|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The UN can Fuck Off
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Re the OP: then UN picked the wrong case to make their point.
What makes you say the UN "picked" a case "to make their point"? The article says the prisoners filed a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee, whose job it is to receive complaints and determine whether provisions of the Covenant have been violated. Should they have ignored the issue?
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.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Re the OP: then UN picked the wrong case to make their point.
What makes you say the UN "picked" a case "to make their point"? The article says the prisoners filed a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee, whose job it is to receive complaints and determine whether provisions of the Covenant have been violated. Should they have ignored the issue?
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.
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
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
How we treat people who have done horrible things is a test of our own humanity.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
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:
Legislation to deal with a particular case is invariably very bad legislation.
Tubbs and others also make this point.
Really? Invariably? Proof please. You believe that it's terrible to lock up a juvenile for life without parole. Where your arguments completely fall over is trying to make wild assertions about potential consequences of this particular law, based on absolutely no evidence other than what you assert might happen. This law has achieved its desired consequence, with which you disagree but there is no evidence of any deleterious wider consequences or application of this law beyond its intended targets. So your argument amounts to this is bad because I say bad things might happen because of it.
Jon, what you said about the vast majority of the developed world is quite different from your later clarification. quote:
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.
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.
Sioni as I've explained multiple times, I'm not arguing that the imprisonment is a good thing to keep people happy, you've wilfully misrepresented my position and you know it.
Tubbs, I don't believe life imprisonment is anywhere near as monstrous as the offences committed, so I'd say monstrous crimes deserve appropriate punishment. Hence in this particular case, life imprisonment without parole is appropriate rather than monstrous.
Obviously I don't believe the criminals might reform into people who are fit to live in society Rufiki.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
IMO, prison should serve three purposes in this order of priority:
- Rehabilitation so that offenders can re-enter society
- Protection of society against recurring criminal behaviour (linked to rehabilitation, as rehabilitation aims to take an offender into someone no longer a danger to others)
- Deterrence
It doesn't matter whether the crime was committed by juveniles or adults, it doesn't matter the severity of the crime. Any criminal justice system that does not seek to rehabilitate offenders is seriously wrong.
I used to have them in this order, but with some personal experience, we've tended to re-order them a little
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).
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
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:
Legislation to deal with a particular case is invariably very bad legislation.
Tubbs and others also make this point.
Really? Invariably? Proof please.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
IMO, prison should serve three purposes in this order of priority:
- Rehabilitation so that offenders can re-enter society
- Protection of society against recurring criminal behaviour (linked to rehabilitation, as rehabilitation aims to take an offender into someone no longer a danger to others)
- Deterrence
It doesn't matter whether the crime was committed by juveniles or adults, it doesn't matter the severity of the crime. Any criminal justice system that does not seek to rehabilitate offenders is seriously wrong.
I used to have them in this order, but with some personal experience, we've tended to re-order them a little
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).
Good of you to point that out. Or seeing as we're in hell "very bad of you to point that out".
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Not actually sure why people are so chary of "punishment" as a function of the judicial system. There is no justification for banging people up for any length of time, or indeed doing anything else to them, if they have done nothing to deserve it. Of course, once you have decided to bung someone in quod for a given period of time all the stuff about rehabilitation and whatnot is worth a shot as well.
But, supposing for a moment, that a panel of near omniscient criminologists told you that you could rehabilitate the notorious Islington gangster Fingers McStab by giving him community service but the only way to rehabilitate the kindly but determinedly kleptomaniac Mrs Janice Shoplifter was to bung her in Holloway for twelve months you would give a severer sentence to Fingers than to Janice?
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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:
as for locking people up for their own protection
and then
quote:
hat there are vengeful people who these children need to be protected from.
NO I'm not saying these subhumans NEED protection from vengeful people, I'm saying they need to be locked up because they are violent criminals nothing whatsoever to do with their protection.
quote:
and
quote:
the vast majority of the population [of NSW] approved of the fact that the teenagers were tried as adults and were relieved when the sentences when were handed down.
Which you subsequently clarified as meaning that this wasn't a decision approved of by the majority in NSW. Or, maybe you moved the goal posts and decided that it's a question of whether it's approved of by the majority of people in the world. I'm not sure what it is.
What the fuck????????? Go back and read for comprehension and read in the context of the discussion. I did state that the decision was approved of by the majority of people in NSW within the context of somebody arguing that nobody in the developed world believed the decision was acceptable. I never refuted this claim or made any assertions about the rest of the world. Can you not understand the point in context? I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.
Well, perhaps you need to read for comprehension to?
I made some general comments initially.
It isn't uncommon to hear people state that locking someone away has the benefit of protecting them (though in some cases they're in much greater danger from other prisoners than the general public). Which was the sentiment you appeared to be expressing. All I said was that if that's held up as an argument for imprisonment then that says more about a society which poses a danger to someone who has committed a crime than it does about the criminal, and that a society in which it's credible that some ("ordinary, decent") individuals may cause harm to another is one that has issues.
It is also not unusual for public emotions to run high in well-publicised and extreme criminal acts, with large numbers of people not directly involved calling for the harshest possible sentence, even for sentences that would not be allowed under law. We've all seen tabloid newspaper campaigns for "justice for xxx" (where xxx is the victim of some particular crime). Your posts stated that in NSW there was (is) a similar public reaction to these crimes. My point was simply that this is not dissimilar to a mob, and mob justice is rarely (if ever) just.
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Despite evidence to the contrary I don't think Evangeline is dumb. I do however think she is unusually pig-headed.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Good of you to point that out.
Sorry, but my fundamental nature is a Purgatroid rather than Denizen. It often results in unHellish bouts of reasonableness.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
One of the appeals for this case is on line here.
Those boys were not only 14 and 16 at the time but were homeless, living on the streets, both the "product of a broken home". The boy who was 14 at the time was judged to be even younger mentally, illiterate and the original sentencing reports said that he was of diminished responsibility at the time of the crime but was capable of rehabilitation.
So NSW not only failed these children leaving them homeless and living on the streets at 14 and 16, but the state and people want to continue to demonise them now? Without an opportunity for rehabilitation. Yes, it was a heinous crime, but this is Victorian labelling at its worst - labelling them as animals, criminals and incapable of rehabilitation when the state was at least partially culpable in its failure to support vulnerable children before the crime was committed.
And you're blaming the UN for pointing out your failures?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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:
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.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
If someone was to accept that it's OK for public opinion to influence the judicial process in the case of heinous crimes, what about less heinous or publicised crimes? How far down the line of seriousness of offence do you go before it's unacceptable for the mob to govern sentencing?
* to avoid the complication of people being convicted of crimes they're innocent of, as per the Birmingham pub bombings previously cited.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
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.
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:
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.
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.
Alan, if they were general comments then fine, It was just that on at least 2 occasions you prefaced these points with quotes from me and said things like
quote:
Well, I'm arguing with what you have said. In particular you have said...
I was just clarifying my position in relation to those points.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
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?
The only reasonable answer is of course never.
While I accept that we are all humans and created in God's image and other nice stuff, I have met 2 people in whom I detected not a shred of what God created was left. Thus I don't think it is offence related, it's person related. (FWIW, neither were related to recent personal events I have discussed shipboard)
Which led me to accept that hell, as it might exist, is very cold, not hot at all.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
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."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Belle Ringer: What happens if they don't bother responding, or respond with "we like our laws the way they are."
The way I understand it, Australia has signed an international treaty on this and those trump national law.
In any case, I do think that when a democratic country like Australia is accused of violating human rights, that matters.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
How we treat people who have done horrible things is a test of our own humanity.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
If the UN's ruling is unenforceable why are you getting so hot and bothered about it?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
How we treat people who have done horrible things is a test of our own humanity.
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.
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?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
How we treat people who have done horrible things is a test of our own humanity.
That is a cliché, and an empty one.
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.
quote:
The focus being in the wrong direction.
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.
quote:
How and why people do horrible things is the test of humanity in general.
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
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.
So basically you're pissed off because the UN is showing up how grotesquely inhumane your laws are.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
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.
So basically you're pissed off because the UN is showing up how grotesquely inhumane your laws are.
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
