|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The UN can Fuck Off
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Denying the humanity of other human beings is dangerous and sinful.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
That's why I said it in hell, seemed appropriate.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Apparently, with the Government of Australia being a signatory to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, they're legally obliged to follow it.
Though I do appreciate that an inconvenient law sometimes gets in the way of vengence, especially when children are on trial.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Yes, vengeance was curtailed in this case, locking them up protected them from truly vengeful people and I wasn't debating whether Australia has an obligation or not.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Jeez louise, Evangeline, its not like the UN said the murderers should be released. They likely won't be. All that was said is that life sentences without possibility of parole (i.e., lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key) is not appropriate in the case of persons who were juveniles at the time of their crime.
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States (where, you will note, we have been known to execute simpletons until pretty recently), life sentences without possibility of parole are not allowed for juveniles.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States
Last I heard, NSW was part of the developed world and the vast majority of the population approved of the fact that the teenagers were tried as adults and were relieved when the sentences when were handed down.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States
Last I heard, NSW was part of the developed world and the vast majority of the population approved of the fact that the teenagers were tried as adults and were relieved when the sentences when were handed down.
Every time I hear the phrase "the vast majority' of anything it chills me to the bone. There's nothing like a really nasty, hard case to make the law look soft, but it's still the law.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States
Last I heard, NSW was part of the developed world and the vast majority of the population approved of the fact that the teenagers were tried as adults and were relieved when the sentences when were handed down.
Every time I hear the phrase "the vast majority' of anything it chills me to the bone. There's nothing like a really nasty, hard case to make the law look soft, but it's still the law.
The law in NSW determined that those juveniles could be tried and sentenced as adults. There appears to be a conflict between NSW law and dictates of UN conventions to which Australia is a party. I'm saying the UN can fuck off out of it and leave NSW law as still the law.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
...I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States (where, you will note, we have been known to execute simpletons until pretty recently), life sentences without possibility of parole are not allowed for juveniles.
Texas is apparently content to execute a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
They get tried as adults and sentenced to 50 years. It's pretty close to the same thing. That juveniles are tried as adults and given life sentences in any jurisdiction is immoral, unjust and obscene.
I don't disagree, but that isn't the presenting question. The question is whether there is a possibility of parole/early release or not, or whether the question of rehabilitation is completely foreclosed. In the United States and most of the developed world, that is not an option.
quote:
Texas is apparently content to execute a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.
The question of whether this man is mentally ill is quite separate and distinct from the question of whether he may be executed. US law forbids the execution of a person who is mentally retarded, not (necessarily) of one who is mentally ill.
Of course, I'm anti-death penalty entirely, so the entire thing is pretty much a travesty to me.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I would say that words like "vengence" should have no place in a criminal justice system. Likewise "lock 'em up and throw away the key". And, claiming that a judgement is right because it is approved of by the majority of the population is just a small step away from a mob slinging a rope over the nearest convenient tree.
IMO, prison should serve three purposes in this order of priority:
- Rehabilitation so that offenders can re-enter society
- Protection of society against recurring criminal behaviour (linked to rehabilitation, as rehabilitation aims to take an offender into someone no longer a danger to others)
- Deterrence
It doesn't matter whether the crime was committed by juveniles or adults, it doesn't matter the severity of the crime. Any criminal justice system that does not seek to rehabilitate offenders is seriously wrong.
As for locking people up for their own safety. Well, all that shows is that society is sick if there is a genuine risk of harm to people who have been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of a parole board.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
And, claiming that a judgement is right because it is approved of by the majority of the population is just a small step away from a mob slinging a rope over the nearest convenient tree.
That wasn't the claim made though. The statement that the majority of NSW approved of the sentence was made IN RESPONSE to Jon in the Nati's assertion that
quote:
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does.
so take him to task about making claims about justice based on the views of almost the whole developed world. My claim was the hellish one that the the offenders weren't human so didn't deserve human rights nothing to do with majority views of justice.
Similarly no claim was made that the offenders should be locked up for their own protection.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
And, claiming that a judgement is right because it is approved of by the majority of the population is just a small step away from a mob slinging a rope over the nearest convenient tree.
That wasn't the claim made though.
May I suggest that if you wanted to make a different claim that words like quote:
the vast majority of the population approved of the fact that the teenagers were tried as adults and were relieved when the sentences when were handed down.
are entirely unhelpful? It doesn't seem relevant that the majority of the world considers life without parole for juveniles to be unjust when you say that the majority of people in NSW considers such a sentence to to be a relief. So what is it? Do the majority of people in NSW consider it appropriate to try juveniles as adults and sentence them to life without possibility of parole? Or not?
quote:
Similarly no claim was made that the offenders should be locked up for their own protection.
So, why did you say "locking them up protected them from truly vengeful people"?
quote:
My claim was the hellish one that the the offenders weren't human so didn't deserve human rights nothing to do with majority views of justice.
Which is certainly a Hellish view. Though, one shared by a lot of people in various forms. You know, those niggers aren't human so we can just string 'em up and set flaming crosses in their yards. Or, maybe set up some camps to get those sub-human Jews out of the way.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
The SCOTUS, hardly known for its softness, has banned life without parole for juveniles. It recognized that teens brains are still developing to the extent that they're are not wholly responsible for their actions.
The idea that you're not developed enough to vote, drink a beer, or watch a violent movie, but are developed enough to be locked up in a concrete jungle until you drop dead, is the savage nonsense that should eff off.
This does nothing to downplay their crime, rather, their culpability for it. Sentencing juveniles as adults is emotional law at its worst. They're not adults. In all cases, they belong in family court.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Ding ding ding, Alan Cresswell loses to Godwin's law. It's also a a nasty little trick to try to equate despising somebody because of their unimaginably vile actions with racism. This has nothing do with dehumanising entire groups of people based on some inherent characteristic or perceived characteristic it's about subhuman actions carried out by particular, identifiable individuals. As you have chosen to associate this with racism I will state that the perpetrators are of the same race as me, as was the victim.
quote:
May I suggest that if you wanted to make a different claim that words like
quote:
the vast majority of the population approved of the fact that the teenagers were tried as adults and were relieved when the sentences when were handed down.
are entirely unhelpful? It doesn't seem relevant that the majority of the world considers life without parole for juveniles to be unjust when you say that the majority of people in NSW considers such a sentence to to be a relief. So what is it? Do the majority of people in NSW consider it appropriate to try juveniles as adults and sentence them to life without possibility of parole? Or not?
It's really not that difficult Alan.
1. Jon in the Nati claimed that almost nobody in the developed world found it controversial that children should not be imprisoned for life. This is the argument to which you seem to be objecting.
2. I said that as far as I knew NSW was in the developed world and the majority of NSWelshpeople approved of imprisoning the individuals in question for life.
I do not, nor have I ever made a claim that the sentence in question is right or wrong based on what the majority of people believe, merely that it is wrong to claim, as Jon in the Nati did that "almost no one else in the developed world" believes it appropriate to lock up juveniles without opportunity for parole.
quote:
So, why did you say "locking them up protected them from truly vengeful people"?
Because it was part of a conversation ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) Do read what's said. It was Doc Tor who raised vengence not me. He talked about the law getting in the way of vengence, so I merely pointed out that the law got in the way of truly vengeful people carrying out vengeance I have no interest in the protection of these creatures I can't imagine how you misread my point to think I would, again it's not that difficult a point.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It was Doc Tor who raised vengeance not me.
Truth be told, it was you - you were just too squeamish to use the word. For perfectly understandable reasons, you detest the crime and you despise the perpetrators: enough, in fact, to ignore the UN convention to which your country is a signatory and deliver on a 14 yo and a 16 yo a sentence of life without parole.
The UN have (rightly) said that you cannot ignore the convention which you've signed, however much you'd like to. So in this case, it's the Australian justice system that fuck off, because they can't go around arbitrarily making shit up because of the weight of public opinion.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Oh, I seem to be reading your posts OK. You seem intent on considering the actions of two children as making them something other than human. "Creatures" you say. Yes, I am going to take that as a step towards considering other people to be something other than human. Children who rape and murder a young woman in a particularly awful way are not human, who's next? Anyone who rapes and murders someone? How about someone who practices sexual acts you find distasteful? who's next? Considering other human beings as like animals and not deserving of rights is a road down which many have travelled. Do you really want to walk that way yourself?
As for the rest of your incoherent babble, I think I can read well enough for comprehension. Doc Tor makes the point that the law is supposed to act as a civilising influence on mere vengeance - to which you confirm that in this case that has happened, as locking these children away for life without possibility of parole has protected them from acts of vengeance. That was what you said, clear as day. Doc Tor mentioned vengeance, you were the one to introduce prison as a protection against vengeance. And, all I said was that that reflects badly on those who seek vengeance and a society where vengeance is seen as a right.
Jon the Nati comments that "almost no one else in the developed world" sees it as right to try children as adults. That's no one else, ie: the rest of the developed world other than NSW where you confirm the majority consider it entirely appropriate to try children as adults, and approved of a conviction which puts children behind bars without possibility of parole. So, all you've confirmed is that NSW is that part of the developed world where simple human decency of treating children as children is lacking.
Now I realise this is Hell, and you're ranting. And that rants don't need to be coherent. So, why not relish in the chance to be incoherent and inconsistent? No, you don't do that ... you try to say your incoherent ramblings are the height of intelligent, reasoned debate.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
One reason to fight the temptation to dehumanize is that you can't control these forces once you unleash them.
Forget the two murderers. If criminals are dehumanized (tempting for legislators, since it allows 'em to cut budgets and look tough beating on prisoners) the people suffering aren't the worst of the worst. They usually end top of the savage foodchain that develops in underfunded, overcrowded warehouses. The people suffering are the kid sentenced to a mandatory minimum for a pot bust, the girl serving time for lending antidepressants to a friend who died, the desperate husband who got involved in a scam to save his house.
Don't fight for human rights for thugs. Fight for them. The thugs benefit indirectly. That's just a price that must be paid.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Oh, I seem to be reading your posts OK. You seem intent on considering the actions of two children as making them something other than human. "Creatures" you say. Yes, I am going to take that as a step towards considering other people to be something other than human. Children who rape and murder a young woman in a particularly awful way are not human, who's next? Anyone who rapes and murders someone? How about someone who practices sexual acts you find distasteful? who's next? Considering other human beings as like animals and not deserving of rights is a road down which many have travelled. Do you really want to walk that way yourself?
As for the rest of your incoherent babble, I think I can read well enough for comprehension. Doc Tor makes the point that the law is supposed to act as a civilising influence on mere vengeance - to which you confirm that in this case that has happened, as locking these children away for life without possibility of parole has protected them from acts of vengeance. That was what you said, clear as day. Doc Tor mentioned vengeance, you were the one to introduce prison as a protection against vengeance. And, all I said was that that reflects badly on those who seek vengeance and a society where vengeance is seen as a right.
Jon the Nati comments that "almost no one else in the developed world" sees it as right to try children as adults. That's no one else, ie: the rest of the developed world other than NSW where you confirm the majority consider it entirely appropriate to try children as adults, and approved of a conviction which puts children behind bars without possibility of parole. So, all you've confirmed is that NSW is that part of the developed world where simple human decency of treating children as children is lacking.
Now I realise this is Hell, and you're ranting. And that rants don't need to be coherent. So, why not relish in the chance to be incoherent and inconsistent? No, you don't do that ... you try to say your incoherent ramblings are the height of intelligent, reasoned debate.
You just continue to argue against claims that were never made and in vain attempts to bolster your argument to tarnish those with whom you disagree with spurious claims of racism.
Yes, it was a rant and I have no qualms with RuthW's statement that to dehumanise people is sinful, what it ISN"T is racist and it's you who's babbling incoherently and inconsistently on that and other points.
If Jon was talking about what happens in NSW vs the rest of the developed world he shouldn't have started the point with "jeez louise Evangeline....I can't believe you find this controversial" that is to address me individually not make generalisations about NSW vs the rest of the developed world.
Nice work too, seeing how you lost the association with racism, now you're trying to make another spurious link between quote:
someone who practices sexual acts you find distasteful
and subhuman acts of violence. Classy!
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I never claimed anyone here is racist. All I've said is that considering other human beings as being something other than human is something that racists share. I can see no justification for considering someone as subhuman, whether that's due to what they've done or the colour of their skin - or anything else. Even Hitler was still a human being. And, most certainly the young men in question are as human as you or I.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
You're picking and choosing in your argument Evangeline, which while clever is not convincing.
The 'vast majority' of people in NSW may well feel this way but it's an extreme case and as such makes a lousy basis for legislation or the way in which that legislation is carried out.
We had the same sort of outcries about those imprisoned for the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings on the lines of 'How can they possibly be allowed to live?' That was heard in almost every bar and workplace around Birmingham for months. These convictions turned out to be even worse than those you refer to as they were, at best, faulty.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Yup, once we start off down that road, it leads to some very dark places indeed.
The whole concept of unalienable rights rests on all of us having rights by virtue not of anything we've done, but our humanity. However terrible our actions, we can't give up certain fundamental rights, even if we wanted to, because they're not ours to surrender.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
One reason to fight the temptation to dehumanize is that you can't control these forces once you unleash them.
Forget the two murderers. If criminals are dehumanized (tempting for legislators, since it allows 'em to cut budgets and look tough beating on prisoners) the people suffering aren't the worst of the worst. They usually end top of the savage foodchain that develops in underfunded, overcrowded warehouses. The people suffering are the kid sentenced to a mandatory minimum for a pot bust, the girl serving time for lending antidepressants to a friend who died, the desperate husband who got involved in a scam to save his house.
Don't fight for human rights for thugs. Fight for them. The thugs benefit indirectly. That's just a price that must be paid.
You make some good points about the potential ramifications of dehumanising.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You're picking and choosing in your argument Evangeline, which while clever is not convincing.
The 'vast majority' of people in NSW may well feel this way but it's an extreme case and as such makes a lousy basis for legislation or the way in which that legislation is carried out.
We had the same sort of outcries about those imprisoned for the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings on the lines of 'How can they possibly be allowed to live?' That was heard in almost every bar and workplace around Birmingham for months. These convictions turned out to be even worse than those you refer to as they were, at best, faulty.
This is a clear example of what the tyranny of the majority can mean in practice. A bad position gains no weight whatsoever through mere popularity.
The English terrorism cases show exactly where this can lead, with judges waving through obviously coerced confessions from police who'd taken leave of their senses and tortured their prisoners.
If the law acts monstrously, it's innocents and sympathetic offenders who suffer, not the monsters it seeks.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
You make some good points about the potential ramifications of dehumanising.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I feel *exactly* as you do about some criminals, but it's a feeling I force myself to resist, or at least, not to shape my views & actions.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You're picking and choosing in your argument Evangeline, which while clever is not convincing.
The 'vast majority' of people in NSW may well feel this way but it's an extreme case and as such makes a lousy basis for legislation or the way in which that legislation is carried out.
We had the same sort of outcries about those imprisoned for the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings on the lines of 'How can they possibly be allowed to live?' That was heard in almost every bar and workplace around Birmingham for months. These convictions turned out to be even worse than those you refer to as they were, at best, faulty.
I don't think I'm picking and choosing but I certainly think people are claiming I'm saying stuff that I'm not and arguing against things they think I've said rather than what I have actually said.
If it's an extreme case (and it is I agree), why can't we have an appropriately extreme response? I don't see anybody arguing that the legislation has been used and abused subsequently, so why is it so terrible to pass legislation to deal with this particular case?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You're picking and choosing in your argument Evangeline, which while clever is not convincing.
The 'vast majority' of people in NSW may well feel this way but it's an extreme case and as such makes a lousy basis for legislation or the way in which that legislation is carried out.
We had the same sort of outcries about those imprisoned for the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings on the lines of 'How can they possibly be allowed to live?' That was heard in almost every bar and workplace around Birmingham for months. These convictions turned out to be even worse than those you refer to as they were, at best, faulty.
This is a clear example of what the tyranny of the majority can mean in practice. A bad position gains no weight whatsoever through mere popularity.
The English terrorism cases show exactly where this can lead, with judges waving through obviously coerced confessions from police who'd taken leave of their senses and tortured their prisoners.
If the law acts monstrously, it's innocents and sympathetic offenders who suffer, not the monsters it seeks.
It IS only the monsters who got caught with this law. Seems to me we have the importation of US racist crime and Uk terrorism problems into a discussion on Australian crime that has nothing to with racism or terrorism.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
If it's an extreme case (and it is I agree), why can't we have an appropriately extreme response? I don't see anybody arguing that the legislation has been used and abused subsequently, so why is it so terrible to pass legislation to deal with this particular case?
Because the law is the law, and it is difficult if not impossible to say that if a crime crosses a line drawn quite arbitrarily in the sand, then the normal provisions of human rights are no longer in effect.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I And, most certainly the young men in question are as human as you or I.
Speak for yourself.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm with the UN on this one.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
If it's an extreme case (and it is I agree), why can't we have an appropriately extreme response? I don't see anybody arguing that the legislation has been used and abused subsequently, so why is it so terrible to pass legislation to deal with this particular case?
Because the law is the law, and it is difficult if not impossible to say that if a crime crosses a line drawn quite arbitrarily in the sand, then the normal provisions of human rights are no longer in effect.
All laws, including human rights laws are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. The only ground for discussion is where the line is drawn.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
If it's an extreme case (and it is I agree), why can't we have an appropriately extreme response? I don't see anybody arguing that the legislation has been used and abused subsequently, so why is it so terrible to pass legislation to deal with this particular case?
Because the law is the law, and it is difficult if not impossible to say that if a crime crosses a line drawn quite arbitrarily in the sand, then the normal provisions of human rights are no longer in effect.
All laws, including human rights laws are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. The only ground for discussion is where the line is drawn.
Now provide some justification for that statement. The crimes in the NSW case (rape, abduction, murder) aren't exactly lines in the sand. They just are.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I don't think I'm picking and choosing but I certainly think people are claiming I'm saying stuff that I'm not and arguing against things they think I've said rather than what I have actually said.
Well, I'm arguing with what you have said. In particular you have said quote:
locking them up protected them from truly vengeful people
and you subsequently claimed that you haven't said that there are vengeful people who these children need to be protected from.
and
quote:
the vast majority of the population [of NSW] approved of the fact that the teenagers were tried as adults and were relieved when the sentences when were handed down.
Which you subsequently clarified as meaning that this wasn't a decision approved of by the majority in NSW. Or, maybe you moved the goal posts and decided that it's a question of whether it's approved of by the majority of people in the world. I'm not sure what it is.
quote:
why is it so terrible to pass legislation to deal with this particular case?
Legislation to deal with a particular case is invariably very bad legislation. The law applies to all.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
If it's an extreme case (and it is I agree), why can't we have an appropriately extreme response? I don't see anybody arguing that the legislation has been used and abused subsequently, so why is it so terrible to pass legislation to deal with this particular case?
Because the law is the law, and it is difficult if not impossible to say that if a crime crosses a line drawn quite arbitrarily in the sand, then the normal provisions of human rights are no longer in effect.
All laws, including human rights laws are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. The only ground for discussion is where the line is drawn.
Now provide some justification for that statement. The crimes in the NSW case (rape, abduction, murder) aren't exactly lines in the sand. They just are.
The notion of being less culpable because you are 14 or 16 and to be treated as an adult is an abuse of your human rights is entirely arbitrary.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Now provide some justification for that statement. The crimes in the NSW case (rape, abduction, murder) aren't exactly lines in the sand. They just are.
The notion of being less culpable because you are 14 or 16 and to be treated as an adult is an abuse of your human rights is entirely arbitrary.
And it's been drawn by the UN and the Australian government's signed up to it. End of.
One day some young Australian could be arrested, charged and convicted in another country. Whatever the case and sentence, and whether the country is a signatory to this UN treaty or not, I'll be surprised if Australians and their government don't demand special treatment on grounds of age.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Repeating yourself doesn't make your claims any less false Alan
Can you not see that ME saying "locking them up protected them from truly vengeful people"
is a mile away from what you are claiming I said when first you said
quote:
as for locking people up for their own protection
and then
quote:
hat there are vengeful people who these children need to be protected from.
NO I'm not saying these subhumans NEED protection from vengeful people, I'm saying they need to be locked up because they are violent criminals nothing whatsoever to do with their protection.
quote:
and
quote:
the vast majority of the population [of NSW] approved of the fact that the teenagers were tried as adults and were relieved when the sentences when were handed down.
Which you subsequently clarified as meaning that this wasn't a decision approved of by the majority in NSW. Or, maybe you moved the goal posts and decided that it's a question of whether it's approved of by the majority of people in the world. I'm not sure what it is.
What the fuck????????? Go back and read for comprehension and read in the context of the discussion. I did state that the decision was approved of by the majority of people in NSW within the context of somebody arguing that nobody in the developed world believed the decision was acceptable. I never refuted this claim or made any assertions about the rest of the world. Can you not understand the point in context? I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Now provide some justification for that statement. The crimes in the NSW case (rape, abduction, murder) aren't exactly lines in the sand. They just are.
The notion of being less culpable because you are 14 or 16 and to be treated as an adult is an abuse of your human rights is entirely arbitrary.
And it's been drawn by the UN and the Australian government's signed up to it. End of.
One day some young Australian could be arrested, charged and convicted in another country. Whatever the case and sentence, and whether the country is a signatory to this UN treaty or not, I'll be surprised if Australians and their government don't demand special treatment on grounds of age.
You asked for "proof" that human rights laws were arbitrary, I gave you an example of an arbitrary determining age for culpability and you respond with a statement that has never been disputed and then a hypothetical claim of what Australians would do. I said the basis of discussion was where the arbitrary line in the sand is, you seem to be agreeing.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Jon the Nati comments that "almost no one else in the developed world" sees it as right to try children as adults.
Just so we're clear, that is NOT what I was asserting. I actually don't have that much of an issue with charging juveniles above a certain age as adults (depending on various other factors which are case-specific).
I was asserting merely that there is a consensus in the developed world (even in the United States, which is not generally at the forefront of such things) that it is not right to foreclose the possibility of rehabilitation and reentry into society for juvenile offenders by sentencing them to life without the possibility of review or parole.* This broad consensus is reflected in the UN comments quoted by Evangeline.
Evangeline can feel how she wants about this case, but she ought not to fool herself: her support for life without parole for juvenile offenders, regardless of the heinousness of their crime, places her outside the penological consensus of the developed world on this subject.
*In the United States, to do so would violate our Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
[ 22. November 2014, 13:02: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
rufiki
Ship's 'shroom
# 11165
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It IS only the monsters who got caught with this law.
So they were monsters at the time. You don't think it's possible they might have changed at all in 26 years?
ETA: or that they might change in the next 26 years?
[ 22. November 2014, 13:07: Message edited by: rufiki ]
Posts: 1562 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It IS only the monsters who got caught with this law.
So they were monsters at the time. You don't think it's possible they might have changed at all in 26 years?
ETA: or that they might change in the next 26 years?
Doesn't matter. String 'em up and make the 'vast majority' of New South Walians happy.
Isn't that what really matters?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can see no justification for considering someone as subhuman
Agreed.
It's very hard sometimes 'tho. Some psychopaths seem to have nothing of what makes humans human.
But to consider even them as subhuman is to begin to become like them imo.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States
Last I heard, NSW was part of the developed world and the vast majority of the population approved of the fact that the teenagers were tried as adults and were relieved when the sentences when were handed down.
There's a reason we don't put sentencing in criminal cases to the popular vote, you know.
I sort of sympathise. I was entirely in favour of the UK telling the European Court to get knotted when they made a similar ruling about whole life tariffs for (adult) criminals in the UK. And just because someone was a horrible scrote when they were sixteen doesn't mean they'll be an angel of light when they grow up. Angus Sinclair committed his first murder at the age of 16 and, with hindsight, we'd have been better off if he'd been left to rot in a cell.
That said there is a substantive difference between a crime committed by a minor and a crime committed by an adult and saying there should be a parole hearing in the former case, with "Nope, lock the fucker back up" being a live option at said hearing is hardly the acme of gibbering do-gooding lunacy.
Mind you, it is always quite funny when a body whose Human Rights Council (yeah, I know it's not the same thing as the committee) includes China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia gets agitated about the practice of human rights in liberal democracies.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
IMO, prison should serve three purposes in this order of priority:
- Rehabilitation so that offenders can re-enter society
- Protection of society against recurring criminal behaviour (linked to rehabilitation, as rehabilitation aims to take an offender into someone no longer a danger to others)
- Deterrence
It doesn't matter whether the crime was committed by juveniles or adults, it doesn't matter the severity of the crime. Any criminal justice system that does not seek to rehabilitate offenders is seriously wrong.
I used to have them in this order, but with some personal experience, we've tended to re-order them a little, and it turns out our view agrees with the Canadian pattern of sentencing and parole.
There is a substantial difference among offenders and what sort of offences they have committed. The National Parole Board of Canada helpfully classifies offences into "Category 1" which are serious offences usually involving violence, and "Category 2" which are the non-violent offences.
The offences involving violence re-order your priorities so that protection of the public is the first priority. I should say that any criminal justice system that doesn't put the protection of future victims ahead of the rights of offenders is seriously wrong. The Cdn parole board does this, and declares the violent offenders generally ineligible for parole applications until 1/2 of their sentence versus 1/3 for category 2, and then can "detain" the offender to the bitter end of the sentence if they assess risk to the public has not be lowered. And thankfully, finally, under Section 810 of the Criminal Code of Canada, can further control the dangerous person even if no crime has been committed. There is also "dangerous offender" legislation that can separately review offenders' patterns of violent crimes and imprison for life, but this is used at the time of sentencing. I for one have no issue with the diminishment of offender rights for life, say permanent parole or electronic ankle bracelet monitoring to ensure they are obedient.
None of this about punishment nor deterrence, because, as I understand it, that people who are disordered to this degree don't pay attention to much outside of their immediate wants, and other people are merely "things" and means to ends.
The non-violent offenders - I agree with you, though would tend to suggest that some offences be delisted as crimes entirely and treated as the health and social problems they are. Like thefts arising from poverty and want, and drugs addictions of all kinds. I am coming to believe in general that human violence is the greatest evil (unless someone can tell me something that is worse).
Re the OP: then UN picked the wrong case to make their point. These offenders are in the category of public protection being the first priority; though one might wonder if they're candidates for permanent electronic monitoring ankle bracelets as a retirement plan.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You're picking and choosing in your argument Evangeline, which while clever is not convincing.
The 'vast majority' of people in NSW may well feel this way but it's an extreme case and as such makes a lousy basis for legislation or the way in which that legislation is carried out.
We had the same sort of outcries about those imprisoned for the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings on the lines of 'How can they possibly be allowed to live?' That was heard in almost every bar and workplace around Birmingham for months. These convictions turned out to be even worse than those you refer to as they were, at best, faulty.
I don't think I'm picking and choosing but I certainly think people are claiming I'm saying stuff that I'm not and arguing against things they think I've said rather than what I have actually said.
If it's an extreme case (and it is I agree), why can't we have an appropriately extreme response? I don't see anybody arguing that the legislation has been used and abused subsequently, so why is it so terrible to pass legislation to deal with this particular case?
Because legal responses to extreme cases make bad laws. Taking the Birmingham and Guildford bombings as examples, pretty much everyone in the UK at the time would have agreed a one off introduction of the death penalty would have been an excellent sentence when the verdicts were guilty. Which would have been a bit embarrassing years later when it turned out the police had made their whole cases up for both bombings as they needed a result.
All the UN have said is that sentences given in those circumstances should be subject to periodic review. Not that they should be freed. (Same as they did for the UK. But all the cases subject to whole life tarrifs tend to be ones that arouse strong emotions. That said, Harry Roberts was released recently). You're the one demanding that monsterous acts deserve an equally monsterous response. Which is an understandable response. But don't get prissy when it's pointed out that this might not work out well in practice and puts you in some interesting company.
Tubbs
[ 22. November 2014, 17:37: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Re the OP: then UN picked the wrong case to make their point.
What makes you say the UN "picked" a case "to make their point"? The article says the prisoners filed a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee, whose job it is to receive complaints and determine whether provisions of the Covenant have been violated. Should they have ignored the issue?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The notion of being less culpable because you are 14 or 16 and to be treated as an adult is an abuse of your human rights is entirely arbitrary.
It's ridiculous is what it is.
Where I live, 14-year-olds can't legally drive, rent a car, buy a drink, vote, serve on a jury, or enter into a contract -- because they're not adults. If 14-year-olds are treated as adults in courts of law, they ought at the very least to be allowed to vote and serve on juries.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
