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".