Hi there FOXY...

Thank you for that link. Having read it, I'd have to say I'd generally agree with what most therein had said. There are opportunities available in gaol to educate, or further educate yourself. The trouble is, there is an unofficial 'government' in place, comprising of 'heavy' criminal gangs. First, you MUST find your place, and align yourself with one or the other ? The only other option, is to 'seek protection' and become a 'non-associate' ? Therein lies a very complex, convoluted story of nothing but pure survival, before attempting any form of personal restoration.

Hi PAUL1405...

You're right; disadvantage, lack of parental control, lack of a role model, unsuccessful education, no prospects of employment, destined to 'survive' on a lifetime of welfare...? All this gloomy pessimism, serve only to encourage young people to seek other less legitimate methods of ameliorating their lot in life. From my own observations Paul, much of the original blame must be laid squarely at the feet of the parents, specifically the father. Gaol in it's present form, is a failure in my view.

G'day there ONTHEBEACH...

As ever you've covered a great deal of ground. Far too much for me to do justice to you. You speak with a great deal of sense on so many levels - LWOP is a good substitution for the death penalty, particularly with the likes of BRYANT and MILAT (there are far, far, worse than those two in boob, believe me?). Or is it ? Take away any prospect of release, even if it's 35 or 45 years in the future ? What sort of inducement is there to a criminal to behave, whilst in custody ? An individual with an indeterminable sentence, and they still exist, 'Governor's Pleasure' what motivation is there for him to conform at all ? No prospects of ever being released ? A potentially explosive situation for everybody, crim and Officer alike ? More later ONTHEBEACH.

o sung wu,

Just as an aside to the discussion, it is amazing just how bent the thinking of some commentators is when they can argue that the Indonesian authorities shouldn't have been so concerned about that massive haul of 'smack' (Bali 9) because 'it was being taken OUT of the country'(?!).

Times have changed, it is not so long ago that anyone who put up such obviously stupid excuses would have been set straight in very short order.

The other observation I would make is that where crimes are attracting lesser punishments and non-custodial sentences will the general disgust and aversion to those crimes be lessened accordingly? That would act to increase the incidence of the crime one would think.

To take a different example, would the general acceptance of (say) abortion and right up to the moment of birth as one female ethicist in Australia would have it, reduce over time the general community's abhorrence of infanticide? Not arguing for or against abortion on demand, just using it as a convenient example. Infanticide often concerns newborns or neonates.

To reiterate, where crimes are attracting lesser punishments will the general disgust and aversion to those crimes be lessened accordingly, resulting in an increased number of the crimes? -Australia would seem to be fertile ground for drug traffickers because they only get a slap on the wrist or at worst, are out in several years. Bugger all, when one considers the trail of harm and death they leave behind them, and added to that their high recidivism - to result in hundreds more ruined lives and deaths.

Who would be a cop?

Yes it must be all my fault. I made these rotten bludgers try to run drugs, or rip of little old ladies.

I should have been paying more tax, so the poor dears could get $100,000 a year dole or other bludger money. Can't expect them to live on a few hundred a week, or to dig holes for a living like any other dumb punk.

Our system too harsh for gods sake, when the bludgers have 25 break & enters treated as a first offence, & get a slap on the wrist. You've got to be kidding, far too lenient more like it.

What we need is a chain gang system. Get the rip off merchants clearing rubber vine & prickly acacia up north for the first offence for a few months, living under the stars, then there probably wouldn't be any second offence.

You know ONTHEBEACH and HASBEEN...

You're both on the same page ! You both ask precisely the same question, though expressed in slightly different language, nevertheless, the exact same question ? Why are we seemingly so pathetically soft on serious crime ? Why is it, and who's behind it ?Perhaps I'm wrong, and if anything, punishment is becoming much more draconian ? Or is it the case that I'm from the old school and anything short of 'keel hauling' for failing to wear a life preserver, is patently inadequate ?

If those more liberally indulgent and avant-garde reformist's have such an aversion to gaol, what are the alternatives ? Or do you believe that there'll come a time when the concept of penal servitude becomes altogether redundant ? And another alternative form of penance or atonement ultimately replaces incarceration as we know it ?

I'll readily admit that gaol is clearly not working in it's present form. It's nothing but a cesspit of intrigue and with overtones of gangland control. And all that the warders can do, is keep them behind the walls. Everything else is run by the prisoners themselves ? So what do we do ? What are the other options, if any ? I'll admit I've no answers myself, I've exhausted all my options ? Clearly I'd not wish to see the re-introduction of the death penalty, there's got to be a better solution, in the year of 2015 ?

Of course the elephant in the room is that if penalties fit the crime the idiotic notion that their are no absolutes (adopted by leftist dogma) is clearly seen for the joke it is. Personally I think in many cases the victim of crime should get a say about the penalty. Instead we have sleazy lawyers and often pathetically weak judges determing the outcome. The further we have gone from absolutes the weaker our law system has come. I am all for mercy however for the numerous crimminals I have met, the vast majority are not sorry for their crimes or who they have hurt but will sob for whoever, in order to get mercy. Mercy should only ever be granted upon genuine repentance.

Had there been a "social contract", had that legendary bird actually existed, then it could include the agreement of the signatory to be punished, and how, for breaking laws. If the agreement includes the death penalty, then so be it and if it includes jail, then so be it too.

But as there is no such contract, nobody has any authority to punish another. What remains is to do whatever is necessary to protect the members of society against future crimes: this can only be on a case-by-case basis, based on strategic and tactical analysis of the needs of people for security. Law, courts and prescribed punishments are totally inappropriate in this situation - just do what works to keep people safe. If there's more than one option, choose the one which inflicts the least suffering on others.