Folks, this is not the first occasion this ultimate punishment has been offered as the topic of conversation, nor will it be the last I suspect?

I'm implacably against state-sanctioned executions for any crimes. I would further add, as a retired 'jack,' I'm generally on my 'Pat Malone,' as evidenced by the number of heated discussions I've had with colleagues, as we try to stay alert, during the quiet hours, on night shift.

I again return to that eminent jurist BLACKSTONE when he said '... a 100 guilty men should go free than one innocent man is punished. Equally applicable in the merit of Capital Punishment?

During a trip to the US in 1986 and again in '87, during a break I had, between the Courses I was attending, I was invited to visit several large State Penitentiaries. And the, ah - 'highlight' if you will, of those visits, was being shown their various 'death' chambers. Viz, Electric Chair, Gas Chamber & the 'Needle Room'?

Many of you may not know, on the top landing of 4 Wing, CIP, in our own Long Bay Gaol, the beam; the trapdoor; & the mechanism is still firmly in situ! The only thing from it being rendered operable again, are a couple of small weld spots, easily removed should the government of the day have a mind to do so?

Obviously, these Chambers of Death weren't in use. But when one is confronted with the cold, calculated precision, the administrators of these gaols go through, to kill another human being, well it left me utterly mortified and prompted me to realise - all it amounted to, was State-sanctioned murder.

Please don't think that I'm some weak, 'big girl's blouse.' I'm a veteran of war myself (1964/65) But, to coldly execute another, by pushing a switch, or pulling on a short handle .....nope, not for me, I'm afraid.

In my opinion, the only punishment 'for the worst of the worst' crimes, & those who would commit them - stick 'im in maximum security, and lose the key!

Death could only be the ultimate punishment if we were actually able to die.

But we cannot truly die: the "death penalty" only destroys and deprives us of our body.

Imprisonment, in comparison, is much worse, much harsher than the destruction of our body: imprisonment exposes us to the worst company and the most unwholesome environment, whereas if we lose our body, we will automatically get a new one, then live in whatever company and environment we deserve.

For hardened criminals, prison may not be a great deal because they are already used to bad company and an unwholesome environment, but for good people who accidentally find themselves in prison, this is the very worst, far more terrible than the death of one's body.

So if the idea is that it is more important to prevent one innocent man (or woman) from being punished than to punish 100 guilty men, then the minimal decent thing to do, is to offer the immediate death option in replacement of prison to anyone who is convicted, in fact to anyone who is arrested and not immediately bailed.

If you like, you could view this as an appeal to the highest court, where no mistakes can be made, where no innocent soul suffers and no evil criminal can escape punishment.

I oppose all forms of state sanctioned murder, be it the death penalty for a crime committed, or war with others.

The following contribution to 'Huffpost' by Shawn Henfling is about the United States, but it would apply to Australia should we introduce the death penalty as well.

"We slaughter the innocent and guilty alike in the United States. As parents, we teach our children that killing is wrong then send them off to war and celebrate when an alleged criminal is put to death. That kind of dichotomy in our thinking is not only wrong, it is barbaric and archaic. People in this country like to hold ourselves up as exceptional, the moral compass for the world. The reality is that we are guilty of the same atrocities we rage against. In this case, it happens to be the death penalty."

I fully understand the personal and community anger/outrage with some of the heinous crimes that are committed, and the call for the death penalty is understandable, but not justified, in my opinion.

Yuyutsu, maybe you would support a choice for criminals given life or a very long sentence, would you allow then them to choose euthanasia (state assisted suicide) as an alternative to prison?

I think it was Ted Bundy (not sure) who could have appealed his death sentence in the US, but refused his lawyers that opportunity. In a way he chose his own death as an alternative to prison.

I have stated several times that for proven murderers & other heinous criminals, the prison cell should have a small glass case that contains a Cyanide or similar capsule that the inmate can smash & access & consume the capsule. No-one should then feel guilty. This arrangement is apparently available to Astronauts when faced by certain impossibility of returning to safety.

Dear Paul,

«Yuyutsu, maybe you would support a choice for criminals given life or a very long sentence, would you allow then them to choose euthanasia (state assisted suicide) as an alternative to prison?»

Yes, this is what I just suggested (was I not clear enough?), except that I would not limit the option only to very long sentences.

It was not so much real bad criminals that I had in mind, but rather innocent good people who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who were sent to prison for maintaining their moral/religious principles even when these happened to conflict with state laws.

The option should always be there, but obviously this choice ought to be voluntary. A hardened criminal is likely to choose prison while a good person is more likely to choose euthanasia.

---

«the prison cell should have a small glass case that contains a Cyanide or similar capsule that the inmate can smash & access & consume the capsule.»

It cannot technically be as simple and without manual guard intervention because then a prisoner could administer the capsule to other prisoners, even place its contents in their food (even worse, in the drink of visitors, theirs or others').

Yuyutsu,
You simply don't want a solution why else would you question alternatives put up instead of
offering alternatives ?
I have been the victim of thefts & that enough makes me wish these crapheads would suffer a fate that keeps them off the streets !
I suppose in your thinking crime is not as abhorrent as punishing it !

Dear Individual,

Sorry for failing to address you in my previous post.

«You simply don't want a solution why else would you question alternatives put up instead of offering alternatives ?»

I am afraid that I don't understand your question.

What alternatives was I questioning?

«I have been the victim of thefts & that enough makes me wish these crapheads would suffer a fate that keeps them off the streets !»

This wish is most understandable, because it involves yours and others' future safety. Keeping thieves off the streets is a matter of self-defence!

However, it is not for you, nor is it wise to punish them.
Only do what it takes to keep them off the streets for safety, yours, your family's and the public's.

«I suppose in your thinking crime is not as abhorrent as punishing it !»

Having the motivation to punish others is abhorrent. You might still need to keep them in jail, even kill them if they still pose a danger, but not for the purpose of punishment. Leave punishment to God, it never fails to come.

I have no moral problem with the death penalty; there are certain crimes that it is appropriate for. But, it is dangerous because of our unreliable justice system. Innocent people have been wrongly convicted. If they are jailed, there is a chance that they will be freed; if they are dead, well....

The unreliability of our justice system has been shockingly displayed recently in the Pell case, with 12 unqualified morons condemning him. While Pell was never facing the death penalty - much to the chagrin of the witch burners of the Left - his is a case that shows the danger of having a death penalty.

We are driven by our emotions on both sides of this debate
But while I do not generally support the death penalty my emotions demand it some times
Two criminal walk free this week in my state
One murdered three innocent men one a police man
The other raped many kids
Put me down as yes some times we should use the death penalty

I have to agree with ttbn and Belly.
As much as it is seen, by some, as akin to murder, it is unfortunately, or fortunately, the LAST resort. (pun intended)
My reasoning:
Imagine how many people these scumbags have compromised and aggrieved in their past.
Well, now multiply that by many times more, and try and imagine the wake of human destruction they have and are yet to cause.
Now, stop and think, from the moment these miscreants are "expunged", not jailed, all those people who would have been affected by these creeps and their antisocial nature, never happened.
I hear you say, "put them in jail and throw away the key".
NO!
This absolutely does not work, firstly because it has been proven so in the past, and secondly, because most baddies are wealthy, they manage to "buy" favours from the very people who's job it is to know better.
Not to mention the fact that they blackmail people into helping them by threatening to harm (or worse), their family.
No, the death penalty will see the end of the arrogant baddies who thought they were untouchable, and hopefully deter the rest who aspired to engage in criminal acts.
Just stop and think how many corporate criminals went to jail, but somehow kept running things from the "inside".
I'm sorry, if I were a criminal, I would relish the idea of being looked after, in style I might add, knowing that all my needs would be taken care of including and most importantly, any health issues.
Think about the cost of keeping a prisoner, and how many people, resources and money involved.
There is no doubt that the legal and judicial systems have to also be held accountable, to the same standards, so we rid ourselves of this self serving system which treats people like mushrooms.
That way we will have curtailed everyone into toe-ing the line and like myself, remove the need to (metaphorically) look over my shoulder all the time, expecting the worse, from a legal system designed to benefit the system itself, and not the people.

Yep, me too. Sorry o sung wu, I'm not with you on this one.

Ivan Milat should have been put down, & many others should also have had the same. There are a few that do not deserve to be classed as human, & do not deserve anything but the death penalty. There is no good reason why the tax payer should be feeding him, or paying for medical treatment of animals like him.

I get so sick of seeing some with long records of sex crimes against small children, out on the street after too light sentences, & week parole boards free them to repeat their crimes.

Any judge or parole board that frees a criminal, who then repeat his/her crime, should suffer the same penalty as the crim, as they are just as guilty of harming the victim. All law enforcement should err, if it does, on the well being of the community, not the criminal. I support the 3 strike sentencing fully.

I would not have a problem with life sentences if they were not all too often commuted to just 15 years. I want these people off the street, permanently, & it appears the only way of being sure this happens is the death penalty

If there is no ultimate judgement then You and I get the same punishment as Hitler or Milat. Thank God there is mercy available to those who receive salvation through Jesus Christ. I suggest you take hold of it while you can.

Hi there, HASBEEN...

That's perfectly OK old friend; I do understand that Capital Punishment is a very emotive, controversial subject to embrace, for any thinking person. As a former close relative yourself, to a victim of crime, a 'crime against the person,' and I understand the perpetrators had (apparently) managed to escape apprehension? I completely understand your desire to see punishment exacted out appropriately, for these wanton thugs that plague our communities.

And some of the utterly atrocious crimes that have been occasioned against the physically weakest members of our society (the aged, infirm, women & children), it's no wonder revenge & retribution burns deeply within our collective souls.

One matter in particular in which I was heavily involved, was Archie Beattie McCAFFERTY, a deadly, crazed killer, who took out his malevolent evil, against the world, by killing four individuals, for the death of his infant child! A legitimate candidate for the noose? Perhaps? He did Life, was deported back to Scotland, and the last that I knew of him, he managed to get himself into NZ? My sincerest commiserations to our New Zealand cousins!

As a sociologist I agree totally with o sung wu. Lock them up forever in absolute solitude. Absolutely no parole. Let them die a long slow death void of pity and communication. Keep them caged and fed in a world of silence and emptiness. That would be a horrible way to die. I understand that is what they did in the US to the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

Capital punishment to murder is a contradiction. If it's not right for one person to take a life than it is not right for anyone to take a life. How can a person show that it is not right to take a life if that person takes the life of someone who has taken a life? Taking a life of a criminal says that it is alright to take a life. Societies have tried to overcome this dilemma by giving the State the right to exact violence - but the contradiction still remains.

Let them die a long slow death void of pity and communication.
Mr Opinion,
You do have a mean enough streak after all. I say give them the opportunity to take their own life once they realise there's no parole at the end ! We need the cell bunk for those who don't seem to learn.

Singapore is one of the safest places on earth. Last year my wife and I travelled everywhere on trains and never felt safer (even at night). I suspect harsh and capital punishment has a lot to do with it despite what those opposing it says.

Dear runner,

No, I think it was because Singaporeans are as afraid of creation scientists as I am.

Dear o sung wu,

Fully agree with your position re the death penalty.

I wonder if you have a different view over military justice?

"General de Maud'huy had just been roused from sleep on the straw of a shed and was standing in the street when a little group of unmistakeable purport came round the corner. Twelve soldiers and an NCO, a firing party, a couple of gendarmes, and between them an unarmed soldier. My heart sank and a feeling of horror overcame me. General de Maud'huy gave a look, then held up his hand so that the party halted, and with his characteristic quick step went up to the doomed man.

"He asked what he had been condemned for. It was for abandoning his post. The General then began to talk to the man. Quite simply, he explained discipline to him. Abandoning your post was letting down your pals; more, it was letting down your country that looked to you to defend her. He spoke of the necessity of example, how some could do their duty without prompting but others, less strong, had to know and understand the supreme cost of failure. He told the condemned man that his crime was not venial, not low, and that he must die as an example, so that others should not fail. Surprisingly, the wretch agreed, nodding his head. He saw a glimmer of something, redemption in his own eyes, a real hope, though he knew he was about to die. Maud'huy went on, carrying the man with him to comprehension that any sacrifice was worthwhile while it helped France ever so little. What did anything matter if he knew this?

"Finally, de Maud'huy held out his hand: 'Yours also is a way of dying for France,' he said. The procession started again, but now the victim was a willing one. The sound of a volley announced that all was over. The general wiped the beads of perspiration from his brow, and for the first time perhaps his hand trembled as he lit his pipe."

Hi O Sung Wu,

I'm inclined to agree with you about solitary confinement for life. But perhaps, out of compassion, we could add one proviso: that the guilty party, after considering the chances of a long, healthy life in complete confinement, should have the right to ask for his death, that he/she can apply for a re-consideration of his life sentence to be modified - at his ill - to be somewhat abbreviated.

A court could then spend, say, a year or two, considering the merits of his request, and then grant it, if he is still alive. He would thus have time to re-consider his crimes, and his choice of exit.

Sounds fair.

Joe

'No, I think it was because Singaporeans are as afraid of creation scientists as I am.'

I would of thought they would be more afraid of the evolution myth which concludes they are less evolved than us Mr Opinion.

Misopinionated,

So you've just discovered that there isn't a god ? What else are they teaching in Introductory Cultural Studies I ? That religion is nothing more than a belief in god ? No moral aspects ? Nothing to learn about, say, the equality and universality of humans, or the need to care for others even if they are not of your group ?

Move on. Get ready for Introductory Cultural Studies II next year. Then you might 'learn' about how all cultures are equal, that sort of rubbish. Fine-tune your BS detectors.

Joe

What I find strange, is that most participants here, when asked about punishments (death or otherwise), envision or imagine someone else in the cell or on the gallows, never themselves, never even a dear family member, always a complete stranger.

Yes, we are all good people of course, so when considering the topic, rather than focusing on actual criminals, I will continue to consider mainly the well-being of those good people who are convicted of evil crimes, either accidentally or because the law itself is evil. I will also give some consideration to the sufferings of the innocent families of criminals.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I'm back and doing well.

You ask - should the death penalty be re-visited for certain
atrocious crimes?

I feel that decisions about capital punishment are not
really about deterrence. They are about retribution.
About society's revenge on a person who takes another's
life.

Whether such retribution is justified is a moral
judgement for each individual to make.

Some people feel that those who kill another human
being should pay the supreme penalty and forfeit their
own lives; others feel that human life is so sacred
that society is demeaned when the state kills its
citizens, however grave their offense.

Personally, I am against the taking of human life.

Hi there LOUDMOUTH...

Joe, I fully appreciate your position or suggestion of allowing the guilty man the option of ending his protracted cellular confinement, by having the option of choosing death. However, I don't think its morally fair to the victim's NOK, that offenders of a capital crime, being able to dictate their punishment? I appreciate your suggestion has merit, in terms of fairness? But offenders of serious crimes should suffer whatever the court has imposed, as punishment whether, it's fair or otherwise.

G'day STEELEREDUX...

No, not at all. Military justice, by its very nature, should be adjudicated swiftly, and the punishment, just as swift, primarily when the crime arises out of combat. However, if it involves a serious military offence, such as desertion (extremely hard to prove), provided it's NOT in the face of the enemy, or, physically assaulting a Commissioned Officer, again, provided it didn't occur during a 'contact, then the normal convening of a Court Martial would apply.'

In a combat environment, any serious dislocation to the good order and discipline of the Royal Australian Army can have a catastrophic effect on a mission. If a 'contact' is made, or an ambush is set, or in circumstances, where the section or platoon is taking immediate fire - any serious breaches of discipline, could result in a complete wipe-out of the entire Sect. or Pl. Steele, the military must operate under an entirely different set of rules, I'm sure you can appreciate that?

Singapore is one of the safest places on earth.
runner,
Having a National Service has a lot to do with their sound mentality.

.

Dear o sung wu,

.

You ask :

« Should this ultimate punishment [the death penalty] be revisited for certain atrocious crime(s)? »

While you obviously have Australia in mind, it already applies, of course, in a number of countries that englobe the majority of the world’s population.

I wrote an article entitled “Justice – A Matter of Life and Death” that you may like to check out. You can access it by clicking on the following link and going to Submission N° 133 :

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Dying_with_Dignity/Submissions

Perhaps I should explain that the article was published in the Jul-Sept edition of the Australian Quarterly in 2014. I later discovered, quite accidentally, that somebody had submitted it to a federal parliamentary inquiry that year on proposed legalisation of euthanasia in Australia.

As I had no objection to that – quite the contrary – I just let it ride.

.

Hi there, BANJO PATERSON...

Thank you, Rodney, for drawing my attention to your submission, published in July - Sept ed. of the Australian Quarterly, 2014. You penned a superb piece. Accordingly, thank you so much for sharing it with all the contributors, who've shown some interest in this topic.

I note you spoke of death; both by suicide (euthanasia) & State-sanctioned execution. I'm bound to say; I don't approve of either.

Of the former, provided the patient is appropriately medicated to ease pain & suffering, my position is, to allow nature to take her course. Moreover, I understand we have very effective palliative care in this country.

On the question of Punishment - by permitting the authorities to wilfully kill another human being, well I'm on record, as being totally against it.

As a former detective of many years service, I've attended and have been appointed as Case Officer, in many questionable or suspicious deaths. Some turn out to be; of natural causes; accidental; or suicide, while others are clearly a homicide. I might add, death in all its raw imagery is rarely attractive and peaceful as seen on TV & in the movies. And at times, in the latter, utterly grotesque.

When in uniform, years ago, I attended a prang involving two passenger vehicles (cars) a head-on. A simple case of falling into a stupor at the wheel while engaged in prolonged night driving AND - 'while exhausted.' No specifics are necessary; other than to advise you, two of us with the aid of the two attending ambo's took nearly thirty minutes to gather up the various body parts including parts of an infant, in order this quiet road could re-open.

My theory, (& I'm an atheist) - let providence, destiny, or God's divine intervention if you will - decide when to end a human beings life, not another flawed mortal. FYI I loathe the Swiss on many levels. Thank you, Rodney.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

In case you didn't know, I generally share many of your views and opinions that you regularly contribute here. And this is just another example.

The benefits are incalculable for young people being mandatorily required to undertake a period of National Service; either in basic Military Training or for the consciences objectors, 'Civil (National) Service.' These benefits are essentially ten-fold, with everyone winning - the young, twenty years old individual, and the community.

As a result, we'd see far less street crime - especially those 'crimes against the person.' It's these offences that might be the genesis, for somebody starting along that dark path of serious offending, that will only bring upon the perpetrator, and others, ultimate misery, and in certain circumstances, in some Countries, a State initiated death sentence! I would cite Bali.

National Service for 'all' our young people, may serve as an ultimate guide, and an essential aid for their personal and vocational development. The community would also benefit, with less street crime, due to the introduction of more salient or pivotal values being instilled into their psyche. With the only common denominator being - the appropriate application of a regimen of 'institutional & personal discipline' being equally applied to both groups.

o sung wu there is worse than death old mate.

I have some days, after doing too much the day before usually, when I am basically immobile. Pain prevents me walking up or down steps, or even a not very steep gradient. Pain killers don't work. The only thing I can do is sit on something like an office or kitchen chair to relieve it & recover.

If or when this gets to the stage that I lose my mobility, so much I can't easily drive a car, you will hear about another fatal single car "accidents". It will be of course attributed to speed, giving more of the ridiculous impedance to cutting speed limits even further.

I would much rather take a pill, than waste a car, but I'm not allowed, & would have to implicate a family member to get help. A gun would be too messy for those left to clean up.

I have no interest in a vegetable existence asleep in a group in front of a nursing home TV, so palliative care is out for me thanks. If I'm not allowed a pill at my time of choosing, it will be the car a little earlier.

Hi there HASBEEN...

What are you telling me old friend? I know what I've read, I just don't understand why you said it? You seemed to have adopted a finality in life - sure I know where you're coming from, but YOU?

Reflecting back on all your many accomplishments, your skills, the adventures you've partaken during your life, is nothing short of amazing!

Navy Pilot, Race car driver, and competed on one of the most hazardous tracks in the Country, 'Catalina' in Katoomba? You've built racing engines, rally driving. And that's not to mention your nautical pursuits - Oz's own James MITCHENER, sailing around the south pacific, through the tropics, and many of the islands in the tropics. HASBEEN you've done it all old friend. - EXCEPT tell others about your many adventures. You should write a book, and share those stories of; aviation, sailing, model aircraft building and flying, and motor racing, a veritable topic on its own.

Yup, I fully appreciate what you're saying, when your levels of pain become so unbearable, you believe you've no other option? There're always options, my friend. 'Share it with other like-minded people.' A mate of mine, in a similar situation to us both, chronic pain, inoperable due to his age and other medical problems. He joined a 'Chronic Pain Group in the USA (Facebook). Including among their number, women, men all as one, long-term chronic pain! Take heart ol' man; you have many friends on this Forum, believe me. Stay strong !!

Dear Hassie,

I'll repeat O Sung Wu's plea:

Stay strong!

You have a family that loves you dearly. You're held
in high esteem here on the forum. And if there's
anything you need - all you have to do is ask any
one of us. We're here for you, and always will be.

You're loved.

Foxy, o sung wu, thankyou, but my post was not a complaint, or cry for help. It was a simple statement of my intentions.

I'll stick around as long as life has something to offer me, but having seen a very good nursing home in my mother's last months, I will not be going to one.

Yes o sung wu I have had a fantastic life. I was so lucky to be born at the time when an average person could actually get to do everything I've done. I was only one of many enjoying shoestring fun. I don't think it is possible to day, as rules & regulations have made many of my things needed just too expensive. My son was complaining that to earn the money to pay for the things I've enjoyed, leaves one with no time to actually do them.

I am not going to jump off a cliff [or drive into a tree] any time soon, but when I can no longer ride my mower down to mow my toy plane strips, give the old horse a carrot, or the dog a run beside me the time will be close.

My eldest daughter chastised me the other month when I wouldn't take mu classic out in the rain. She reckoned it was no good owning a beautiful classic from the grave, better to leave a battered & worn out classic for some new owner to restore. She is right of course.

So don't feel sorry for me, I don't. My aches & pains are only the result of a life fully lived.

Dear Hassie,

Glad to see the Hassie we know and love is still
with us.

I hope that you'll live to a ripe old age and maybe
even get around to writing a book. I'd buy it
that's for sure.

.

Dear o sung wu,

.

You wrote :

« … provided the patient is appropriately medicated to ease pain & suffering, my position is, to allow nature to take her course. Moreover, I understand we have very effective palliative care in this country »
.

That’s the general theory, o sung wu, but, unfortunately, the practical reality can, all too often, be totally and excruciatingly different. Hasbeen’s personal experience is just one example :

« Pain prevents me walking up or down steps, or even a not very steep gradient. Pain killers don't work … so palliative care is out for me thanks »
.

You also wrote :

« On the question of Punishment - by permitting the authorities to wilfully kill another human being, well I'm on record, as being totally against it »

I am against any such “punishment” too, o sung wu. I consider that modern democratic civilisations should adopt the philosophy of the “social contract” in all its aspects and consequences. It should become the basis of our criminal law and be applied as such.

The social contract is an implied contract between the state and all individuals within its jurisdiction. Any individual who breaches the contract by committing one or more of the most atrocious crimes – the subject of this forum discussion – deserves what he has earned (“quantum meruit”) and as much as it was worth (“quantum valebat”) – neither more, nor less.

He deserves to lose his right to life. He deserves to be be euthanised as painlessly and humanely as modern science will allow.

Needless to say, I should consider this a logical consequence and a fair judgment, if ever I, personally, were to commit a cold-blooded murder or any other atrocious crime.

.

Dear Banjo,

The conclusion, «He deserves to lose his right to life», could be correct if indeed there was a social contract with that other person.

But what about those who never signed that contract?

«The social contract is an implied contract between the state and all individuals within its jurisdiction.»

But this is not true. Just because someone happens to be born on the face of this earth in a place which you one-sidedly deem to be your "jurisdiction" does not imply any agreement whatsoever with you. In fact it is quite possible that the other never wanted to have anything to do with you or with your group.

In other words, your wish for a social contract does not mean that actually there is one.

So what are you to do if you worry about potential murders and the like?

- You could still kill them who put your life in danger, but only in self-defence, not because they presumably deserve to lose their life. You may not use that as an excuse.

Hasbeen I am unhappy to hear you are like that old mate
I too am about the same, winter is in the hands of my life long mate the black dog
Mate we men do not talk much about such but we should
I have found a helpful tip, never ever give in
Get joy from the little things, sitting under a tree and watching the birds helps
But yes if my life is to end badly it will not be a long death

Back to the thread read the stuff about soldiers deaths by firing squad know we get emotional, but some deserve the death sentence

Banjo Paterson has as always given us a great deal
to think about. I remember reading about cases
like Charles Manson and Ivan Milat - and I have to confess
that I question keeping people like that alive.
And there's quite a few of those people out there.People
who are not capable of remorse and will most likely
re-commit crimes. I struggle with crimes against children,
the elderly, the vulnerable, against torture.

Those among you who condone capital punishment seem to be of the opinion that it is not right for a person to kill another person but it is alright for you to kill another person through the agency of the State thus absolving you of criminal action. As an individual, what gives you the right to decide who lives or dies? Remember the old adage 'Two wrongs don't make a right.'

Yes Belly, still so much to enjoy. I have had great pleasure from the reappearance of the wrens this year, they are still attacking the glass door into my open front fernery, & even a blue one yesterday.

A couple of days ago there were at least 2 dozen similar size to the wrens at the bird bath, & in the hibiscus around it. They must be migratory, as I have not seen them before in 27 years, & they were gone in an hour or so.

Walk out my front door & you are likely to have a couple or more magpies come flying in, not to attack, but to land at your feet demanding some pet mince. You'll have the lorikeets in the hibiscus demanding some diced fruit, & the topknot pidgins after bread crumbs.

In a tough year like this, the driest in this district since 1881 many need some help to make it through, & I'm happy to help. Without some help this year could be the death sentence for much of our wildlife friends.

Thank you very much indeed, HASBEEN & BELLY, for clarifying your precise situation(s) with your ongoing difficulties with pain, 'the Black Dog,' and your mobility. I reckon Depression is often a sequela to long-term pain.

To me, you're both among the real stalwarts on this Forum, and the notion, that one day, either one or both of you, won't be here through some precipitated action! I must say, it would utterly devastate me.

As a minor contributor to this Site, I read every Post you've both submitted. Because I believe you're (despite your politics BELLY), pragmatic, and not among those faceless academics who seek to chart and alter our society, not through the eyes of pragmatism, but academia alone.

Eg, the ability to alter your gender with the stroke of a pen! Utter bloody madness! Damn any government who allows it!

It's your views and opinions that I value most. As such, I use both of you, as a yardstick for my thoughts; because your submissions are generally consistently scholarly, practical, and no-nonsense.

As an aside, I'm confined to a wheelchair whenever I go out. My wife assists me with showering and drying myself. I've been on Ordine 5 and Kapanol 50mg (Morphine), for over twenty years. I've Chronic pain through physical injuries sustained, during my 32 years as a copper. I'm also in possession of a 100% war pension (DVA Gold Card) - For PTSD and an injury while on active service abroad. Accordingly, I understand, absolutely, what you're both going through. Take it easy, HASBEEN & BELLY, I need you both.

Hi (again) BANJO PATTERSON...

You mentioned a well-used phrase, 'cold blooded' murder. Murder is murder, whether it's premeditated, or committed in a fit of anger. The accused has unlawfully taken human life. The distinction of whether or not it's planned, or done during a fit of rage, broadly falls within the dominion of the penalty phase of the trial. Any extenuating circumstance, like provocation or misadventure et al.

Don't be confused with any extraneous considerations. The Criminal proofs for the charge of murder, are among the easiest of all crimes to establish; as there're only two. (i) The presence of a deceased person & (ii) the person responsible for that death, harboured 'malice aforethought' towards the victim, at the time the crime was committed. Police must prove, (i) 'the actus reus' (the criminal 'act'), and 'the mens rea.' (the criminal 'intent') in order to prosecute the accused.

Having regard to the above, what moral, legal, or secular right, has any individual to take a human life in such circumstances? If it's unlawful for one person to take the life of a human being; then why is it entirely lawful for another to do so? Save for accident, misadventure, instances of War, self-defence et al.? With respect, to argue that euthanasia is the right, even humane way of despatching these evil ne're do wells is appropriate, I will still have to disagree with you Rodney, I'm sorry

The ghastly injustice of the Pell case, with a near enough reversal of reasonable doubt, should be enough to warn people off the death penalty. You can release innocent people from jail - even after 20 years as occurred recently in South Australia when a wrong conviction was overturned - but you can't bring people back from the dead.

War is no excuse for "legalised" murder. Often the military command will use the execution of its combatants to hide the fact that some have realised the futility of the conflict, and the incompetence of the leadership, both political and military. This was the case on both sides during WWI, a most disastrous war if there ever was one. For example, at least 918 French soldiers were executed between 1914 and 1918, making it the army that shot the greatest number of its own men.

Then there is the murderous atrocities committed in all wars against prisoners and non-combatants, which often go unpunished, or only a token punishment at best. For example, during the Vietnam War in 1968 between 347 and 504 unarmed Vietnamese were murdered by U.S. Army soldiers, this was known as the My Lai Massacre. Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offences, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Regarding the concept of the social contract you ask : « But what about those who never signed that contract? »

And you object : [The fact of being simply within the jurisdiction of the state] … « does not imply any agreement whatsoever with you »

I'm afraid it does, Yuyutsu, as contracts implied-in-law (called “quasi-contracts”) are not predicated on the assent of the parties, but, rather, exist regardless of assent. A contract implied-in-law is actually an obligation imposed by law and treated as a contract only for the purposes of a remedy.

There are two types of implied contracts : a contract implied-in-fact and a contract implied-in-law. Neither are expressed in writing or even orally, but both are legally binding. We enter into contracts implied-in-fact, routinely, in our daily lives, without even noticing it.

When you order food at a restaurant. You have a legal obligation to pay for the meal, even though you didn’t sign anything when you sat down, and never actually said to the waiter at any point, “I shall pay for this food.” Your actions made the agreement for you.

An implied contract is defined as : “a contract that is not written or spoken, but which is assumed to exist based on the circumstances”.

With respect to contracts implied-in-fact, the contract defines the duty. In the case of contracts implied-in-law (quasi-contracts), the duty defines and imposes the agreement upon the parties.

You will recall that it is by application of the principle of the social contract (contract implied-in-law or quasi-contract) that I indicated in my post to o sung wu that individuals within the jurisdiction of the state who commit atrocious crimes deserve, in my opinion, to lose their right to life, in accordance with the principles of “quantum meruit” (what they have earned) and “quantum valebat” (as much as it was worth) – neither more nor less.

.

.

Dear Mr Opinion, o sung wu & ttbn,

.

Mr Opinion wrote :

« Those among you who condone capital punishment seem to be of the opinion that it is not right for a person to kill another person but it is alright for you to kill another person through the agency of the State thus absolving you of criminal action. As an individual, what gives you the right to decide who lives or dies? Remember the old adage 'Two wrongs don't make a right.' »
.

o sung wu wrote :

« … what moral, legal, or secular right, has any individual to take a human life … If it's unlawful for one person to take the life of a human being; then why is it entirely lawful for another to do so? Save for accident, misadventure, instances of War, self-defence et al.? »
.

Personally, I do not “condone capital punishment”. I simply consider that individuals found guilty under a democratic process of justice of having breached the social contract by committing an atrocious crime, forfeit their right to life and should be euthanised as painlessly and humanely as modern science can allow.

Naturally, you are both right in declaring that nobody has the right to kill another person, even if that other person is the perpetrator of an atrocious crime. The state alone, representing the sovereign people – not just a single person or a group of people – has not only that right, but also, in my opinion, the duty to do so, and only after complete termination of the full democratic judicial process.
.

ttbn wrote :

« The ghastly injustice of the Pell case … should be enough to warn people off the death penalty. You can release innocent people from jail … but you can't bring people back from the dead »

Cardenal George Pell may or may not be on the right side of justice. We don’t know yet. What we do know is that there are far more guilty sex offenders walking the streets than there are in jail.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

You just supported and verified exactly what I said.

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

You wrote :

« War is no excuse for "legalised" murder. Often the military command will use the execution of its combatants to hide the fact that some have realised the futility of the conflict, and the incompetence of the leadership, both political and military … »
.

Wherever there is man, there is war, together with all the horror, the suffering and the injustice. It has invaded the world and will spread throughout the universe. I'm afraid there is no end in sight :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XHEPoMNP0I

.

Dear Foxy,

Nice to have you back.

I hope everything went well an you’re OK.

.

Banjo Paterson,
Did God make the wrong decision to create humans ? He could have simply just let the animals tear each other up instead of creating the super animal Human !

Dear individual,

I see you're still flying the creation science flag.

Dear Banjo,

I am sure that you know the law better than myself.

That said, I was referring to the truth of the matter rather than to what the law claims that the truth is.

Contracts can indeed be implicit. We have implicit contracts between parents and children, people and their pets, shepherds and their sheep. When I order food at a restaurant, I don't care about legal obligations to pay for the meal - I actually have a moral obligation to pay, regardless of the law.

Just as there are instances when the law fails to acknowledge the validity of a contract, there are instances when the law invents a "contract" which does not actually exist. Sometimes there is even a signed piece of paper to make that "contract" explicit, such as a letter of surrender written under duress by invaded people, such as the Tibetan people, where Chinese law claims that Tibet is a Chinese province. At other times, when no piece of paper is present, the strong side just claims that there exists an implicit contract, that the wolf and the sheep have a contract by which the wolf is to eat the sheep.

And such is the case with the presumed "social contract": the strong side claims, for its very convenience, that the weak side has sought its protection and agreed to abide by its laws - what nonsense!

«individuals within the jurisdiction of the state who commit atrocious crimes deserve, in my opinion, to lose their right to life»

It is possible for individuals to have a contract with a state whereby if they commit atrocious crimes then they are to lose their right to life. Fair enough, but here you introduce the term "jurisdiction", referring to a certain area of land. The assumption as if everyone who happened to be born or live within a particular area has some contract with the state that claims "jurisdiction" over that area, is tyrannical, immoral and untrue.

Hi there BANJO PATTERSON...

If we were to stone a person to death, for the crime of murder, or instead, we give him a painless injection and euthanise him instead - it still amounts to the killing of another human being? It matters very little, how you moralise it, how painless his execution (the needle) maybe, you're are still killing, whichever way you cut it. Moreover, and what if the executed man is ultimately found innocent, what then?

G'day there INDIVIDUAL...

You questioned the way God created human beings? There's one quite distinct, but disagreeable characteristic that God must have endowed us all with, one that no animal seems to possess - Malice.

Misopinionated,

Many of us make ironic references to gods without actually believing in any. Hence Individual and O Sung Wu's wry comments.

My singing group was having a go at Bette Midler's "From a Distance" and I commented to someone that maybe god was having second thoughts, that he might smite the lot of us and start again. I.e., Misopinionated, IF there was a god, then she might decide "Bugger it," and have another go. i.e. a hypothetical.

She might leave out mosquitoes the second time around though.

Hmmmm ....... how do we know she hasn't dome something like that already ? Many times ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

«She might leave out mosquitoes the second time around though.»

She already eliminated vampires: why not look at the half-full side of the glass and be thankful?

When our acts are worthy enough, no mosquito even will come close to hurt us.

Dear Loudmouth,

You creation science types have an excuse for anything and everything.

Thanks BP, spent many a relaxing hour listening to Bob.

Let me repay with a bit of Old School I really enjoy; The YouTube opens with what I think of war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OChrbIR6oHs

Misopinionated,

I've been an atheist all by post-infant life, since 1950 in fact, perhaps three times as long as your own. I'm never likely to believe in a supernatural being, but I'm a bit interested in some of the better ideological aspects surrounding such beliefs, the lessons, parables, morals, etc., which might be used to exhort proper behaviour (as believers may see it). I don't think one has to be religious to be a good person, or to have progressive principles. But IF it helps move people in such a direction, IF, I can't see much harm in it.

Move on from your childish 'creation science vs. proper thought' fixation, and if you want to respond to comments here, make it sensible.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

If you're not a creation scientist then what are you?

Hi Joe,

The wife does a mean Maori 'Steam Pudding' done one for Fathers Day, don't have it often (enough) yum with cream and custard, had the left overs tonight. Just to relate it to the topic, if I was a condemned man I'd make the wife's steamed pud part of my last supper!

I forgot to add, its worth dying for!

Mr Opinion,
Why is that every time you don't get the gist of a post, you call the writer a creation scientist ?
Don't you know any other words ?

Misopinionated,

An atheist. An ex-Marxist. A Darwinist. But someone interested in moral systems in different societies, which usually happen to be bolstered by religion, right or wrong.

No, I don't believe that Muhammad flew on a winged horse to Jerusalem, on the night that he died, in order to climb Jacob's Ladder, leading from the Great Temple or Al Aqsah Mosque to Heaven - and that thereby, Muslims have a claim on Jerusalem. If that's the sort of thing you mean by religion.

That's really a silly question: do you really think that everything in the world is 'either-or' ? Check out 'Manichaeanism' on Google. The world is much more shades of grey, than just black and white.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to put an old head on young shoulders ?

Joe

Joe,

An old head on young shoulders?

That would be grotesque.

.

Dear o sung wu,

.

You wrote :

1. « If we were to stone a person to death, for the crime of murder, or instead, we give him a painless injection and euthanise him instead - it still amounts to the killing of another human being … »
.

Euthanasia (from the Greek eu, “good” and thanatos, “death”) means killing someone peacefully, painlessly and humanely, preferably in a warm, cosy environment.

Cold-blooded murder, that is carefully planned and executed, is rarely committed in such favourable conditions.

I note that the OED indicates no less than 27 definitions for the word “kill” but neither “euthanasia” nor “suicide” is one of them.

Euthanasia of convicted criminals having committed one or more atrocious crimes (child murder, serial killing, torture murder, rape murder, mass murder, terrorism, and premeditated murder that is carefully planned and executed) is the logical consequence of failure to respect the fundamental human right to life (including their own).
.

2. « … and what if the executed man is ultimately found innocent, what then ? »
.

That would be a terrible tragedy, but, of course, life itself is full of risks and, as infinitesimal as it may be, the risk of being wrongly condemned can never be totally ruled out. It is a risk of life and there are many others to which we are all exposed every day. Here are some examples from the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics which relate to the year 2017 :

• 2,782 deaths due to accidental falls
• 1,226 people killed in road accidents, over 3 people a day.
• 1,255 deaths due to influenza.
• 1,366 persons died as a direct result of alcohol and there were 4,186 deaths where alcohol was mentioned as being a contributing factor to mortality.
• 3,128 people committed suicide. Suicide was the leading cause of death among people aged between 15-44 years, and the second leading cause of death among those 45-54 years of age.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Unfortunately, there are no statistics for wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals in Australia. However, an organisation called Civil Liberties Australia estimates that there are 16 wrongful convictions per year in Australia for crimes with 10-20 year-sentences, based on UK statistics (a near-identical judicial system).

Calculated on our current population of 25 million, the risk of an Australian citizen being wrongfully convicted of an atrocious crime is 16/25,000,000 = 0.000064% per year. The total risk exposure throughout an individual's lifetime of 100 years is 0.0064%.

Need I add that there have been advances in the field of forensic science, especially those associated with DNA evidence in Australia in recent years. There is good reason to think that the risk will continue to remain stable if not diminish over time.

That said, o sung wu, as you may well be aware, on 11 March 2010 Federal Parliament passed laws that prevent the death penalty from being reintroduced by any state or territory in Australia.

In addition, neither the Commonwealth nor any of the states can extradite or deport a prisoner to another jurisdiction if they risk facing the death penalty.

It will be a long time before mentalities change in order for justice to be seen simply as the rightful enforcement of the terms and conditions of the social contract to which we all voluntarily subscribe to through the democratic process, and not just as some cruel form of punishment.

.

Dear individual and Loudmouth,

If you are not creation scientists then why do you behave like creation scientists?

If two lists are made, one of innocent people executed by error and another of innocent people murdered by criminals who would have been execute had there been a death penalty, which list would be the longer?

Misopinionated,

Interesting question - why do you behave like a half-wit ? If someone disagrees with you, is that all you've got ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

It's obvious that you and individual and some others do not come from a humanities background so I guess that is why I keep seeing you as creation scientists.

'It's obvious that you and individual and some others do not come from a humanities background so I guess that is why I keep seeing you as creation scientists.'

Its obvious that the humanities background has dumbed you down Mr Opinion. Joe admits to be as godless as you.

Dear runner,

Well at least I've got degrees in the humanities which is a lot more than I can say about you.

Hi there BANJO PATERSON...

As always, you argue a very, very sound case for the execution of those individuals who commit the most atrocious of crimes in our community. I note, among those who, in your view, should suffer execution, are child murderers. A crime which Ms. Linda CHAMBERLIN was once convicted and sentenced. Further advances in forensic science, and a more thorough police investigation, ultimately proved (on appeal), she was innocent of killing her baby daughter, Asaria.

Imagine if you will, she was executed? Without going over old ground ad nauseam, I was a policeman for over 32 years, most of that as a detective. Fortunately, or unfortunately, when you think about it, I dealt with one of the most depraved killers in NSW, Archie Beattie McCAFFERTY, who killed four innocent souls, with three to go. Little did this killer know, he taught me much about the mind and MO of an unstable and unpredictable killer. If you have a mind to Rodney, you could perhaps Google him. In fact, Archie wanted to be executed, claiming he would ultimately find peace, from the endless persecution from the Courts & the police.

Notwithstanding the apparent advances of Science, let me tell you, Rodney, it's dogged, hard, mindnumbing police work, that counts in the end. Sure science has it's uses - it works like a signpost, pointing you in a specific direction. However, it can muddle the facts, sending investigators on false lines of inquiry as well.

That said, I much preferred working under our current arrangement, at which point, if an atrocious crime is committed, the perpetrator upon conviction, spends years locked-up in gaol. Rather than investigating suspect(s), and if you, as the investigator, get it wrong, the suspect may forfeit his life.

I don't remember runner rabbiting on about formal qualifications as young, naive people seem to do. With his innate wisdom and goodness, he would never need such useless trappings. My vote goes to runner.

Dear ttbn,

Of course runner doesn't say anything about his qualifications. Simply because there's nothing to talk about.

Misopinionated,

Wrong again: I do come from a humanities background: geography, economic development, community studies, education, policy. As well as accounting, local government administration and business. I worked in Indigenous student recruitment, preparation and support although, given the fragile situation for whitefellas in Indigenous affairs, my last paying job was milking cows with my brother-in-law.

That's me: now how about you ?

BTT: on second thoughts, I'm persuaded by O Sung Wu and Banjo Paterson that the death penalty is never justified. Not even for that bastard who murdered that poor girl in Melbourne last year.

Joe

I've got degrees in the humanities
Mr Opinion,
Wow ! Proof of indoctrination ! it's all very clear now ! How much tax money have you squandered thus far ? Anything positive to report ?

Dear Loudmouth,

I'm a sociologist; BE, BA, and 2 x MAs.

And yourself?

I wonder what the stats are comparing the number of wrongful convictions, and therefore incarcerations, with the number of victims had the law convicted the right and actual guilty parties instead of the wrong ones?
In other words, how many people would have been spared/saved with the real offenders in jail or dead.
All this, of course depends on an impeccable police and judicial system, which we all now know historically, is seriously flawed and completely unreliable.
The law enforcers are to some extent handcuffed, due to the mindset of the dreamers, neuters and snags amongst us, who refuse to see the REAL world, the one we all live in and not the one they think we live in, and so laws are formulated around these "lowest common denominator" thinking .
If we are honest, we will see that the police are not an effective arm of society.
They cannot solve crimes without some form of external assistance, such as crime stoppers, DNA, or public informers.
So it is that we end up with wrongful convictions, sometimes charged with a more serious crime than was actually perpetrated.
I would suggest that the laws be "relative" and not so "legal".
I am forever angered by the process of charging someone with an offence that clearly is questionable, and we must accept it without question.
It is a self fulfilling, in that when charged with an offence, you get two choices; Guilty or Not Guilty.
I instead, always question the veracity or relevance of the law in question.
As far as I (and millions of other Australians)am/are concerned, the law has taken on a fraudulent and dictatorial stance and is merely a collector of taxes for a 21st century "Sheriff of Nottingham".
I applaud mob mentality, because once we have elected these mongrels into office they take advantage of us by turning on us, then using whatever means available to enforce their evil upon us, all under the guise of the "greater good".
I'd like to know, when did we have a referendum removing the jury in exchange for a "judge"?

cont..........

Just following on, in a slightly, yet related tack.
When did we have a referendum, removing the jury from sitting in "judgement" over another person accused of a crime?
As I recall, in studying and researching the Australian Constitution, it gave a perfectly clear explanation as to why our forefathers came up with the various rules which make up our constitution, and the one I am asking about is the one about the jury.
It was explained that, one person was NOT to "judge", but that 12 people were to "judge" the outcome and penalty of an accused, because one person was not a fair means of executing such an important decision, which at times required the death penalty.
So if anyone can elaborate as to why we have active court cases which have a "judge" or "magistrate" sitting in judgement when the constitution was very clear and un-ambigious about the reason and distinction of the need for 12 jurors and definitely NOT one "judge".

Dear ttbn,

Of course runner doesn't say anything about his qualifications. Simply because there's nothing to talk about.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 3 September 2019 12:50:23 PM

Mr. Opinion,

It has been my experience that people who talk the most about themselves have the least to say. The qualifications you claim for yourself don't seem to have been much use to you on OLO. You are just another anonymous poster with opinions. You have no more authority than the poster who can barely read and write. Best not take yourself too seriously in life, son; particularly among people who have been around a lot longer than you appear to have been.

Dear ttbn,

The comment you just wrote reminds of a saying by Thomas Kuhn: A man with little knowledge takes a long time to tell you what little he knows. That's you to a tee.

Hi there ALTRAV...

You've raised some very interesting points, my friend. Juries haven't been removed from our system of criminal jurisprudence. They exist in both criminal and (some) civil jurisdictions. Our magistracy, generally don't have or need a jury, save for (some) Coroner's matters (I'll stand to be corrected on the latter?)

There're some offences that can be dealt with summarily, by a Magistrate. While others, initially heard by the Magistrate, because of their seriousness, must be remanded to a higher Court. Whereas an accused person may elect to be tried, either by the Judge only or by a jury of his peers.

I've not mentioned the appellant process, by access to higher jurisdictions. Suffice to know, the jury system is alive and well in this country my friend. I hope this simple explanation is of some help

happy to be part of the 'swamp' Mr Opinion.

correction Mr Opinion, I am happ to be a 'deplorable'.

Hi there everybody - Speaking of qualifications; I've bugger all, and enormously happy with the situation! There's an individual freedom being perceived as a dullard. We've all heard of that lamentable phrase; 'the educated idiot'?

Unfortunately, society is full of 'em, most have never held a job, they languish about some University campus, amassing their Hex debts, that'll never be repaid, while undertaking some puerile degree after degree, only to graduate as an assistant shift chief, on nights at McDonald's.

o sung wu,

I understand what you wrote.
My point is that the constitution did not allow for the govt or the judiciary to randomly and without constitutional approval by the people, to change it's rules or messages.
The constitution is not a document or a doctrine open to mis-interpretation.
It is clear and concise, with explanatory preface so as to clarify and ensure it is NOT mis-intererpreted.
So I hope you can see my disgust and anger at the govt and judiciary, for taking matters into their own hands, by contravening the constitution without following due process, (ie; having a referendum on the matter of removing the jury in all matters concerning court sittings), probably semantics, to get their own way, as usual.
I have not found any references to the removal of a jury, only to be replaced by a "single" person who, he alone sits in "judgement" over another person, in complete violation and in a concerted and eggregious rejection of the constitution and what it stands for.
In short, our forefathers were a much more mature and responsible lot, compared to this rabble of camel dung we have running things today, and I mean from the top.
You can't have incompetence at one level without it being at all levels, or things just don't work well together.
So not only is the govt incompetent, the judiciary and theefore by extension, the law enforcement as well.
So let's start at the top and start knocking these arrogant smart arses off their self imposed positions of criminally driven, self ingratiating, mindsets and thrones.

Tony Abbott was a Rhodes scholar. How do your qualifications compare to that Mr Opinion? Just wondering?

.

Dear o sung wu,

.

Many thanks for refreshing my memory of the case of the dingo abduction of the baby at Uluru and the case of the serial killer, Archie Beattie McCafferty. I must confess I had never plunged into all the gory details of the life of the latter. As you say, it is most instructive.

The former case is a regrettable example of the shortcomings of certain crime investigations, interrogations, gathering, analysing and interpreting scientific and forensic evidence etc. The latter case leaves me with the same terrible feeling of injustice that I felt when I learned that Charles Manson will be up for parole in 2027, at the age of 92, despite all the previous false announcements.

McCafferty was up for parole and released from prison at the age of 48 (he was born in 1950) and deported back to Scotland in 1998. He now goes by the name of James Lok and has been living in Scotland for the past 21 years, apparently in good health. As time has proven, he was not as insane as he, himself, and the three court-appointed psychiatric experts declared him to be.

This is typically a case where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the convicted person committed the atrocious crimes of which he was accused (in this case, four cold-blooded murders) and therefore, no risk of wrongful conviction.

It is precisely in cases like this that I consider that the appropriate response of a fair, just and democratic society is to acknowledge that, by his heinous crimes, the perpetrator has forfeited his right to life and euthanise him as painlessly, peacefully and humanely as modern science will allow.

However, it is up to the judge and the judge alone, not the jury (or anybody else, for that matter) to fix the sentence. It is the judge’s prerogative to determine if each individual case merits euthanasia or life imprisonment.

Unfortunately, not all cases are as clear-cut as the McCafferty case – but, perhaps you will agree, many others are.

.

.

Hi runner !

.

On the Rhodes again … homeward bound ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mckg0

.

O Sung Wu,

You (and the rest of us) will be happy to know that Manson died a couple of years ago. So no release, except to the worms.

Cheers,

Joe

Good morning to you ALTRAV...

I do understand the general thrust of your argument, and at some level, I do agree with you. The construct of our Constitution and most of our Legal system was based on the existing jurisprudence as practiced in Great Britain. A system that has worked very well for us ever since Federation. Is it perfect, or foolproof, of course not. There's nothing in the law that is. However, it's the best we've got, and a hell of a lot better than say, the French system of Criminal Law, where the burden of proof lays with the accused.

Your assertion(s) that our entire judicial system is incompetent, well, in some measure it's partly true I guess. I can only comment on the activities of the NSWPOL, and sure we've (they've) made mistakes in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Police investigators are not infallible, far from it. However they do their best, and after all, they and their families, also have some 'skin in the game'. Finally, your comments that many who hold judicial office are 'smart arses', in part could be true. However in my experience, many are (unequivocally) not. Thanks ALTRAV.

Dear runner,

I cannot make that comparison because I am biased towards myself. You need to get someone to do an independent assessment.

What I can say is that it is a toss up between you and Abbott as to who is the world's biggest village idiot. But at this point I reckon if we put all of the village idiots in the world into one village Tony Abbott would still be the village idiot.

It seems Mr Opinion that your high level education has given you the reasoning skills of 5 year old.

runner,

Rhodes scholarships in those days were given out to
people who had the right connections in Australia.
Apparently Abbott had a very powerfully connected
mentor - however his grades at Oxford were well
below par. BTW - Malcolm Turnbull was also a
Rhodes Scholar, as was Bob Hawke.

In any case - we all know that the skills to get a
scholarship are not the same as the skills needed
to be a successful politician or leader. And that
the characteristics that make for a successful
career (such as initiative, leadership, drive,
negotiating ability, willingness to take risks and
persuasiveness) are not even taught in universities
and not everyone possesses those skills.

It might also be noted Abbott appears to have earned his MA from Oxford by default: he completed a BA but was apparently upgraded to an MA because he was somehow registered with the university for another two years beyond the BA. I'm jealous, I had to work hard to earn my two MAs.

Hi again BANJO PATTERSON...

You seem to be a keen student, of some of, the more depraved & homicidal boofheads I've been involved with when I was still in the job. John LEWTHWAITE might be another contender for the needle you advocate for some killers, Rodney. However, I must advise you; this individual desired a quick, painless death, rather than a life being exposed to the constant threat of a severe bashing or worse, at the hands of fellow inmates in Gaol. Criminals have their own unique standards & codes, and 'violent' sexual offences occasioned against children and women are a real no-no!

Back in the mid-1970s, John L. had this bizarre sexual attraction to a nine yo boy. So he took it upon himself to sneak into the boys home to abuse him. In the process, he was disturbed by the boy's five yo sister, and for her discovery of John L. abusing her brother, she was stabbed seventeen times and died in situ. So why allow him his wish to be put quietly to sleep without ever waking up? He deserved punishment.

You seem to be a very knowledgeable, compassionate human being, Rodney. But, with respect, many folk of your particular genre, don't fully appreciate the specific nuances associated with these crimes. The very worst that has been perpetrated upon any human being. Gaol them for long periods, without any possibility of parole; for the most serious of them all. Without an easy escape, by a quick, painless needle.

Oh as an afterthought Rodney - The need to physically search them after arrest - to run your hands carefully down their body, smelling their peculiar B.O., ever mindful of 'mantraps' (syringe needles) being secreted in their pockets, or bodily orifices, is no fun. The fear of a needle stick injury is ever present. Knowing while you complete the task, they've destroyed another human being! I have to tell you; your fortnightly remuneration is patently insufficient! Particular when you want to smack the bastard around yourself. Self-control always needs to be exercised whenever physically present with these vile creatures.

runner,

Don't under estimate the reasoning skills of
five year olds. My grand-daughter gets what
she wants.

Foxy things such as "initiative, leadership, drive,
negotiating ability, willingness to take risks and
persuasiveness) are not even taught in universities" & thank god for that. Universities do a bloody awful job of teaching many things, handicapped as they are by a lefty mindset that pervades most of them.

Of course none of these things can be taught, other than perhaps negotiating ability, & I'm somewhat doubtful that can be taught either. They are either abilities you were born with, & perhaps improved by life experience, or you don't have them. They can never be taught.

Dear Hasbeen,

Universities are places of learning. Obviously you see them as being something different but I cannot make out what it is you think they are. Can you elaborate on what you think they are?

ALTRAV,
Until now you would have been hard pressed to find a stronger advocate than me for capital punishment for those that committed heinous crimes. I believed that by their actions they had forfeited their right to exist in our society.

However this changed in recent times, with the Pell case, where 4 years previously, in Victoria, the rules were altered to remove the laws that protected persons from getting convicted by accusations alone. Prosecutors were having trouble in finding evidence on which to convict peadophiles so they allowed convictions based on accusations only. They made life easier for prosecutors. Unfortunately the consequences of this is that it makes us all subject to conviction by accusation alone. Before this there was a need to have supporting evidence to convict a person of any crime.

In the Pell case there was no solid or supporting evidence, only accusations that allowed a guilty verdict. This demonstrated to me just how flimsy our justice system is. The government in Victoria removed our protection from false accusations with a simple amendment to law. All quietly done, with no public consultation that I am aware of.

Dear HenryL,

And most importantly Pell wasn't even dressed for the occasion. Maybe they should dress Pell up and put him through the motions to see if he could have. Or maybe even dress Mark Weinberg up to look like a possible paedophile Pell and put him through the motions to see if Pell was dressed for the occasion. It's not a matter of right or wrong but how one dresses for the occasion.

Mr O,

WTF are you on?
What are you talking about?
I would have thought this topic was a rather sensitive one.
One that requires maturity and pragmatism, not levity and cynicism.

Dear ALTRAV,

I think it is pretty obvious what I am talking about. It wasn't me who inferred Pell wasn't dressed for the occasion. I'm just saying put it to the test to see if he wasn't dressed for the occasion.

My grand-daughter gets what
she wants.
Foxy,
Sounds like her Grandmother needs a serious talking to !

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« … Manson died a couple of years ago. So no release, except to the worms »

Thanks for the info.

.

Dear o sung wu,

.

You wrote :

1. « You seem to be a keen student, of some of, the more depraved & homicidal boofheads …»

My interest is in the tenets and praxis of contemporary society. Justice happens to be at the top of the list.
.

2. « … many folk of your particular genre, don't fully appreciate the specific nuances associated with these crimes. The very worst that has been perpetrated upon any human being. Gaol them for long periods, without any possibility of parole; for the most serious of them all. Without an easy escape, by a quick, painless needle »

Punishment can play a useful educative role but that makes no sense for somebody who spends the rest of his life in jail. The educative and rehabilitative value of incarceration for periods in excess of 10 years is problematic. It is often counterproductive and produces the inverse effect.

Life imprisonment of people convicted of atrocious crimes is a cruel form of punishment designed to protect society and revenge the victims.

A much healthier approach to the problem would be to take example from nature. The human immune system, like that of many animals, detects foreign invaders such as bacteria, microbes, viruses, toxins and parasites and creates antibodies that attack and kill them. Our body does not isolate the malignant invaders until they die their natural death. It does not punish them or seek revenge. It simply eliminates them as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

Whether it be the body of a single human being or the collective body of society, the problem is the same.

In the same manner, farmers and gardeners eliminate weeds and invasive insects from their crops and flower beds. Who could imagine that they should isolate them in a cage and tend to them until they finally die their natural death ? It just doesn’t make sense.

.

.

Dear HenryL,

.

You wrote to ALTRAV :

« … with the Pell case, where 4 years previously, in Victoria, the rules were altered to remove the laws that protected persons from getting convicted by accusations alone. Prosecutors were having trouble in finding evidence on which to convict paedophiles, so they allowed convictions based on accusations only »
.

That is not a general rule, HenryL. It applies to sex crimes.

In the large majority of sex crimes it boils down to “my word against yours”.

As a result, in the US, 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail. In Italy, a 2006 survey found that 91.6% of rapes were not reported to the police. In Australia, in 2005, it was found that 81.1% of sexual assaults, including rape, were not reported to the police.
My word against yours has always been and continues to be the nemesis of justice.

The sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence is an effective means of guaranteeing legal immunity to sex offenders and denying justice to the millions of victims it was designed to protect. In its present form justice is counterproductive. It achieves exactly the opposite result to that for which it was intended. Instead of preventing and punishing crime, it encourages and facilitates it. It is headed in the wrong direction.

The perverse effect of the presumption of innocence in sex-related crimes is usually due to the lack of material evidence and/or of a credible eyewitness and the impossibility of proving that the victim was not the instigator or had given her (or his) consent. Any doubt is to the benefit of the offender. The victim is presumed to be lying.

In my humble opinion, in the case of sex crimes, there should be no presumptions of any sort whatsoever – neither of innocence nor of guilt. Plaintiff and accused should be placed on an equal footing and each case judged solely on its merits.

.

Hi Banjo,

So how do you do that ? Neither a presumption of guilt nor innocence ?

Societies have only those two options - a presumption of innocence, as in our society, or a presumption of guilt, as in China and many other backward legal systems. Certainly a presumption of guilt saves a lot of time and costs, and probably reduces lawyers to messenger boys. But it's ideal for repressive regimes. [Hence the opposition to extradition to China in Hong Kong].

On the other hand, a presumption of innocence forces (or ought to force) the legal system to weigh up charges and the defence against them. Harsh as it may be for the victims of evidence-less crimes, how else can a civilized society operate ? Otherwise we leave the door wide open to every accusation against anybody, evidence or not.

On those grounds, one suspects that if Pell had claimed that the two young boys had assaulted him, thrown him to the floor, and had their evil way with him, he might have got off. As it happened, he was found guilty on no more evidence than that, only on the likelihood that the evidence-free charges against him could have happened.

But surely justice has to be based on more than 'what could have happened' ?

Yes, many guilty people must go free, or have pathetic sentences levelled against them. That's the price we have to pay for a system based on the presumption of innocence and the need for evidence to back up any charge. Sometimes justice is cruel indeed.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

The jury and judges found the complainant in the
Pell case totally believable with no room for
any doubt.

Justice was served.

Emotions drive us like the wind but do we know about William , little Samantha Knight
The Simpson girl drowned in a dam over the road from my gradmums once property
Are there any cases we think we should hang the criminal
And the two most infamous rape and murder teams, add Virginia Moses killers
Sorry still waiting for Breaker Morant to be pardoned but in some cases we should murder the murderers

A classic Foxy stance.
She doesn't like something or someone, then they are immediately guilty, because she says so.
No, it's not acceptable to be accused by someone with an axe to grind.
An intelligent and fair minded, mature person would expect proof and truth, no less.
This BS of a typically weak Aussie govt is not justice, but further evidence where they will kowtow to the pathetic minorities for the sake of votes.
If females conducted themselves in a more mature and chaste manner, we would not see innocent people being wrongfully charged, in cases of a sexual nature.
Other more aggressive sexual encounters would be easy to prove, by the wounds inflected by the aggressor.
If the woman does not come forth immediately and report her encounter, then she is not convinced of her innocence and culpability in the event, therefore the longer she leaves it, the greater the loss of credibility on her part.
This law, like so many in this shitehouse country, further exacerbate an already biased legal system.
Biased against the consumer, and I have witnessed it, so can confirm.
These latest people incarcerated by this stupid rancid law are "historical", meaning they were alleged to have happened decades ago.
It is a bad enough that the accused may or may not have done what they are accused of, but to come forward after so long is just idiotic.
In any event the punishment was way over the top, only because it was politically advantageous to come down hard on these people, NOT because it was as serious an event as the bleeding hearts would want us to believe.

I just happened to glance at wonder-womans last post.
"The jury and judges found the complainant in the Pell case totally believable with no room for any doubt".
"Justice was served".
Well that's alright then, as long as these brainiacs found the complainant completely believable, then there is no doubt that Pell MUST be guilty.
What an asinine, immature, stupid and totally subjective thing to say, let alone make it the conclusion of a controversial situation.
Those who do not see the glaring flaw, and it's a dangerous one, in this type of law and this type of outcome, are seriously lacking in the capacity to reason and reckognise right from wrong, not only in law but in life.
I realise all too often those people lacking the basics of humanity and maturity are in the majority, so these kinds of laws and attitudes run rampant through our judiciary and the public in general.
It's this type of thinking that confirms that the inmates are in control of the asylum.

Hi there BANJO PATTERSON...

Mate, you argue a very compelling case for the execution of some of these vile criminals, via the use of a painless needle. As you would know, several States in the USA already execute their criminals via the needle. It's my understanding they employ three (3) needles to ensure death, and it's far from being instantaneous as reported by some of those who've actually witnessed these executions?

With the greatest respect - you'll 'never' convince me, that State initiated executions, are moral, legally infallible, or the answer to violent (capital) crimes. If an 'unsafe verdict' is discovered, the gaoled individual can be released. How do you remedy a legal mistake, when the accused has been executed? Thanks again for your contribution.

Well folks you've just seen -

"A classic ALTRAV stance."

When -

"He doesn't like something or someone..."

then they are immediately guilty of all sorts of things
apparently -
"because he says so".

"No it's not acceptable to be accused by someone
with an axe to grind."

"An intelligent, fair-minded, mature person..."
would not do that.

Well, he's just proven that theory.

Three cheers for ALTRAV -

Hip, Hip, Hooray!

Our resident entertainer.

You live but once - you might as well
be amusing.

He's really a nice person. A lovely guy.

Whom we all respect greatly.

And most importantly remember - when he says
you can't do it.
Do it twice - and take pictures.

I need to know more of this ALTRAV. Who is he? Where does he come from? Is he a god? I must know more.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Just ask him - he's a fascinating man.

Just like Trump - so full of the same qualities.
You can't help but believe his braggadocio.
And his "truths." His postings speak for
themselves and are well worth a read.

He has a huge following on the forum. And he
gets so many responses. He's even an excellent
judge on what topics should be discussed and
what topics are "rubbish." He's the judge and
jury of this forum because he is an intelligent,
fair-minded, and mature person.

ALTRAV,
You're amusing the indoctrinated ! What's your secret ?

Individual,

He's an intelligent, fair-minded, mature person.

cont'd ...

Besides as stated earlier -
you only live once - you might as well be amusing.
(smile).

Foxy,

you rang?
OK, you've got my attention.
Now which part/s of my last posting do you question, and you might possibly take a little of your precious time to illuminate as to why you disagree with the passage/s in question.
Was it; "If females conducted themselves in a more mature and chaste manner, we would not see innocent people being wrongfully charged, in cases of a sexual nature".
Or maybe it was: "An intelligent and fair minded, mature person would expect proof and truth, no less".
I tell you what, you choose and I'll respond with an explanatory note in justifying each one, and if you find it too taxing to understand, I will dumb-it-down even further, just for you.
So don't say I don't try to help you out.
Take your time, I know you need all the time you can get to think up a witty come back.
Now don't forget this is not about me, so try, really, really hard to keep your response on topic. NAH, tell ya what, I know I'm asking too much from you, so, go ahead and just let fly, to hell with the topic, I'm having too much fun.
Tell us all where I am wrong and how you would do it better.
We're all busting to hear your next pearler of a response.

ALTRAV,

How on earth can I possibly add any more to what
has already been posted.

As stated earlier - you Sir, give us surprising
insights that no one before you has ever made.

Keep up the good work.

Dear ALTRAV,

I have been hearing a lot of good things about you from Foxy. I think we should call you ALTRAV The Magnificent. I'm thinking of building a stupa to sit in and get enlightenment from your pure existence. I'm so happy just to know of someone of your greatness that it has left me in tears. You are the Buddha of my dreams.

Mr O,

well, my son, I will reveal my true identity when all that I have created is at peace with each other.
Then and only then can I say my creation is alive and thriving.
Until then, I watch in sorrow as the universe I once created is imploding upon itself.
Not by my hand, but by the hand of, liars, cheats, charlatans, con-men, politicians, lawyers, bankers and stupid people who refuse to see things as they are and not as they would have them be because it makes them feel "good" and more comfortable.
So go forth and tell your brothers and sisters to keep carrying on like spoilt pre-pubescent brats and their day of reckoning shall be upon them sooner than they would expect, and it shall be swift.
And so, Mr O, you now know more.
Go in peace, my son.

It is true, you really are ALTRAV The Magnificent.

Mr O,

now that I have revealed my true identity to you, I trust you will keep it a secret, as you know how your brothers and sisters distort the truth and spread these unfounded and unsubstantiated lies about me.
So I trust you to keep this between ourselves.
All will be revealed in due course.
Be at peace my son, and go forth with the grace of.....well, ME!

and go forth with the grace of.....
ALTRAV,
You forgot to warn him that being a Progressive hence taking one step forward & two back, he'll need to walk away facing you. Can you handle such a sight ?

Dear individual,

You blaspheme against ALTRAV The Magnificent.

ALTRAV, knowing how much I "respect" you, I now see another side to your omnipotence. You are indeed the Messiah! If not the great one himself then you must be Archy Pell incarnate, banging away with dribble on your 'puter from inside your isolation cell at the Collage of Knowledge, Pentridge!

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« So how do you do that ? Neither a presumption of guilt nor innocence ? Societies have only those two options - a presumption of innocence, as in our society, or a presumption of guilt, as in China and many other backward legal systems »
.

It’s not quite as simple and straight forward as that, I’m afraid, Joe. Sovereign states such as Australia are precisely that : sovereign. The supreme authority in Australia is our federal constitution, despite whatever international treaties we may have signed and ratified. The same goes for all other sovereign nations.

It is no secret that sovereign nations commit breaches of their international treaty obligations when they consider that it is not in their national interest to respect them – including Australia (on the question of human rights in relation to refugees, for example).

There is no national legislation that implements our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Also, Australia is the only country in the Western world that does not have a bill of rights at the national level to include protection for the legal right of the presumption of innocence.

A number of inroads have been made in the UK as well in respect of the presumption of innocence.

In sexual offence cases such as rape, where the sexual act has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt, there are a limited number of circumstances where the defendant has an obligation to produce evidence that the complainant consented to the sexual act, or that the defendant reasonably believed that the complainant was consenting.

Crime evolves and justice systems evolve. The presumption of innocence was not designed to guarantee legal immunity to sex offenders.

For the adversarial system of justice to operate fairly when it comes down to a question of “my word against yours”, accuser and accused should be treated on an equal footing. Each case should be judged on its merits, and on its merits alone.

Let justice be done. We must privilege justice – not some moralistic ideology.

.

Paul, my son, don't tell anyone, but you have found me out.
Ti's not I you speak of, but a decoy, merely another of my creations, to obfuscate those who seek me harm.
It is with heavy heart and forlorn that I sit upon my ivory throne, with such burden as to feel the weight of the pain I carry in attempting to mitigate the lackings and futility of my children as they continue to evade me, the "Magnificent" one.
But fear not for I will not falter from my purpose in life, which is to ensure the truth shall forever prevail throughout my children.
At least in this life and on this Earth, er, forum.
Amen.

I'd like to propose & nominate Paul1405 & Mr Opinion for the award for outstanding obliviousness to daily life.

Dear Banjo,

«For the adversarial system of justice to operate fairly when it comes down to a question of “my word against yours”, accuser and accused should be treated on an equal footing.»

Not so if you talk about fairness, because if the accused loses, s/he will suffer extreme agony for years, whereas if the accuser loses, they will just return to the comfort of their home with no consequences at all.

More so, because the accuser suffers no consequences if they cannot prove their case, they can still enlist the help of 10's or 100's of their friends to make similar claims against the one accused who would suffer the most dire consequences even if just one of them wins. It is like betting when one of the parties can roll the dice again and again if they do not like the result - Call this "fair"?

«Sovereign states such as Australia are precisely that : sovereign.»

Which also is anything but fair. They are strong and mighty whereas the ordinary small people who live on the land cannot do anything against those who control their lives.

Anyway, why be adversarial? Don't we have enough wars and conflicts already?

Hi Banjo,

Pretty clearly, a presumption of innocence is a technicality of the justice system, and certainly does not mean some sort of immunity for an accused.

So, in a sense, an accused person is presumed innocent BUT under the imposition of an accusation of an offence, and perhaps in custody - and in turn, the accusers (police, citizen, complainant) have to build a case to prove, to the court (or jury)'s satisfaction, that the accused has committed the offence.

So, I suppose technically, the accusers have the burden of building their case, while the accused technically doesn't have to do anything at all. But of course, he has to defend himself against any charges, so he/she and/or his/her lawyers have to effectively prove his/her innocence by demonstrating that the evidence against the accused is either inadequate or false. So of course, the accused and his/her lawyers have a lot of work to do, incurring much time and costs, even though he/she may actually be innocent.

It's much easier for a 'justice' system which presumes the guilt of a charged person, especially if the accused is in custody and finding it difficult to hire a lawyer or gather counter-evidence. So 99 % of cases in Chinese courts, so I've heard, result in a guilty verdict. This surely speeds up the processing of cases, and at much lower costs overall, but is somewhat unjust from a Western point of view.

And of course, the sale of body parts of executed prisoners is a useful and economic way to recoup much of the costs incurred in such a 'justice' system.

Bugger it, now I'm on the List.

Cheers,

Joe

Banjo,

it's too bad the "system" didn't put it's "morals where it's mouth is", when it came up with this unconscionable law.
I, for one was in dis-belief over this new and moronic form of justice to actually consider, "historic" cases.
It has confirmed humanity's already flawed direction as being the norm, and the way forward for a very sick society and mentality.
There has never been justification for charging, let alone convicting, anyone with out proof or even reasonable doubt.
Based purely on common sense, where is the reasonable doubt when there is nothing to even begin to form the basis of a case on.
Too much subjectivity and PC are beginning to show their ugly head and not enough pragmatism and objectivity.
Society has shown it has lost it's way when people carry out lynching mob mentality and Kangaroo courts.
The recent convictions of these old men for allegedly having wronged decades ago, should never have been considered in the first place, let alone gone to trial, and certainly not convicted.
Another blight on society.

Banjo Paterson,
Since the precedent of the Pell case, any male person in Victoria that has had consensual sex with another person, could now be convicted of rape purely on the accusations of the other party. All that is required is for the other party to change their mind and claim consent was not given.

Before 29-6-2015 proof of the accusations was required to convict, not so now, The Pell case has shown that accusations are enough to obtain conviction. Under the 'old' system protection was given to persons falsely accused,by insisting on proof.

What makes you think that the new laws, with the presumption of guilt, will be restricted only to sex crimes. 'Go get em' lawyers, with money in mind will soon have the laws applied to all types of criminal law. A simple amendment changed our whole concept of proof being required, it is easy to embrace 'guilt by accusation' into other aspects of criminal law.

Glad I do not reside in Victoria or intend to visit

Dear Mr Opinion and Paul,

Isn't it wonderful - we don't need another Trump
when we have our own "Chosen One," on this
Forum.

Hi there LOUDMOUTH...

Joe, I admire the way you can tease out the facts on most topics that appear here, on The Forum. And on this occasion, generally speaking, you're correct.

Just a couple of points if I may; You're correct, under our system of criminal jurisprudence, there's a general presumption of innocence. Notwithstanding you've got this boofhead with a dripping axe in his hand, the presence of an eviscerated body, with the accused standing by, dripping in blood. Oddly, that individual enters the Dock, presumed innocent. Sounds crazy, but that's our system, as inherited from Great Britain. Still, not a bad system, in my opinion.

The Crown (R v Bloggs) must 'prove' it's case, 'to a point beyond a reasonable doubt.'

When police recruits, go through their academy, they analyse and define each word of that important statement. As an example, to explain the word 'reasonable' goes something like this (from memory) -

"an ordinary man who travels to and from his normal place of employment, atop of a Clapham Common omnibus, if he were told the exact same facts of a case, he would come to the same conclusion" or very similar words. This is the 'test' of a reasonable man, and by extension, used in our criminal law.

In conclusion, Joe - it's the Crown, that has to prove its case, 'beyond that of a reasonable doubt.' NOT the accused. Without creating any confusion here, there are some exceptions. When the accused mounts a defence of Insanity. The burden of proof then shifts to the accused, to prove at the time he committed the crime:-

* he was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong*

Joe, this is known in common law, as 'The McNaghten Rule' (1853) 8 ER 718 at 722. The NSW test, for a defence of Insanity, to the charge of Murder.

Thanks Joe.

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

1. « Pretty clearly, a presumption of innocence is a technicality of the justice system, and certainly does not mean some sort of immunity for an accused »

“In doctrina”, no it doesn’t, Joe, but, “de facto”, yes it does. The stats are there to prove it : in the US, 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail. In Italy, 91.6% of rapes are not reported to the police. In Australia, 81.1% of all sex crimes, including rape, are not reported to the police.

Why are the majority of sex crimes not reported ? Because justice is not tailored to deal with the intimate nature of sex crimes and the intricacies of conflicting narratives of “my word against yours” :

• no witnesses,
• often no material evidence
• quasi-impossibility to prove non-consent
• justice presumes the accused is innocent and the accuser is lying
• the accused is usually judged innocent (and considered by society to be the victim)
• the accuser is usually condemned by society as a criminal and must bear that stigma for the rest of her (or his) life – in addition to the mental anguish and humiliation of the crime itself

In contexts like this, justice needs to be impartial. Unfortunately, it’s not. It’s biased.

It should not make any à priori presumptions of innocence or guilt. Nor should it impose the onus of proof on the plaintiff alone. Both parties should be required to participate actively in the revelation of the truth and treated on an equal basis.

Under the present system, injustice has reached dramatic proportions. It is most regrettable paradox that such a noble ideology as the presumption of innocence has produced such an immoral result of protecting a huge majority of criminals and denying justice to so many innocent victims.
.

2. « … 99 % of cases in Chinese courts, so I've heard, result in a guilty verdict »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Yes, something like that, Joe. That’s because the system is different in China. Guilt or innocence is determined before the trial. If the person apprehended is found innocent, he does not go on trial and is released. If he is found guilty, he is presented to the court where he has the choice of either admitting his guilt and presenting his excuses in a meek and humble manner (knowing full well that he is on trial because he has already been found guilty), or claiming his innocence and adopting a defiant attitude.

The court then officially declares him guilty (with a few rare exceptions) and fixes his sentence, depending on his attitude.

.

Dear Yuyutsu, ALTRAV and HenryL,

.

You all have legitimate objections and I appreciate your comments.

Justice is complex, difficult and highly controversial. It’s a bit of a lottery. The chances of winning are pretty slim.

Unlike the natural sciences, where the proof of a theory must satisfy strict tests of falsification, in the criminal law, guilt or non-guilt is a matter of probability, tested to the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

According to Michael Naughton of the University of Bristol, under the adversarial system of justice:

« Criminal trials are not a consideration of factual innocence or factual guilt. They determine if defendants are ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ according to the evidence before the Court, governed by the prevailing principles of due process »

As I indicated in a previous post, life is full of risk. We just have to do our best to manage them as best we can and hopefully produce a profit at the end of the exercise.

.

I have only been a witness in a criminal trial once in my life. I was called by the defence, and I can say the questioning by the prosecution barrister was a somewhat harrowing experience, with the prosecutor coming at me with the same question several time from different angles. I know he was testing my evidence for truthfulness and probing for any untruths or inaccuracies. If I had been lying the prosecutor was going to find out, that's for sure. What should have taken five minutes, took half an hour. I can see why sometimes its better for the accused not to give evidence in their own defence, they might prove to be the star witness for the prosecution.

he was testing my evidence for truthfulness and probing for any untruths or inaccuracies.
Paul1405,
I don't know if there are any prosecutors here on OLO but I & others have always been able to sense your fibs !

Dear Banjo,

«According to Michael Naughton of the University of Bristol, under the adversarial system of justice:

"Criminal trials are not a consideration of factual innocence or factual guilt. They determine if defendants are ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ according to the evidence before the Court, governed by the prevailing principles of due process"»

If that was only an intellectual exercise, a game of chess between lawyers, then fine - the judge could then raise the arm of one lawyer and declare him/her the victor based on probability points. I would have no problem with that.

But don't they realise that they are playing this game with people's lives?
Don't they realise that they could destroy others, condemning an innocent person to a fate worse than death?

The results do not affect only the accused - but all the rest of us, innocent citizens that have nothing to do with the case or anything similar, we pee in our pants for fear that we could be the unfortunate next victims of the "justice" system.

Yes, I am aware that there are other dangers in life, but aren't there enough fires and hurricanes already that we need to top them up with man-made dangers?

.

Dear Yuytsu,

.

You wrote :

« If that was only an intellectual exercise, a game of chess between lawyers, then fine … But don't they realise that they are playing this game with people's lives? »
.

It’s not a game, Yuyutsu, it’s a very serious matter, and there’s no reason to think that judges, lawyers and members of a jury are any less aware of it than you and I. Nor is there any reason to presume they are lacking in humanity and compassion or are necessarily biased.

It is the duty of the judge to inform the jury clearly and precisely of what is expected of them and the basis on which they should arrive at a decision of innocence or guilt according to their personal conviction and conscience. It has nothing to do with a game of chess.

Naturally, the revelation of the truth, based solely on evidence and eye-witness accounts, is a formidable task. Perception of reality is not reality. And never can be. Even if the crime had been filmed and all the members of the court – judges, lawyers and jury – had witnessed the crime itself.

We perceive what we know and recognise, or think we know and recognise, and we interpret our perceptions according to our experience, understanding, prejudices and convictions.

The advantage of a jury is that, to a certain extent, it acts as a buffer to such inconveniences.

Until somebody comes up with a better idea of how to judge criminal acts, that’s about the best we can do. Though, as I indicated in my previous post to Loudmouth, I consider that, in its present form, justice is not accomplishing its mission as impartially as it should, in respect of sex crimes, and needs reforming.

Regarding your concern of somebody being wrongly condemned of a sex crime, naturally, the risk exists but it is extremely remote. In no way can it justify dissuading 81.1% of all sex crimes, including rape, from being reported to police, in Australia.

Anybody who has nothing to hide has nothing to fear.

.

.

Dear Loudmouth, Yuyutsu, ALTRAV and HenryL,

.

In the March quarter 2019, the average daily number of prisoners in Australia was 43,320 :

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4512.0

However, I don’t think we should open the prison gates and let everyone out just because there might be some wrongly condemned prisoners among them.

But, logically, it seems that’s what we should do if we were to apply the sacrosanct principle :

« It’s better that 100 guilty men go free, than that one innocent man be wrongly condemned »

Of course, if we could identify the innocent prisoners, we would not need to release everyone.

But, apparently, we can’t. So, what do you suggest ?

.

Dear Banjo,

Regarding your latest post (I hope to soon find the time to respond to you former):

«But, apparently, we can’t. So, what do you suggest ?»

Keep in jail only those prisoners who are still reasonably considered dangerous to society. Release those who still pose just a small risk into home-detention. Free the others. Those who remain in jail should be given the voluntary option of euthanasia.

Prison is the most horrendous place, ESPECIALLY FOR THE GOOD AND PIOUS, for whom it is worth than death. I can perhaps understand, if not approve, the accidental killing of an innocent person, but not their imprisonment.

You may have heard the story of the two blonde women: one was desperate for money, so she kidnapped the other's boy as he was playing in the park, attached a note to the back of his shirt: "I have kidnapped your boy. Pay me $50,000 or you will never see him again", then sent him back to his mother. The mother read the note and was startled, so she returned the boy with the money and a note: "How could one blond do such a thing to another?" and so I am asking myself: "HOW COULD ONE HUMAN DO SUCH A THING TO ANOTHER?"!

BP,
what I suggest is not going to make one sparrow fart of a difference, and that annoys me.
But so as to answer your question;
First and foremost, I would appreciate if the those engaged in the job of identifying then charging and assessing the guilt or innocence of a "suspect", actually did their job, or in most cases, knew what they were doing.
All to often today, there is a preference to results over performance.
Using such thinking as, "well he might not be guilty of this crime but he more than certain is guilty of past crimes, for which he has evaded us, well now we even the score".
That philosophy is OK with me, but the risk of error is too great to be so flippant with a man's life in such a cavalier manner, which is the basis of the legal and judicial system.
The system is desperate to be seen as a viable machine in this ever so demanding world, and because of this I believe too many people are being found guilty of crimes they were not guilty of or certainly to the seriousness or extent alleged and accused of.
So let's clean up the system first.
Let's find the guilty, and not let them off because of some stupid PC or because they are a minority and cannot be seen as being "picked on".
If they're guilty, they're guilty, what's so hard about that.
I realise the blacks would be the overwhelming majority in prison, given my scenario, but we have to face our demons head on or we will be overwhelmed by the mistakes we, and therefore, the system makes.

Aboriginal people are massively over represented
in the criminal justice system of Australia. Every year
it gets worse.

Is this due to inadequate legal representation, social
and economic situations, police behaviour, offence
criminalisation, or people's attitudes, or a combination
of all these things?

It appears that there's more involved here.

Foxy,

actually it is quite simple.
The rest of the population are expected to tow the line, so there is no more involved here than the will and maturity of those who make the decisions.
The answer to your question, regarding the overwhelming number of blacks in jail, is simple.
They refuse to tow the line like the rest of us are expected to.
You have only to look across the way to NZ, where the Maori reject "white mans" laws and have created a minefield for the govt and the law enforcement and the people.
This arrogance is cloaked in a veil of "we were here first so piss off or let us run the country".
Our blacks are of a similar mindset.
The younger ones, knowing this fact, go around harassing the public at every opportunity, it's a matter of record, and the 'goody two shoes' and socially unaware, like yourself, for some reason, even though you portray yourself as benign, are in fact very malignant, and your stance confirms this.
You may despair over the large number of blacks in jail, you may even put up all these reasons, that you feel are being unjust towards them, but you know the real reason, yet you deflect because you lack the courage to tell it like it is.
I'll do it for you; It's because they broke the law!
How's that?
Feel better now, someone had to do your dirty work for you.
Why do you persist in pushing sh!t uphill?

ALTRAV,

Who on earth could possibly argue with your logic.

Certainly not me.

Banjo,

On the face of it, if a court finds someone guilty of an offence, then they are guilty and they do their time. They can appeal of course.

Foxy,

A little bit dishonest of you - you omit the obvious factor in high Indigenous incarceration rates: the committing of offences. In spite of that, statistically there is a comparatively low rate of Indigenous deaths in custody: 28-29 % of people in custody are Indigenous, but 23 % of deaths in custody are Indigenous. It's safer for many Indigenous people to be in custody than out in the community. Yes, okay, I'll repeat that: It's safer for many Indigenous people to be in custody than out in the community.

And I have to say that I've known some pretty crazy and violent buggers in the Indigenous community, and a couple who've done time (not an amazingly long time either) for manslaughter (and, I suspect, actually for murder). I'm also talking about people who did the crime but not the time. I remember one big bloke who used to rage around, and when he had a bad car accident that left him in a wheelchair, I thought, 'Thank Christ'. I am, after all, a complete bastard.

Frankly, I don't care: if anybody does the crime, then they do the time. If they feel a need to top themselves while inside, since I cautiously support Voluntary Euthanasia, I would maintain that that's their right.

Joe

Foxy,

thank you.
I finally get the last word, and let me say how humble I feel because of your kind and thoughtful gesture.

ALTRAV,

I don't mind your having the last word.

In fact I'm delighted when you finally reach it.

Foxy,

AHA, I knew it.
I had to laugh.
I knew you could not stand just walking away.
I love it, you're so predictable, thankfully in a nice way, and ALWAYS entertaining.
I concede to a better man.
The soap box is all yours.
Please carry on.

.

@ Foxy (ladies first), ALTRAV, Loudmouth & Yuyutsu,

.

We have been living in this country now, with our Aboriginal compatriots, for nearly a quarter of a millennium.

As I see it, the balance of integration for the first quarter is heavily tipped in favour of our Aboriginal compatriots. My sentiment is that far more Aboriginal people have integrated our European culture, proportionally, than we have integrated theirs. Maybe Loudmouth has some more information on that.

Despite all my foolish escapades of yesteryear, I can’t say I have ever had any real regrets, but I do think it’s a pity I never acquired any Aboriginal culture. I think it should be a compulsory subject like reading, writing and mathematics in our primary schools, with a little practical experience in the bush thrown in.

We’d be stupid to let it die out and lost forever. We can never be fully Australian if we don’t acquire some Aboriginal culture. We can only be some sort of second-class, sub-European culture with a rugged, uncouth accent and largely rough, unsophisticated manners.

It certainly wouldn’t do any harm to valorise our first peoples, show respect to them and encourage them to retrieve and revive whatever they still can of their traditional culture and share it with our children as well as theirs.

It might even have an overall positive effect on both of us.

Integration is not just a one-way trip. It works both ways.

Anything would be better than just filling up our jails with those that can’t make it and don't know what to do with themselves – on both sides of the divide.

.

BP,

I can only say that there are those of us, me included, who really don't care to know anything about a particular culture or people, over any other.
If individual people wish to do so, of course they are welcome to, nobody's going to stop them, but to expect the educations system to introduce aborigine studies 101, I think is a bridge too far.
The kids currently are having enough trouble learning the few basic subjects they are faced with, and they are all useful in life and work, today.
Learning about the the blacks should be treated as an after school thing just like football and other socially driven endeavours.
I for one direct people to the fact that Australia was never a one people country, like some countries, heck even the blacks came from parts North and therefore cannot claim being of Australian origin.
Today we are the most culturally diverse country in the world, and this may bode well for us in the future in dealing with International issues.
As it stands today, I will not sanction the empowerment of a people who are unworthy of such a position.
Should they conduct themselves in a humble and inclusive manner, I might be inclined to heal, but this aggressive and divisive attitude the blacks bare towards all who are not black, demonstrates they are not to be facilitated as they are unable to function in a position of power or control over their own affairs.
Not that I agree with the current system where the white man is gouging the funding earmarked for the blacks either, but somewhere we will eventually find a way of either getting the blacks off welfare, off their arse and onto self determination, one day.
BTW, I'm offended at your dig as if it is the white mans fault so many blacks are in jail.
We are not the ones "filling the jails with blacks", they are, so take that back.
If you don't want so many blacks in jail, then you find a way to stop them from continually committing crimes.

Dear Banjo,

I don't know why I was included in your list in being asked about aboriginal culture and imprisonment. I was silent on the matter because I know very little about it.

I suppose it would be nice to study about the aboriginal culture(s), but I was disturbed when you mentioned the word "compulsory": I don't believe in compulsion and no one has a right to force other people's children to learn anything (including reading, writing and mathematics). A child who is being compelled to study about aboriginal culture is likely to grow up hating aboriginals (same for mathematics). There are plenty of other children who would voluntarily choose and enjoy the subject.

As for jails filling with aboriginals, it is a tragedy, but I don't know what can be done, it is essentially a medical problem and requires a medical solution. The name of the problem is alcohol. When white people invaded, they brought this scourge with them and as the aboriginal had no genetic immunity to it, they fall down like flies. When one drinks alcohol (and substitutes), and the more they drink, one loses control of their intellect over their mind, thus they are prone to poverty, ill-health, shorter lives and also crime. Being irresponsible, one is dangerous to others and needs to be restrained, but I wish we could have more humane facilities to minimise as much as possible the suffering of those restrained. The legal "justice" system is certainly inadequate: my view is that it should be scrapped anyway for everyone as justice should be left to God, but matters like this should especially be considered as an illness rather than as crime.

Dear Banjo,

Thank You for your post. As always - very insightful.

This land's First Peoples have felt the sting of
exclusion and discrimination. It is the challenge
of a nation to rise above its past.

The First Peoples do not have special rights, but
inherent rights. It diminishes no one to
acknowledge and protect that unique status. In this
way we ensure allegiance. In this way we narrow
our differences and strengthen our bonds.

A nation is not just a set of laws. Above all, it is a
story: a never-ending story of us. It is the story of
a land steeped in time, awaiting people from many
other lands, who in time will call themselves Australians.
It begins with the first footsteps taken tens of
millenia ago, and continues in the newest-born child of
this land. It will live on in those still to come.

Anyway enough said. Once again Thank You for your
comments. They are greatly appreciated.

Foxy,

I see your still copying and pasting.
You forgot to give any reference of the origin of your last post.
Your words are of a flowery wonderland and of a people who are no more revered than the rest of us.
You insist on holding the blacks to a station way above their actual and real standing.
If we are to accept your submission on how badly we have treated the blacks, you need to look into the blacks behaviour, not the whites.
You refuse to see that the way you kowtow to the blacks IS tantamount to discrimination against ALL the rest of the Australian population.
Your continual bleating on their behalf is nothing short of treason.
At the very least it is extremely anti social and divisive when one promotes one race over all the rest, irrespective of the fact you attempt to sell the idea based on your twisted logic that the blacks are being unfairly treated, when in fact the opposite is many times more the truth/case.
Foxy, you spend far too much time in your own mind/world, it's about time you actually accepted the real world and not the one you live in.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You wrote :

« We are not the ones "filling the jails with blacks", they are, so take that back »
.

I don’t exclude the possibility that some prisoners (both indigenous and non-indigenous) might choose to go to jail, and commit crimes with this objective in mind, but I see no reason to think that this is the case of the majority of prisoners. As Loudmouth suggested in his last post to Foxy, for those who might be tempted to adopt such a strategy :

« It's safer … to be in custody than out in the community »

However, what I wrote (and which provoked your comment) was :

« Anything would be better than just filling up our jails with those that can’t make it and don't know what to do with themselves – on both sides of the divide »

I did not indicate or even, in any way, imply who was “filling the jails with blacks”, as you infer, ALTRAV. You did that. You declared : "they are".

Perhaps I should point out that the same laws apply to everybody in Australia, without exception, but Aboriginal offenders are judged by Indigenous urban courts and circles as well as the Aboriginal Community Court in Western Australia,. These courts have been set up to deal with crimes committed by our Aboriginal compatriots to facilitate communications and court procedures. Aboriginal elders assist the judge in examining the case and determining the sentence for which the final decision rests exclusively with the non-indigenous judge, alone.

There are no Aboriginal judges on these courts, but there is one, Matthew Myers, on the Federal Magistrates Court :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Myers_(judge)

So, ALTRAV, while the Aboriginal offenders are responsible for their crimes, it’s the non-indigenous judges who are condemning them and “filling the jails with blacks”.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« As for jails filling with aboriginals, it is a tragedy, but I don't know what can be done, it is essentially a medical problem and requires a medical solution. The name of the problem is alcohol »
.

Not exactly, Yuyutsu, alcohol is not the problem for the Aboriginal offenders. It is the solution they turn to in order to forget their problems.

The lives of our Aboriginal compatriots, their culture and social structures have been completely disrupted by colonisation and they suffer from the aftermaths. A majority of them have, by choice or by force, managed to assimilate Western culture and Western education and lead reasonably satisfactory lives.

Unfortunately, an important minority have not, and are trapped in limbo between their traditional Aboriginal culture and modern Western culture. They can’t go back and can’t go forward. They are completely and hopelessly lost – living with government assistance and welfare.

It’s more than just a medical problem, Yuyutsu. Simply depriving them of alcohol will not fix it. It’s a human problem, a moral problem and a political problem.

There’s no simple answer to it and no end in sight.

.

Banjo,

pe-lease, stop trying to defend the indefensible.
"They turn to alcohol to forget their problems"?
Really?
Your clutching at straws.
If their lives and social structure have been "completely disrupted" as you contend, then nothing is stopping them moving back to the bush and getting on with their lives, such as it was.
No Banjo, sorry your attempt at mitigating the over represented number of blacks in jail is rejected outright.
You have failed in trying to make the blacks in jail as victims.
Their unwillingness to conform and comply to the laws of the land are all too obvious, and we don't need an elder to tell us they don't want to tow the line.
If the white mans laws are an issue for these particular blacks, nothing is stopping them doing the same as any white man, and that is move to the country where they can feel more at home in the bush and not in a concrete jungle which is understandably alien to these particular blacks.
No Banjo, I have witnessed the hatred, the arrogance, the shirt fronting, and many more unsociable acts and attitudes towards the whites.
This attitude is tantamount to an underground war, being generated and fostered by certain black entities, against the whites for a misguided ideology that the whites "invaded their land".
If this is seriously their mindset, then my stance on this is; TOO BAD!
Tough get over it, we don't care, how many ways do we have to say it, we "colonised" Australia, no more, no less.
We did no different than their own ancestors and original migrants to Australia did.
They keep saying they do not believe in "owning" land, so then why do they insist it is "their" land and we invaded it.
We migrated too, just like their ancestors, and furthermore we don't have to explain squat diddly to a bunch of transients who suddenly decide they can acquire something for nothing by annoying the sh!t out of decent innocent people, who by the way, bought or buying the land they can legally call theirs.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

I understand your position. It’s an opinion shared by many of our fellow countrymen and women. The plight of our Aboriginal compatriots is part of our inheritance and, as I indicated in my last post to Yuyutsu, there’s no simple solution to the problem.

It’s something we have in common with many other countries. There are over 5,000 indigenous peoples in the world, for a total population of about 370 million. They have all suffered pretty much the same fate as our own Aborigines, due to colonisation.

Indigenous peoples are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups of people in the world. To such an extent that the international community now recognizes that special measures are required to protect their rights and maintain their distinct cultures and way of life.

For this reason, and only after much hesitation and tergiversation, Australia finally endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2009. Prior to that, we had the Mabo decision in 1992 whereby the High Court of Australia invalidated the policy of terra nullius (land belonging to nobody) that the British colonisers used to justify claiming ownership of all Aboriginal land in the name of the British Crown.

That watershed decision subsequently triggered the recognition of traditional land rights throughout the country of numerous Aboriginal communities.

All this testifies to a growing awareness among the general public, at the national level, of the devastation caused to our indigenous peoples due to the devious manner in which the British colonisers dispossessed them of their traditional land rights and lifestyles 231 years ago.

Nevertheless, it is perfectly understandable that somebody like you, ALTRAV, who has “witnessed the hatred, the arrogance, the shirt fronting, and many more unsociable acts and attitudes towards the whites” is revolted by such obnoxious behaviour on the part of many of the current generation of Aborigines, and has absolutely no sympathy for them whatsoever.

Again, as I observed in my post to Yuyutsu, there’s no simple solution to the problem and no end in sight.

.

BP,

on the contrary, I disagree.
There are solutions to this thing, but you and others fail to accept an inconvenient truth.
Firstly the language has to be corrected.
The whites did not dispossess anyone.
The blacks were transients, owned nothing, so at best were, "squatters".
Secondly, any area they suggest is a sacred site, I and millions of others challenge and relegate such claims to the BS file, or bin.
They had "apparently" 60,000 years to ensconce themselves in this country, but instead wait over a hundred years after we come along, set the place up, with mining, infrastructure, farming, industries, and a healthy export industry with an annual income of billions, the envy of many countries, and decide to start breaking balls with some pathetic push and sudden realisation of their "connection"to this land, and their rights to it.
What a load of crap, and very, very, disgusting antics.
Con-men must have choreographed this despicable insane attempt at one of the biggest land heists in history, or ever.
No Banjo, you grab your little soap box and your little organ and your band of puppets and just leave, stage door left, and don't forget to gather up all your coloured mates on the way back to the outback, and close the door behind you.
You are just as bad as them for backing them.
Do you even have a clue at what you are trying to sell?
The Aussie public is fed up with this BS of a fable, it started too late, and it's been going on for too long.
Next time, get all your black fellas together and form a co-ordinated front, and attack and kill any settlers, before they actually settle in, that way you will be sending a message to the settlers that they are not wanted and if they persist, they will be killed.
That's how it's done.
If that was done, then it means the settlers won.
If that's the case, TOO BAD!
Suck it up and leave us alone, with your continual unconscionable and egregious, annoying and extremely unjustified demands.

Banjo

I can never understand the definition of 'Indigenous' if it excludes Africans who, surely, are Indigenous to Africa ? In fact, of course, we all are. So there are closer to two billion Indigenous people. The unconscious distinction between African and other Indigenous people is that a high proportion of Africans were and are cultivators, and have been for many thousands of years. Perhaps your definition is more or less confined to hunter/gatherers ?

As for cultural retention or revival, as far as I am concerned, everybody, including Indigenous people, should be able to access the cultural practices that they perceive as most relevant and valued. If people wish to spend their lives hunting and gathering, there should be no restraints. If not, then also, there should be no restraints on their choices.

But as W.E.H. Stanner noted, at the end of a very long anthropological career, he did not know of a single person who had 'come in' and then, after experiencing the rations and housing, etc., had decided to 'go out' again. So much for the retention and revival of traditional culture.

Of course, if anybody wants to learn about traditional Indigenous cultural practices, there should be nothing to stop them. Except perhaps the major barrier, that by definition, much of traditional culture is kept secret, given that the magic perceived to bolster it is kept secret on pain of death.

If you mean material culture, the political economy of hunting and gathering, then that has been abandoned long ago, as well as the knowledge, language and skills that went with it. As Albert Namatjira said, when asked back in the thirties what he liked to do when he wasn't painting, he liked going out hunting - on the back of a truck with a .303.

Culture changes -

[TBC]

[continued]

- some practices and knowledge become irrelevant and eventually forgotten (along with the accompanying language). And quite quickly - even within a couple of generations. Down this way, the last person to speak the full Ngarrindjeri language (and I have doubts about that, since he wasn't Ngarrindjeri) was born around 1881, within two generations of colonisation and died in 1963.

There's a bit of double-talk about cultural retention: I recall one Aboriginal student, very staunch on traditional culture, who complained about her air-conditioning not working properly. A major complaint in remote communities is over housing, but nobody wants to go back to wurlies. I'm not sure how selective people want to be about what they retain, or revive, and what they leave to history. But the trend certainly doesn't seem to be a return to traditional life by anybody.

BTT: as for the incarceration of Indigenous people, I suggest those people involved simply ('simply' ? ) don't commit the crimes. But you put your finger on a syndrome of lifelong welfare, lifelong unemployment, lack of education, total boredom, etc., meshing with access to grog and drugs, AND with the traditional notion of complete male dominance and a ready resort to violence - traditional practices than men in remote communities and elsewhere find hard to give up.

No, I don't have much sympathy for those who commit such crimes. But I have desperate sympathy for their poor kids, who, in turn, will grow up to be drop-kicks. That's the cycle I'd love to see extinguished, somehow.

Joe

Banjo,

As I've tried to point out many times, the colonial authorities here were instructed from London to recognise - and protect - the rights of Indigenous people to carry on their relationships to the land, to hunt, gather, camp on, etc., and this was specifically written into pastoral lease documents - at least down here in South Australia. Those rights still apply.

The problem was, of course, that, since the hunting/gathering lifestyle is utterly predicated on survival, getting food, and ritual and ceremony revolving round that imperative, the lot starts to collapse once food supplies are assured - as they were with the ration systems.

Supposedly, able-bodied people were not to be given rations, they were expected to go out and exercise their rights to hunt and fish and gather. But of course, what was much more likely was that some went out like that, but others stayed behind and botted off the old people and women. Plus ca change .....

In SA, Aboriginal people were provided with 15-ft boats in addition to fishing gear, lines, hooks and netting twine. Boat repairs for those who were not fully able-bodied were done free. Similarly, with guns, which Aboriginal people took to very early, at least down this way.

But of course, the impact of all that was to render traditional economy - and much of its culture - irrelevant. If we adhere to the notion of consequentialism, we could say that authorities provided rations, etc., with the clear-eyed intention of destroying Aboriginal culture - knowing that rations. etc., would do that. But surely that would be attributing far too much foresight to them ? Policy-makers rarely ever get it that right.

Joe

Loudmouth,

as usual, top shelf stuff you further educate and illuminate on the truths of the matter, objectively and with knowledge and conviction.
I hope my submissions are somewhere close to being relevant, as I am only speaking from what I see, what I hear, and where I've been.
If I am ever factually incorrect, I would appreciate a word of advice in correcting me.
From what I have read, I trust your judgement and truths/facts, so I prefer to be corrected or led by yourself on these matters, than any other.
Always look forward to your submissions.
Keep it up, and thank you.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

The High Court judges carried out a very thorough analysis of the legal aspects of British colonisation of Australia in the Mabo case decision. They found that the British Crown and government had acted on the legal fiction (so far as the colonisation of Australia is concerned) of "the enlarged notion of terra nullius" :

« 36. When British colonists went out to other inhabited parts of the world, including New South Wales, and settled there under the protection of the forces of the Crown, so that the Crown acquired sovereignty recognized by the European family of nations under the enlarged notion of terra nullius, it was necessary for the common law to prescribe a doctrine relating to the law to be applied in such colonies, for sovereignty imports supreme internal legal authority. The view was taken that, when sovereignty of a territory could be acquired under the enlarged notion of terra nullius, for the purposes of the municipal law that territory (though inhabited) could be treated as a "desert uninhabited" country. The hypothesis being that there was no local law already in existence in the territory, the law of England became the law of the territory (and not merely the personal law of the colonists). Colonies of this kind were called "settled colonies". Ex hypothesi, the indigenous inhabitants of a settled colony had no recognized sovereign, else the territory could have been acquired only by conquest or cession. The indigenous people of a settled colony were thus taken to be without laws, without a sovereign and primitive in their social organization. Lord Kingsdown used the term "barbarous" to describe the native state of a settled colony »

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

And to conclude :

« 63 …The common law of this country would perpetuate injustice if it were to continue to embrace the enlarged notion of terra nullius and to persist in characterizing the indigenous inhabitants of the Australian colonies as people too low in the scale of social organization to be acknowledged as possessing rights and interests in land. Moreover, to reject the theory that the Crown acquired absolute beneficial ownership of land is to bring the law into conformity with Australian history. The dispossession of the indigenous inhabitants of Australia was not worked by a transfer of beneficial ownership when sovereignty was acquired by the Crown, but by the recurrent exercise of a paramount power to exclude the indigenous inhabitants from their traditional lands as colonial settlement expanded and land was granted to the colonists. Dispossession is attributable not to a failure of native title to survive the acquisition of sovereignty, but to its subsequent extinction by a paramount power »

Here is the link :

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/23.html

.

Banjo,

did you not read the part where I don't give a flying fig what some idiot who thinks himself so important as to dare make decisions for those who have not empowered him to do so.
The Mabo was a rubbish bit of political contrivance, which at best should have been relegated to the rubbish bin and not allowed to be even considered.
These people are morons, they are like the wind, blowing one way one minute and another the next.
Common law should be expunged and replaced with common sense, now that would be something.
The Politicians and their mates would have a hell of a time manipulating words and forming laws to their benefit.
Every major decision the govt makes, someone, normally the minister responsible, comes away with a financial gain, somehow.
Basically they don't care if the public suffers as long as they benefit from the decisions and laws they introduce.
Think about it, those of you who think that pollies and their mates are squeaky clean, they're not!
They are the worst offenders of insider trading today.
We're led to believe it's the stock brokers.
WRONG!
It's the pollies and their mates.
Who are the first ones to know about something new coming out or being started?
That's right.
So somehow they are benefitting from things like this whole black farcical of a joke.
Banjo, you believe a convenient lie, I'll stick with the truth.
Tell me something, seeing as your so invested in this whole blacks and pollies in bed together thing, how is it that when most pollies begin their political carriers, they're pretty much broke.
Yet when they come out of politics, they are very much wealthier than when they went in?
And no one had better say "because they got paid" or you will get a good reaming from me, so don't say anything.
When you've figured it out, get back to me with the only answer.

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« As I've tried to point out many times, the colonial authorities here were instructed from London to recognise - and protect - the rights of Indigenous people to carry on their relationships to the land, to hunt, gather, camp on, etc., and this was specifically written into pastoral lease documents - at least down here in South Australia »

You have, Loudmouth, and I have replied that written instructions from London (as, for example, the so-called “secret instructions” given to Lieutenant James Cook to negotiate the purchase of land from the “natives” if there were any) served as proof of official protocol, not necessarily to be taken seriously – a sort of tongue-in-cheek instruction.

You will, perhaps, recall that I posted a link to an article by Douglas Pike, Professor of History, University of Tasmania, formerly Reader-in-History, University of Adelaide, entitled « Introduction of the Real Property Act in South Australia ». In it, he provides a vivid description of the mayhem that reigned from 1836 through to the 1860s in the property market in the new colony, due to the squatters, speculative investments by UK residents in land in South Australia (which they never saw), and the buying and selling of land locally in SA, independently of the colonial authorities :

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdelLawRw/1961/4.pdf

I also posted a link to an article indicating that, in the new colony of South Australia :

« For many years there were conflicts between the pastoralists and Aborigines. As their tribal lands were gradually taken over the Aborigines lost their natural food supplies. When they killed sheep or cattle the pastoralists retaliated by killing the Aborigines »

Here is the link once again :

http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/overview.htm
.

I don’t think there’s much point in going back over all this once again, Loudmouth. We have already expounded our arguments and produced our evidence and don’t seem to be getting anywhere.

If you and ALTRAV don’t mind, I’m signing off this thread and look forward to future exchanges with both of you on some other subject of mutual interest.

.

And gentlemen...What of the Death Penalty - Should this ultimate punishment be revisited for certain atrocious crime(s)?

YES!

Hi Banjo,

Wish you were here ! Then you might have a more accurate idea of what the hell happened here in the past, instead of getting it from Dr Google.

For example, even now, Aboriginal people in SA have the right to go onto pastoral leases - leases, not freehold - to carry out traditional activities such as hunting, gathering, camping, etc. Those rights were written into every pastoral lease issued after 1850.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

1. « Wish you were here ! Then you might have a more accurate idea of what the hell happened here in the past, instead of getting it from Dr Google »

I haven’t been back to Adelaide for a few years now, Joe. One of my lifetime friends lives there and I visit him whenever I return to Australia. He has a PhD in history from Queensland University and was a Rhodes scholar. His interest is in the history of what used to be known as the Church of England in Australia (now the Anglican Church).

Google didn’t write those articles, Joe, anymore than it wrote your posts here on OLO. Are you suggesting I should not value your posts either, simply because I get them through Google too ?

So far as I can judge, I have no reason to believe that the authors of those articles to which I posted a link are any less reputable than I consider you to be on the same subject. Check them out and see for yourself.

2. « … even now, Aboriginal people in SA have the right to go onto pastoral leases … Those rights were written into every pastoral lease issued after 1850 »

That’s correct, Joe, but, as you may know, the legislative and legal system in the new colony of South Australia created in 1836 was in a terrible mess and officially declared invalid until the Colonial Laws Validity Act was passed by the UK parliament in 1865. Its long title is "An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of Colonial Laws", and that is exactly what it did.

Because of serious doubt regarding the legal status of the Torren’s Real Property Act 1858 (designed to provide certainty of title to land), very few pastoral leases were registered from 1836 through to the 1860s, as I indicated in my previous post. Legal advisers in the colony urged people "not to bring their lands under the Act" but "to take Counsel's opinion in England".

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

All this is explained in Prof. Douglas Pike’s article “Introduction of the Real Property Act in South Australia” for which I provided a link in my previous post. It’s worth taking the time and making the effort to read it.

I have no axe to grind, Joe. So please let me have the reference of any concrete evidence you may be aware of that contradicts the historical account of Nic Klaassen’s “Flinders Ranges Research” article (for which I also provided a link in my previous post) in which he indicates :

« For many years there were conflicts between the pastoralists and Aborigines. As their tribal lands were gradually taken over the Aborigines lost their natural food supplies. When they killed sheep or cattle the pastoralists retaliated by killing the Aborigines »

Failing that, I guess there’s not much else we can do and will just have to leave it at that.

.