|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The UN can Fuck Off
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
If the UN didn't do it, Amnesty would.
--------------------
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
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I can see people aren't letting facts get in the way of their pious rants about baying "mobs".
It was not the mob who sentenced those juveniles. There were no special laws enacted when through a perfectly regular legal process that applies to all the 2 juvenile perpetrators were found guilty and the judge recommended that they never be released. For the Americans amongst you please note our judges are not elected and they are entirely separate from the political process so there was no pressure from popular opinion. The so-called mob was entirely irrelevant.
Subsequent to this some laws were enacted that gave legal force to the sentencing judge's recommendation.
So what other fallacious crap are y'all going to sprout next?
So basically your objective due process supports a fundamentally obnoxiously vengeful position (which runs 100% contrary to the whole gospel narrative of redemption, change, new creation and loving your enemies) and you're pissed off because someone pointed out that it's really not on.
It's an understandable position. But it still sucks. And at heart it denies Christ.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I can see people aren't letting facts get in the way of their pious rants about baying "mobs".
It was not the mob who sentenced those juveniles. There were no special laws enacted when through a perfectly regular legal process that applies to all the 2 juvenile perpetrators were found guilty and the judge recommended that they never be released. For the Americans amongst you please note our judges are not elected and they are entirely separate from the political process so there was no pressure from popular opinion. The so-called mob was entirely irrelevant.
Subsequent to this some laws were enacted that gave legal force to the sentencing judge's recommendation.
So what other fallacious crap are y'all going to sprout next?
So basically your objective due process supports a fundamentally obnoxiously vengeful position (which runs 100% contrary to the whole gospel narrative of redemption, change, new creation and loving your enemies) and you're pissed off because someone pointed out that it's really not on.
It's an understandable position. But it still sucks. And at heart it denies Christ.
FFS, if you want to give your inner Daily Mail reader an airing, at least have the decency to own it!!! Deep in your heart, you believe that there are some acts that society should never forgive. That the punishment for those acts should include some element of vengeance.
Let's hope Christ is more merciful. Otherwise we're all screwed.
Tubbs
[ 23. November 2014, 13:18: 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
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Tubbs, I assume we're echoing each other, and that the accusation of the Unforgivable Sin (reading the Daily Mail) is aimed at Evangeline not me? Otherwise one of us has completely failed English comprehension and there's going to be a fight.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Tubbs, I assume we're echoing each other, and that the accusation of the Unforgivable Sin (reading the Daily Mail) is aimed at Evangeline not me? Otherwise one of us has completely failed English comprehension and there's going to be a fight.
Yes, it was aimed at Evangeline. Hindsight says I could have made that clearer. Please accept my apologies for inadvertently accusing you of being a DM reader.
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Of course, we poor colonials don't have the advantage of the Daily Mail to enlighten our thoughts. In Sydney, where Evangeline is, the Murdoch tabloid is the Daily Telegraph (no relation to the London paper of that name).
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Of course, we poor colonials don't have the advantage of the Daily Mail to enlighten our thoughts. In Sydney, where Evangeline is, the Murdoch tabloid is the Daily Telegraph (no relation to the London paper of that name).
But the DM and the side-bar of shame can be accessed all over the globe and they cover international news ![[Biased]](wink.gif) . Sharing their special brand of enlightenment all over the globe!!
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
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.
The vast majority of the population are idiots who apparently don't understand that people under the age of 18 aren't adults, even if you decide to make them adults because you hate them a lot. *shrug*
[ 24. November 2014, 01:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
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.
Now, see, I agree with RuthW.
Even if you don't...
Why get upset about anything the UN says? Who cares? Australia should just give the UN a proverbial pat on the head and do whatever the heck it wants. What's the UN going to do? Anybody who cares what the UN has to say about sentencing minors to life without parole is already against sentencing minors to life without parole.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Obviously I don't believe the criminals might reform into people who are fit to live in society Rufiki.
Time to find a new religion then, because Christianity is clearly not the one for you.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Google tells me that Blessington and Elliott suffered childhoods of physical and sexual abuse. They are guilty of an appalling crime. They are also victims who had no justice for appalling crimes committed against them.
I will claim them. They are as human as I am.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Google tells me that Blessington and Elliott suffered childhoods of physical and sexual abuse. They are guilty of an appalling crime. They are also victims who had no justice for appalling crimes committed against them.
I will claim them. They are as human as I am.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Where do the horrible things start in this case? The murder and rape for which those two boys were charged as being part the gang that caused the offence (together with a third man) and are now serving life sentences with no chance of parole? Or whatever made those children homeless and living on the streets in a gang at 14 and 16?
These are worthy statements. However, the specific situational causation is not their backgrounds. There is still decision making and intent formed in the specific circumstances in which they did the crime.
We cannot run the experiment to rerun the movie of their lives and give them nice homes, any more than we can go back in time and place Attila the Hun in a nice day care, and teach him to share and not to steal the belongings of others after hitting. I am not satisfied with reliance on social conditions of upbringing to explain misbehaviour. Nor am I supportive of mistreatment, merely that possible future victims be protected.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Every time I attempt to link to the item in the OP, my computer seizes up, but I think the ensuing discussion has provided sufficient info to grasp the gist:
1. Two adolescent Australians committed unspeakable atrocities;
2. They were tried as adults and sentenced to life with no possibility of parole;
3. The U.N. has denounced this;
4. Evangeline is outraged.
I don't claim to be Christian, but here are a few facts:
1. Humans, collectively and individually, commit unspeakable atrocities on a depressingly regular basis. On this basis, these adolescents appear to be human beings.
2. Human beings continue to develop mentally well into their 20s, despite much of the world pretending adolescents are adults well before maturation is complete.
3. The only possible justification for trying adolescents as adults is to enable judicial systems to pronounce harsher penalties.
4. No existing research supports the notion that harsher penalties either deter crime or promote positive behavior change.
5. Therefore, the only possible justifications for a sentence of life without parole is either (A) vengeance, or (B) deterrence.
6. (A) is an acknowledgement of societal failure, as lust for vengeance is actually the root cause of many unspeakable atrocities.
7. (B) is an admission of our inability or unwillingness as a society to manage the individual being punished so as to prevent him from committing further atrocities.
Personally, I think the UN is right on, and can only wish that it would be a little more outspoken about my own country's human rights abuses.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
{....}
You missed in your analysis, protection of the public and possible future victims from the risks these offenders may pose.
The offender as victim runs through this thread. Some offenders may be, others may not be. But the fact that all victims don't go onward to offend means that something special is going on inside those that do.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You missed in your analysis, protection of the public and possible future victims from the risks these offenders may pose.
You apparently missed the term "deter." Deterrence presumably is what protects the public and possible future victims.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The offender as victim runs through this thread. Some offenders may be, others may not be. But the fact that all victims don't go onward to offend means that something special is going on inside those that do.
Alternatively, it may mean something special is going on inside, or with, or for, those who do not.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm very wary of the deterrence element in sentencing. It's certainly not true that states or countries with the death penalty have lower capital crime rates. It's also not true that those states or countries with severe (or even harsh) penalties for lesser crimes have fewer of those crimes than those that do not.
The only deterrence that I can see that actually works is getting caught, and dealt with swiftly. If your police force is good at that, and your justice system gets the defendant in front of a judge quickly, then your crime rate goes down. If you catch one burglar in a thousand and cut their hands off on national TV... it doesn't.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Two things:
First, these people were jailed 26 years ago when they were aged 14 and 16 so both have now spent far more time behind bars than not.
Regardless of whether or not they were tried and sentenced as adults or juveniles, they were both under age at sentencing and so should have been sent to an institution for juveniles, and the younger of the two at least should have been put onto educational programmes since he was under the school leaving age.
I think it is fair and right for the NSW/ Australian Federal authorities to be questioned on that.
Second: Even if it is felt that a 'whole life' tariff is fair, this should be reviewed, particularly in light of the age of the offenders at the time of the crime.
Neither the UN nor anyone else is saying these people should be released: but they're saying that their case should be looked at now that the dust has settled and that the possibility should be explored that some growing up has happened. Sounds fair enough to me.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Obviously I don't believe the criminals might reform into people who are fit to live in society Rufiki.
Time to find a new religion then, because Christianity is clearly not the one for you.
Surely, rehabilitation is far from being an exact science. We can't send people to prison for a decade or so and confidently expect them to re-emerge with a lifelong aversion to ultraviolence and the music of Ludwig Van Beethoven. A sizeable proportion of prisoners with whole life tariffs in the UK are those who committed one murder, were released, and subsequently killed again. A certain degree of caution is, therefore, not wholly unreasonable. To a certain extent the question of re offence is an empirical one, and it is not clear to me that it can be guaranteed in all cases. If you want to claim that faith trumps empirical data, then knock yourself out but you might want to be less scathing about creationism in future.
More generally victims of these sorts of crime must have died in the most appalling state of terror and suffering. I think that society owes it to their memory and to the families not to release their killers lightly. To address Alan's point about Myra Hindley upthread, the bloodless proceduralist in me thinks that it was the right decision to take whole life tariffs from the Home Secretary. I had no problem with the decision that the Home Secretaries concerned made. The Balding case is complicated by the youth of her killers but that is the only consideration, really, that would incline me towards leniency. The worst sinners may be capable of redemption but for some people their salvation needs to be worked out in fear and trembling and a maximum security jail cell.
--------------------
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
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
The sentencing of these people predates Australia's ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Whether the treaty applies retrospectively is the issue.
I have no doubt that the treaty would prevent children being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole were it to be attempted today. This would be the case despite the bleatings of Evangeline and other Alan Jones groupies.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
The issue is the blanket denial of any possibility of reform or rehabilitation. None. No chance. Done, dusted, rot in clink for ever, that's it.
Personally I would have thought it vanishingly unlikely they would ever be released, but there has to be a mechanism where they could be, in the right limited circumstances. Although by now I doubt they could function on the outside anyway, even if the unlikely occurred.
X-post with David
[ 24. November 2014, 22:04: Message edited by: Snags ]
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Obviously I don't believe the criminals might reform into people who are fit to live in society Rufiki.
Time to find a new religion then, because Christianity is clearly not the one for you.
Surely, rehabilitation is far from being an exact science. We can't send people to prison for a decade or so and confidently expect them to re-emerge with a lifelong aversion to ultraviolence and the music of Ludwig Van Beethoven.
But, that isn't the point. No one here (to my knowledge) is claiming that the penal system will rehabilitate offenders. What I (and it appears others) is saying that a just penal system should a) include the possibility of rehabilitation and b) seek to, as far as possible, achieve that. If we believe that "His blood can make the vilest clean" then we have no option but to accept a) and work for b). A penal system that includes life without possibility of parole denies a) and makes b) pretty pointless. And, IMO, that's for all prisoners - regardless of the severity of their crimes or their age when they were committed.
quote:
To address Alan's point about Myra Hindley upthread, the bloodless proceduralist in me thinks that it was the right decision to take whole life tariffs from the Home Secretary. I had no problem with the decision that the Home Secretaries concerned made.
And, my point is that such decisions should not require your approval, nor the approval of politicians seeking to maximise their chance of re-election. It should be entirely in the hands of the judicial system - courts, judges, parole boards.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Putting aside for a moment the question of what if any sentence is appropriate for what kinds of offenders -
The article in the OP says "The Australian government has 180 days to respond" to the UN.
What happens if they don't bother responding, or respond with "we like our laws the way they are."
I don't know but I suspect there is no right of enforcement of the treaty in Australia especially as this is a state law and not subject to Australian government control under our Constitution.
I bellieve you are mistaken on all points about treaties.
orfeo! Paging orfeo! We need your constitutional expertise here in Hell!
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Putting aside for a moment the question of what if any sentence is appropriate for what kinds of offenders -
The article in the OP says "The Australian government has 180 days to respond" to the UN.
What happens if they don't bother responding, or respond with "we like our laws the way they are."
I don't know but I suspect there is no right of enforcement of the treaty in Australia especially as this is a state law and not subject to Australian government control under our Constitution.
I bellieve you are mistaken on all points about treaties.
orfeo! Paging orfeo! We need your constitutional expertise here in Hell!
I've got bored of this thread and it was interrupting my reading of the Tele, listening to Alan Jones and watching ACA anyway....but just on this point.
I have no particular expertise in the law and I am surprised ORfeo hasn't been along to offer a detailed legal opinion, but tHe external affairs power that you seem to be referencing does not give UN treaties legal enforceability in Australia. It allows the Commonwealth to intervene in certain circumstances to support upholding treaties. There's a difference, that's why I said that lack of legal enforceability doesn't mean that the "ruling" isn't relevant.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I have no particular expertise in the law
No shit.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Seconded, David.
Evangeline, read the whole article. A Commonwealth Act implementing a treaty is exactly what underpins much of Australian environmental law. And there is nothing in theory to stop that same power being used for criminal law purposes.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
The sentencing of these people predates Australia's ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Whether the treaty applies retrospectively is the issue.
I have no doubt that the treaty would prevent children being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole were it to be attempted today. This would be the case despite the bleatings of Evangeline and other Alan Jones groupies.
Are you sure that retrospective application is the issue? Here is the Committee's decision, which includes summaries of the original complaint and Australia's response; I didn't see any mention of the dates being an issue.
Anyway, it would be odd if they were - it would be like the US* ratifying a treaty abolishing the death penalty, but then still going ahead and executing all the prisoners already on death row.
*Well, bizarro US, I suppose.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Seconded, David.
Evangeline, read the whole article. A Commonwealth Act implementing a treaty is exactly what underpins much of Australian environmental law. And there is nothing in theory to stop that same power being used for criminal law purposes.
Belle Ringer asked quote:
What happens if they9the Aust Govt] don't bother responding, or respond with "we like our laws the way they are."
I responded to that question and you declared me totally wrong. Please do enlighten us with your answer.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Evangeline is right. A treaty is not enforceable within Australian domestic law. What is enforceable is the Australian law that has been created in response to signing the treaty, as part of us complying with our international obligations, often using the external affairs power.
The Tasmanian Dam case helped establish that the Commonwealth can, if it wants to, use a treaty as the basis of having power to make a Commonwealth law. It did not in any way make treaties part of Australian law, nor did it oblige Australia to directly incorporate a treaty into an Australian law (although sometimes this is what in fact happens, as a matter of choice).
Most direct "enforcement" of international law consists of countries scowling at each other and wagging fingers.
[ 25. November 2014, 01:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
The sentencing of these people predates Australia's ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Whether the treaty applies retrospectively is the issue.
I have no doubt that the treaty would prevent children being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole were it to be attempted today. This would be the case despite the bleatings of Evangeline and other Alan Jones groupies.
Are you sure that retrospective application is the issue? Here is the Committee's decision, which includes summaries of the original complaint and Australia's response; I didn't see any mention of the dates being an issue.
Anyway, it would be odd if they were - it would be like the US* ratifying a treaty abolishing the death penalty, but then still going ahead and executing all the prisoners already on death row.
True. I hadn't read the report before, and was relying on an assumption that they based their argument around 37(a). Your death row argument is good. The article is a good read - the retroactive/retrospective issue has to do with the subsequent NSW legislation that effectively removed the possibility of release for people in their circumstance.
On the same basis, the second para I wrote wasn't very accurate either - the state is arguing that the convention provisions don't apply in some circumstances, so they'll feel free to do the same in future.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm very wary of the deterrence element in sentencing.
So am I. I did not intend to suggest that harsh penalties deter crime, except in the sense that, once convicted and imprisoned, prisoners are prevented from victimizing members of the public while under lock and key. (Not much seems to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner crime, however, if what I hear about prisons is anything to go by).
What I was suggesting is that "deterrence" is one rationale (far too often and far too glibly, IMO, offered) for imposing harsher penalties.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
In general, SPK is right about using the foreign affairs power to support Australian Federal laws (even if his comment about the extent to which this is used in the environmental law area needs a bit of qualification). There may be some doubt about using it to retrospectively override NSW law that was itself retrospective. There is much more doubt about using it to override Maxwell J's decision.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
As I continue to catch up on this thread, I feel it necessary to make clear that when I say Evangeline is right, I only mean about one particular thing.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
In general, SPK is right about using the foreign affairs power to support Australian Federal laws (even if his comment about the extent to which this is used in the environmental law area needs a bit of qualification). There may be some doubt about using it to retrospectively override NSW law that was itself retrospective. There is much more doubt about using it to override Maxwell J's decision.
AIUI, there is nothing to stop the Commonwealth Parliament from passing the "International Human Rights Treaty Act" which outlaws juvenile life sentences. Any prisoners at that time would then he in line for (a) clemency or (b)new sentencing. In Canada (a) is exactly what happened when the Death Penalty was abolished.
Given the fact that the Commonwealth government recently took up nearly the entire field of labour law to itself in from the States, I see no reason why criminal law is somehow immune. Reserved Powers Doctrine anyone?
Any hint that it is would be question-begging and a category error, but typical of some of the frankly kooky legal arguments I have seen from Australian lawyers on youtube in lieu of a proper Charter of Rights.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
AIUI, there is nothing to stop the Commonwealth Parliament from passing the "International Human Rights Treaty Act" which outlaws juvenile life sentences.
Yes, but neither is there anything compelling it do so. Which is rather more pertinent to the question that Evangeline was asked: what happens if the UN's view is ignored?
There is no right of enforcement. That is what Evangeline said, and she is entirely correct. The fact that there is a way for the Commonwealth Parliament, if it happened to be so inclined, to do something to implement an international rule is probably true enough, but rather misses the fundamental question of whether the Commonwealth Parliament is actually so inclined.
I see no sign whatsoever that it is. And there is no mechanism for either the UN or the complainants to the UN to force either the Commonwealth or New South Wales to change the law to assist these prisoners. The only option open is a kind of moral hectoring, and while personally I agree with the moral hectoring (I think parole should at least be a possibility, however unlikely), it's very hard to see that enough sympathy, and hence political traction, would ever be generated to remove the current "life means life" law.
You are basically waving around a dim theoretical possibility of what the law could be to counter the practical reality that Evangeline is correctly stating what the law is.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Anyway, it would be odd if they were - it would be like the US* ratifying a treaty abolishing the death penalty, but then still going ahead and executing all the prisoners already on death row.
*Well, bizarro US, I suppose.
You speak as if bizarro US is different from the existing US.
Regarding the topic -- I don't see the value in saying "la la la it's offensive to even ask if anything has changed with these two prisoners", which is all the UN treaty is asking. What's the problem? Afraid that the parole board will decide the wrong thing? How could that happen, if NSW is so uniformly certain they should stay in prison for life?
But I fully expect to have Evangeline's support the next time the US is declaring that international law doesn't apply to it.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Anyway, it would be odd if they were - it would be like the US* ratifying a treaty abolishing the death penalty, but then still going ahead and executing all the prisoners already on death row.
*Well, bizarro US, I suppose.
You speak as if bizarro US is different from the existing US.
Since Bizarro world is ex hypothesi radically different from our world, yes. I think it's pretty unlikely that the existing US will abolish the death penalty any time soon. To me, that would fit the description of "a situation or setting which is weirdly inverted or opposite of expectations."
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Anyway, it would be odd if they were - it would be like the US* ratifying a treaty abolishing the death penalty, but then still going ahead and executing all the prisoners already on death row.
*Well, bizarro US, I suppose.
You speak as if bizarro US is different from the existing US.
Since Bizarro world is ex hypothesi radically different from our world, yes. I think it's pretty unlikely that the existing US will abolish the death penalty any time soon. To me, that would fit the description of "a situation or setting which is weirdly inverted or opposite of expectations."
At this point, 32 states still have the death penalty. In those, though, executions are on hold in 3 states at this time due to litigation regarding method of execution.
However, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that executing those who had committed their crimes before the age of 18 was cruel and unusual punishment and thus unconstitutional. They have since also ruled that life without possibility of parole is also unconstitutional for those who committed their crimes as minors.
Your turn Australia.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Your turn Australia.
You're kidding aren't you? We lock children up in disused birdshit mines when they haven't done anything wrong at all, what makes you think we'd do anything approaching humanity for actual convicted criminal children?
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
That would require then to have a constitutionally-entrenched Bill of Rights, which they don't have.
It is the knuckle-dragging feature of Oz politics.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's more that Australians are culturally disinclined to see the value in high-sounding words that don't necessarily mean anything in practice. Some pretty awful regimes have had bills of rights.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Thanks, Dave W, for clarifying. I read bizarro as applying to the wrong part of your sentence. As in, if the US signed a treaty against the death penalty (where I agree with you, sadly not likely any time soon), then it would seem quite in line with the US way of doing things to execute those already on death row, and not opposite to the US as I experience it.
[ 27. November 2014, 01:58: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's more that Australians are culturally disinclined to see the value in high-sounding words that don't necessarily mean anything in practice. Some pretty awful regimes have had bills of rights.
Some pretty good regimes have Bills of Rights, and you know what? It makes Human Rights litigation much, much easier. Compare the convoluted procedural arguments of some High Court judges (may be found on Youtube) and they equal the Stone Age litigation of Roncarelli v. Duplessis. (1959) The Canadian Bar universally acknowledges that case to be a feat of brilliance based on very meagre substantive law. It was such a close-run thing that it led to the Charter of Rights movement.
The Charter of Rights let everyone cut to the chase.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
There is no right of enforcement. That is what Evangeline said, and she is entirely correct.
Nor should there be.
What self respecting nation cedes sovereignty to a panel of law of professors in New York?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
There is no right of enforcement. That is what Evangeline said, and she is entirely correct.
Nor should there be.
What self respecting nation cedes sovereignty to a panel of law of professors in New York?
Alternatively, a bunch of nobodies in the pockets of corporate lobbyists. What a choice.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Beeswax Altar: What self respecting nation cedes sovereignty to a panel of law of professors in New York?
Each country that signs an international treaty.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
If signing those treaties meant surrendering sovereignty to a panel of law professors in New York, no self respecting nation would sign them. They don't. So, nations sign them and then interpret them however they choose. As a result, the treaties, as are all unenforceable laws, are largely meaningless.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
All laws can be seen as largely meaningless outside of their enforceability, regardless of their scope (collective, local, national, international). To leave it at that is the mark of a narcissist asshole. Others prefer the nuance of thinking about laws in terms of how people can be guided to interact in some abstract conceptualization of "just" or "best" or perhaps "less shitty".
Nations are themselves inherently corrupt, shitty entities. The least-shitty of these nominal constructs are the ones that do a reasonable job of reflecting the people they govern.
Ergo, people of any so-called "nation" can consider the least-shitty ideas, even if they come from outside their own particular inbred arbitrary grouping.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Beeswax Altar: If signing those treaties meant surrendering sovereignty to a panel of law professors in New York, no self respecting nation would sign them.
No-one surrendered sovereignty to a panel of law professors in New York. That's your (rather stupid) hyperbole.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If signing those treaties meant surrendering sovereignty to a panel of law professors in New York, no self respecting nation would sign them. They don't. So, nations sign them and then interpret them however they choose.
It's the nature of laws that they are interpreted. That's been true ever since someone chiselled "do not murder" into a block of stone and someone at the back of the crowd said "is it murder if I'm acting in self defence?"
Ideally when a law is drafted someone writes it very carefully so that the range of plausible interpretations is within the intent of the legislators. And, so, you get panels of law professors who discuss these and give their interpretations in relation to specific instances - usually, of course, those "law professors" are a judge and opposing counsel in a court of law in the first instance, with the real decisions about how a law is interpreted made by appeal courts and higher levels of the judiciary. In International Law those higher levels of judiciary are also international in nature, is that so hard a concept to grasp?
--------------------
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
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If signing those treaties meant surrendering sovereignty to a panel of law professors in New York, no self respecting nation would sign them. They don't. So, nations sign them and then interpret them however they choose.
In International Law those higher levels of judiciary are also international in nature, is that so hard a concept to grasp?
We're talking about Beeswax Altar, so yes.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
