Dear Is Mise,

Most laws have an upside and a downside. If we maintain double jeopardy it may be impossible to prosecute if there is new evidence of guilt. If we don't maintain double jeopardy a person may be harassed by arbitrary decisions of the government to retry. With or without double jeopardy there will be injustice. I believe the injustice will be less with the double jeopardy provision than without.

The case you cited of a woman on a property is an injustice due to the Australian gun laws. However, if one compares the rate of death by firearms with that of the rate in the US which does not have gun control laws similar to that in Australia, the US is far worse. In my opinion Australia is better off than the US in that respect, the upside is greater than the downside in respect to the Australian gun laws, and Howard did a good thing for Australia.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2193&issue_id=92010 is an article from the police chief's magazine in the US.

from the site: Elected officials must commit to closing gaps in the current regulatory system, including those that enable felons, minors, persons with mental illness, and other prohibited persons to access firearms, and those that allow the trafficking of illegal guns.

The US police chiefs want more gun control.

Hi there JAY of MELBOURNE...

I guess you're right on that score. I wonder why they decided to close down many of the Psychiatric Wards ? I suppose it was all on the account of money, like most things are ? I remember going to the old 'Admission Centre' both at Callen Park, and later, Gladesville.

I remember this one guy really 'stacked it on' as we arrested him, and later when he saw we were taking him to Gladesville, he settled right down, and on arrival he treated it as 'old home week' he was so pleased that he was being 'scheduled' ! A great result all round, I thought !

I felt quite sorry for some of the old 'Chats' we used to take there, but generally on arrival they were so pleased to be 'home', home in their mind at least ? I think it was because the staff really looked after them, where out at the Bay, they were generally 'stood over' most of the time and lost all their 'weed' which to them was real currency, the poor old buggers ? I always believed by taking these old blokes to the Admission Centre, they got treated so very well by all the staff there. Bathed, Bedded, Fed, and best of all, cared for, the old buggers loved it ? Now where can they be taken that's safe ?

In some ways society is 'rock hard' in it's attitude with some of it's senior citizens ? It would appear at first glance, to be a serious 'crime' - firstly to be old, an alcoholic, a petty criminal, and a vagrant, completely 'cash strapped', often violent, and have severe 'body odour' issues ?

Not big noting myself, most of these old chats slept in parks, consequently were regularly 'bashed' by the younger park 'maggots', who slept there as well. I'd make it my business to 'standover' these slugs, as there's no honour beating the 'tripe' outa some poor old vagrant, in his late sixties or seventies ! Those 'dogs' pressed my buttons big time.

Dear davidf,

You wrote;

“Calling each other monsters, cowards, liars, etc. serves no purpose at all. Let’s assume that we all have different opinions but are doing our best to do and say what we think is right.”

I understand the sentiment but for the record I didn't call anyone here a coward just put the proposition that to expect that others should and will torture on your behalf to make you feel a little safer in your bed is a cowardly act. The only person I directly labelled a coward was Cheney and I certainly am rather disinclined to withdraw that assessment.

I accept that my point was stridently made but it was in response to OSW seemingly labeling torturers as heroes. There is nothing heroic about inflicting horrific pain and terror on a restrained and helpless human being.

Again for the record I don't think anyone but the most ardent of supporters of torture would see it as 'right'. The argument is more based around whether or not it might be deemed necessary.

You were right to voice this concern;

“I believe that torture is horrible and should be avoided. If we make it legal then it will be employed casually even where there is no justification for it.”

Look at o sung wu's position;

“I too would unquestionably 'torture' anyone who threatened me, or mine, or my country ! And I mean 'torture' in the full sense of the word !”.

Note this is a far cry from fallacious scenario of a kidnapped loved one (with limited time to survive if not found quickly) and probably is closer to his true intent. There is hardly a despotic dictator in the world who couldn't justify torture or worse under these parameters. In fact Assad and Saddam could march exactly the same argument out to justify gassing civilians. After the horror of WW1 nations agreed not to use chemical weapons in warfare and even during the most dire circumstances that both sides found themselves in at various stages of the conflict, they were not used.

Cont...

Cont...

Nations have also recognised the horrors of torture and likewise came together to agree not to employ it. The US was a signatory to such a protocol. Just as the use of gas was roundly condemned so should the use of torture.

I don't think there is too much room to debate whether torture is right or wrong, Much of the world has rightly decided it is evil and brutish and demeans all those involved. We might as well rehash the case for bringing back slavery. Now that the topic here has once again moved to gun laws I am reminded of the term 'circle jerk' often used on Reddit, a site that is a guilty pleasure of mine, great philosophy section.

Setting aside the sexual connotations this definition is from knowyourmeme.com;

““Circle Jerk” is a pejorative slang term referring to a positive feedback loop which occurs when an idea, belief or meme that is already customary within an online community becomes re-iterated and rewarded in a perpetual cycle, giving rise to redundancy, clichés and karma whoring. This phenomenon is typically observed in communities consisting of self-contained forums devoted to specific interests, beliefs or subcultures.”

Is Mise rolling out the farmer's wife with the shells in her apron again, along with perfunctory “Greens” bashing that OSW gleefully joined in, with makes a mockery of the countless times we have canvassed these same issues. Back we go to “redundancy, cliches, and karma whoring”.

But hats off to you my good fellow, you are a far better man than I sir and while your efforts here might not be followed they are applauded.

Dear SteeleRedux,

How does one argue with a person who one basically disagrees with. The answer: with your hat. You put it on and walk away. You are not going to prove them wrong and yourself right except in your mind.

However, if you walk away you have deprived yourself of contact with that person. Every person who has contributed to this discussion is a human being, and every human being has something of value in them. That is not a statement of fact since I can’t prove it. It is a statement of belief, and I have acted on that belief by not putting on my hat.

If one states that one is a Green and one is communicating with someone who is not you can expect to hear Green bashing. If one goes pear shaped at hearing Green bashing don’t associate with anyone who isn’t a Green. o sung wu has made his position on torture clear. I have made my position on torture clear. There doesn’t seem to be any point for us to continue to discuss torture. However, o sung wu is more than someone who disagrees with me on torture. He is also a human being who is or was a cop. He knows what it is to be a cop. I don’t so I asked him about it. He was most forthcoming and told me a little about it. The only way to really know what it is like to be in the police is to be in the police. However, I am grateful to him for telling me a little bit about it that I didn’t know.

Even though we disagree with each other we live in the same world and, if we are in touch with reality, we must in some degree see the same world. Although I disagree with many positions that Jay of Melbourne has I see him as an intelligent person who is aware of some of the things that I am aware of.

continued

continued

Jay of Melbourne wrote: “Back in the days when gun ownership was common we also had mental hospitals, it was easier to get a gun but it was also easier to get disturbed people locked up indefinitely for their own and society's protection.”

That is perfectly true. My wife used to work in one of those places in Melbourne. It is now high priced real estate and has not been replaced by a similar facility. Should I disagree with that statement because JOB made it?

Back to your point about torture. I agree. I don’t think there is too much room to debate whether torture is right or wrong.

I was just reading a book on philosophy which deals with various theories of moral behaviour. I mentioned the Solzhenitsyn Principle in a previous post. There is also consequentialism which maintains that an act is moral if it has good consequences. Since we can’t know all the consequences of an act consequentialism doesn’t work. All the moral theories set up scenarios to back them up. All the moral theories are flawed for no other reason than the fact we can’t anticipate all the circumstances in which we may find ourselves Although I believe torture is wrong would I have the guts to refuse to torture another person if the alternative were that I would be tortured myself if I didn’t torture the other person?

We can just muck around and try to do the best we can. That's not very inspiring, but I think that's the way it is.