of itself. I would however restrict access to Fox commentary and news and to televangelists, as I suspect both are predictive of future criminality.

Rusty

o sung wu,
You forget, my friend, that Parramatta Gaol was run by the crims as a matter of expediency.
When I had Granville Patrol, coppers and crims dropped whatever they wanted taken into "Parra" at the Woolpack Hotel for the guards to collect and take in.
The gaol 'bookies' sent their excess cash out the same way.
The system worked well and there were much less riot and mass bad behavior that any other prison in the country.
The only bar to prison hard labor or productive work is the unions who say yes the prisoners can work but you have to pay them the award wage because it is work that a unionist could be doing.
A 10 million dollar laundry at Parramatta Gaol sits idle today because of the unions.

Hi there CHRISGAFF1000...

Yes the old Parramatta Linen Service, staffed by crims and run by crims. The 'Woolpack', Parramatta's unofficial Tab of the sixties and seventies ! Parramatta was a quiet gaol despite being a gaol for heavies ? I'm unaware of all the intrigue that occurred in and about the place but nothing would surprise me. I'd heard that some of the staff were 'running hot' but rumours abound in and around gaols ?

You'd perhaps recall the unfortunate murder of Dr Mutton, the long time gaol Doctor, killed in his private surgery in the mid 1970's, located in the Parramatta CBD somewhere. He was murdered by a former gaol 'resident' who had some beef with him, when he was treated by the good Doctor whilst in gaol ?

I was privileged to know his son, who became a Clinical Psychologists. Despite the facts surrounding his father's murder, he maintained one of the most healthy perspectives, and attitudes, I've ever known, apropos a victim's close relative ?

Granville Patrol, were you there for the Rail Disaster in the seventies ?

Perhaps the title of this thread is wrong, perhaps it should be called Forget the prisoners & concentrate on the victims.
Why is there so much about the culprits & nothing about their victims ? Is this an indication of our society now ? I certainly looks that way. Prisons have become facilities with mor comfort than the average home. We just had another delinquent in front of the Magistrate for the umteenth time for breaking ing & assault. Why is that peice of crap not put away for more than three years instead of eight months, which is a mere holiday with a free honing of his abominable skills thrown in at taxpayers' expense. In Indonesia where they have Law & Order this vermin would be in the klink for several years. I'm surprised that the vermin aren't yet on the Australia Day Honours list. Law & Order in Australia is an extremely sad joke indeed. Wake Autralians & others who live here because if you don't stand up you'll lose it all.
The Left has done enough damage for us to never again fully recover, don't give them any more slack because if you do it'll be to your own detriment.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

The overwhelming presence of 'Jelly Judges' and pathetically weak Magistrates, unfortunately pervade throughout the judiciary, are merely a sign of the times, simply a corollary of the Labour left !

Further, it's apparent that both sides of politics will do anything to reduce the gaol population purely on fiscal grounds. I've heard staggering amounts of money alluded to, just to keep a person in prison, per diem.

So it would seem my friend that economics does play a significant part in the Judiciary's decision making process, as to whether a custodial sentence is conferred ? Notwithstanding the awful physical or emotional impact the crime may've had on the hapless victim !

When I recall the hundreds of hours detectives have sustained, in order to submit a thoroughly good brief, simply to see the smirking crook walk from court with a wholly suspended sentence, or some 'pitiable' community service order (which is a standing joke), would make you cry.

Actually INDIVIDUAL, to be perfectly truthful with you, I've now lost confidence in the current crop of those presiding in the NSW Magistracy ? I've virtually given up on ever seeing a positive change for the better, in my lifetime ?

individual, "Perhaps the title of this thread is wrong, perhaps it should be called Forget the prisoners & concentrate on the victims.
Why is there so much about the culprits & nothing about their victims?"

You are right to say that. When it all comes down to the wire, the public would like to see some evidence that their rights are being upheld and criminals are being made to feel sorry for what they have done.

The rights of criminals have been paramount in the decisions of governments and the academics and bureaucrats who advise them.

Burglary and home invasions are now common and few cases are cleared by police. However in Queensland and every jurisdiction in Australia except for NSW, respectable, law-abiding citizens who are caused to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own home are re-victimised by the State through the reversed standard of proof that applies to those cases. I am not asking for a citizen to be able to use a firearm, simply that the grossly unfair reversed standard of proof be removed.