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.