UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote: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.
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote: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.
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States
quote: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.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote: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.
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States
quote:Texas is apparently content to execute a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Texas is apparently content to execute a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.
quote: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
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.
quote: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.
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does.
quote:May I suggest that if you wanted to make a different claim that words like
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:That wasn't the claim made though.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:So, why did you say "locking them up protected them from truly vengeful people"?
Similarly no claim was made that the offenders should be locked up for their own protection.
quote: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.
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.
quote:It's really not that difficult Alan.
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:Because it was part of a conversation
So, why did you say "locking them up protected them from truly vengeful people"?
![[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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It was Doc Tor who raised vengeance not me.
quote: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.
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.
quote:and subhuman acts of violence. Classy!
someone who practices sexual acts you find distasteful
quote:You make some good points about the potential ramifications of dehumanising.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
You make some good points about the potential ramifications of dehumanising.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote:Speak for yourself.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I And, most certainly the young men in question are as human as you or I.
quote:All laws, including human rights laws are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. The only ground for discussion is where the line is drawn.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:All laws, including human rights laws are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. The only ground for discussion is where the line is drawn.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote: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.
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?
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.
quote:and you subsequently claimed that you haven't said that there are vengeful people who these children need to be protected from.
locking them up protected them from truly vengeful people
quote: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.
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.
quote:Legislation to deal with a particular case is invariably very bad legislation. The law applies to all.
why is it so terrible to pass legislation to deal with this particular case?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:All laws, including human rights laws are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. The only ground for discussion is where the line is drawn.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote: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.
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?
quote:And it's been drawn by the UN and the Australian government's signed up to it. End of.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote: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.
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.
quote:and then
as for locking people up for their own protection
quote: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.
hat there are vengeful people who these children need to be protected from.
quote: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.
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: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.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:And it's been drawn by the UN and the Australian government's signed up to it. End of.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote: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).
Jon the Nati comments that "almost no one else in the developed world" sees it as right to try children as adults.
quote:So they were monsters at the time. You don't think it's possible they might have changed at all in 26 years?
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It IS only the monsters who got caught with this law.
quote:Doesn't matter. String 'em up and make the 'vast majority' of New South Walians happy.
Originally posted by rufiki:
quote:So they were monsters at the time. You don't think it's possible they might have changed at all in 26 years?
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It IS only the monsters who got caught with this law.
ETA: or that they might change in the next 26 years?
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can see no justification for considering someone as subhuman
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:There's a reason we don't put sentencing in criminal cases to the popular vote, you know.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote: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.
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States
quote: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.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
IMO, prison should serve three purposes in this order of priority: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.
- 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
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote: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.
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.
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?
quote: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?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Re the OP: then UN picked the wrong case to make their point.
quote:It's ridiculous is what it is.
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.
quote:Indeed, expressing my thoughts more accurately would be to say that the heinousness of the crime makes this case one to not go to the wall on.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote: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?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Re the OP: then UN picked the wrong case to make their point.
quote:The UN can't really ignore a complaint because they don't like the complaint or think they're unworthy. And, let's face it, someone needing to complain to the UN about something like that isn't going to have done something that's going to make them popular or endearing
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Indeed, expressing my thoughts more accurately would be to say that the heinousness of the crime makes this case one to not go to the wall on.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote: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?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Re the OP: then UN picked the wrong case to make their point.
quote:Tubbs and others also make this point.
Legislation to deal with a particular case is invariably very bad legislation.
quote:I am not and have not argued that support for life without parole for juveniles is the consensus view of the developed world. There's a big difference between the consensus view of your clarification and the "almost no one else" of your initial point aimed at me individually. For clarity though you make it sound as though I am arguing for this punishment "regardless of the heinousness of the crime" I am saying it should only be enacted in the most heinous cases.
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.
quote:I would add that 1 and 2 are linked. Rehabilitation is so that the individuals can re-enter society, that has to include minimising any potential risk to other people. Which is the job of parole boards to determine. And, those parole boards (like the original court) has to rule based on established law and procedures and not on newly created legislation for that particular case or in response to the howls of the mob (I would say that victims statements may be relevant in such deliberations).
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:I used to have them in this order, but with some personal experience, we've tended to re-order them a little
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
IMO, prison should serve three purposes in this order of priority: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.
- 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
quote:Am I the only one who thinks that Evangeline is incredibly dumb? The whole idea of the State of Law is that we formulate general rules, and don't make up rules for particular cases. That way lays arbitrariness and dictatorship.
Evangeline: There is a mantra that's been taken up by a number of people and stated as fact with absolutely no proof:
Allan Cresswell says
quote:Tubbs and others also make this point.
Legislation to deal with a particular case is invariably very bad legislation.
Really? Invariably? Proof please.
quote:Good of you to point that out. Or seeing as we're in hell "very bad of you to point that out".
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I would add that 1 and 2 are linked. Rehabilitation is so that the individuals can re-enter society, that has to include minimising any potential risk to other people. Which is the job of parole boards to determine. And, those parole boards (like the original court) has to rule based on established law and procedures and not on newly created legislation for that particular case or in response to the howls of the mob (I would say that victims statements may be relevant in such deliberations).
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:I used to have them in this order, but with some personal experience, we've tended to re-order them a little
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
IMO, prison should serve three purposes in this order of priority: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.
- 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
quote:Well, perhaps you need to read for comprehension to?
Originally posted by Evangeline:
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:and then
as for locking people up for their own protection
quote: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.
hat there are vengeful people who these children need to be protected from.
quote: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.
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:Despite evidence to the contrary I don't think Evangeline is dumb. I do however think she is unusually pig-headed.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Am I the only one who thinks that Evangeline is incredibly dumb? The whole idea of the State of Law is that we formulate general rules, and don't make up rules for particular cases. That way lays arbitrariness and dictatorship.
quote:Sorry, but my fundamental nature is a Purgatroid rather than Denizen. It often results in unHellish bouts of reasonableness.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Good of you to point that out.
quote:God dammit, Alan. You know I love you. But did you really just segue between the Passion Of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the decision of the British Government not to release a notorious serial killer who was sent to prison for helping her boyfriend to rape and murder children?
Which is relates to the point several of us have made about legislation made specifically to cover particularly extreme cases being poor legislation. We all know that the baying mob can influence the wheels of justice. Read Matthew 27 some time. And, we're not immune to that in the UK either, with various Home Secretaries denying any chance of parole to the Myra Hindley (Ian Brady has never asked for parole), with Leon Brittan increasing the minimum tariff from the 25 years imposed by the court to 30 years. David Waddington again increased that to whole life - without even informing Hindley that her tariff had been increased. At least in the UK the Law Lords have now stripped the Home Secretary of the power to impose minimum tariffs, that power now being held exclusively by the courts.
quote:I'm afraid you've misunderstood me somehow, Evangeline. Rather than parse all of my comments to see how that may have happened, I will summarize here:
I am not and have not argued that support for life without parole for juveniles is the consensus view of the developed world. [...] For clarity though you make it sound as though I am arguing for this punishment "regardless of the heinousness of the crime" I am saying it should only be enacted in the most heinous cases.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sorry, but my fundamental nature is a Purgatroid rather than Denizen. It often results in unHellish bouts of reasonableness.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Yes, I did ... I wanted to cover the whole range of the baying of the mob influencing the judicial process. From the call to execute the Innocent to questions of parole for an (undoubtedly guilty*) perpetrator of one of the most heinous crimes of recent British history.
Originally posted by Callan:
God dammit, Alan. You know I love you. But did you really just segue between the Passion Of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the decision of the British Government not to release a notorious serial killer who was sent to prison for helping her boyfriend to rape and murder children?
quote:We understand each other Jon. I did understand your last post in the way you intended, it was just the phrasing about "regardless of the heinousness...." that I wanted to clarify as it sounded misleading.
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:I'm afraid you've misunderstood me somehow, Evangeline. Rather than parse all of my comments to see how that may have happened, I will summarize here:
I am not and have not argued that support for life without parole for juveniles is the consensus view of the developed world. [...] For clarity though you make it sound as though I am arguing for this punishment "regardless of the heinousness of the crime" I am saying it should only be enacted in the most heinous cases.
The penological consensus in the developed world is that, regardless of how heinous the crime may have been, it is not appropriate to impose a punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole or early release on persons who were juveniles at the time of their offense, even where they are tried as adults. This is reflected in the laws of those nations and also in the position of the United Nations human rights office.
You apparently support these young men being in prison for the rest of their lives, with no possibility of early release, and furthermore you resent the United Nation's characterization of this as a human rights violation. You are entitled to that position, although I think it wrongheaded, and it flies in the face of the current penological consensus.
quote:I was just clarifying my position in relation to those points.
Well, I'm arguing with what you have said. In particular you have said...
quote:The only reasonable answer is of course never.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How far down the line of seriousness of offence do you go before it's unacceptable for the mob to govern sentencing?
quote:The way I understand it, Australia has signed an international treaty on this and those trump national law.
Belle Ringer: What happens if they don't bother responding, or respond with "we like our laws the way they are."
quote:That is a cliché, and an empty one. The focus being in the wrong direction. How and why people do horrible things is the test of humanity in general. It starts with the horrible things, specifically not with their treatment after they've done the deed.
Originally posted by RuthW:
How we treat people who have done horrible things is a test of our own humanity.
quote: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.
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."
quote:If the UN's ruling is unenforceable why are you getting so hot and bothered about it?
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote: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.
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."
quote: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?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:That is a cliché, and an empty one. The focus being in the wrong direction. How and why people do horrible things is the test of humanity in general. It starts with the horrible things, specifically not with their treatment after they've done the deed.
Originally posted by RuthW:
How we treat people who have done horrible things is a test of our own humanity.
quote:Do you even know what a cliché is? Because treating people humanely regardless of anything else is hardly what anyone can call "overused". And it's not empty; it's the fundamental fucking point of every major religion. Not to mention a telling separation of whether we are rational beings, or reactionary animals.
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:That is a cliché, and an empty one.
Originally posted by RuthW:
How we treat people who have done horrible things is a test of our own humanity.
quote:Because you have your hands on a working time machine? How exactly is mistreating incarcerated humans who have no chance of escape going to make anything better? It has been clear for a long time now that relative severity of punishment by the state is not a deterrent - partially because nobody thinks they are going to get caught, and largely because very few criminals actually plan more than a few steps ahead. Especially the ones that get caught.
The focus being in the wrong direction.
quote:Here you're just being a tapdancing colostomy bag of a person. To suggest that doing horrible things for a good/just reason somehow makes them not be horrible things is idiotic.
How and why people do horrible things is the test of humanity in general.
quote:So basically you're pissed off because the UN is showing up how grotesquely inhumane your laws are.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Belle Ringer posed a hypothetical question to which I responded, am I not allowed to do that?
It's the principal of the matter Sioni. Also lack of legal enforceability is not the same as of no relevance or consequence.
quote:The UN does that, from time to time, to every nation on Earth. That is the UN's job according to its UN Charter. The OP OTOH shows a lack of humanity at a different level.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:So basically you're pissed off because the UN is showing up how grotesquely inhumane your laws are.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Belle Ringer posed a hypothetical question to which I responded, am I not allowed to do that?
It's the principal of the matter Sioni. Also lack of legal enforceability is not the same as of no relevance or consequence.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Snags:
quote: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.
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?
It's an understandable position. But it still sucks. And at heart it denies Christ.
quote: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.
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.
quote:But the DM and the side-bar of shame can be accessed all over the globe and they cover international news
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).
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
. Sharing their special brand of enlightenment all over the globe!!quote: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*
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote: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.
I cannot believe you find this controversial; almost no one else in the developed world does. Even in the United States
quote:Now, see, I agree with RuthW.
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.
quote:Time to find a new religion then, because Christianity is clearly not the one for you.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Obviously I don't believe the criminals might reform into people who are fit to live in society Rufiki.
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: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.
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?
quote:You missed in your analysis, protection of the public and possible future victims from the risks these offenders may pose.
Originally posted by Porridge:
{....}
quote:You apparently missed the term "deter." Deterrence presumably is what protects the public and possible future victims.
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.
quote:Alternatively, it may mean something special is going on inside, or with, or for, those who do not.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Time to find a new religion then, because Christianity is clearly not the one for you.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Obviously I don't believe the criminals might reform into people who are fit to live in society Rufiki.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Time to find a new religion then, because Christianity is clearly not the one for you.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Obviously I don't believe the criminals might reform into people who are fit to live in society Rufiki.
quote: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.
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.
quote:I bellieve you are mistaken on all points about treaties.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote: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.
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."
quote: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.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:I bellieve you are mistaken on all points about treaties.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote: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.
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."
orfeo! Paging orfeo! We need your constitutional expertise here in Hell!
quote:No shit.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I have no particular expertise in the law
quote: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.
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.
quote:Belle Ringer asked
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.
quote:I responded to that question and you declared me totally wrong. Please do enlighten us with your answer.
What happens if they9the Aust Govt] don't bother responding, or respond with "we like our laws the way they are."
quote: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.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote: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).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm very wary of the deterrence element in sentencing.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:You speak as if bizarro US is different from the existing US.
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.
quote: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."
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:You speak as if bizarro US is different from the existing US.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote: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."
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:You speak as if bizarro US is different from the existing US.
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Your turn Australia.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Nor should there be.
originally posted by orfeo:
There is no right of enforcement. That is what Evangeline said, and she is entirely correct.
quote:Alternatively, a bunch of nobodies in the pockets of corporate lobbyists. What a choice.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Nor should there be.
originally posted by orfeo:
There is no right of enforcement. That is what Evangeline said, and she is entirely correct.
What self respecting nation cedes sovereignty to a panel of law of professors in New York?
quote:Each country that signs an international treaty.
Beeswax Altar: What self respecting nation cedes sovereignty to a panel of law of professors in New York?
quote:No-one surrendered sovereignty to a panel of law professors in New York. That's your (rather stupid) hyperbole.
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.
quote: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?"
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.
quote:We're talking about Beeswax Altar, so yes.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:In International Law those higher levels of judiciary are also international in nature, is that so hard a concept to grasp?
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.