Australia's Courts are too soft.

[SonOfVoorhees]

I say everyone should be finger printed and DNA cataloged so any crime you commit later in life, you are caught - will atleast catch a huge percentage of future criminals. Also you sign a contract at 18 that says you agree to all laws and if you break one you get 10 years minimum in prison and that you forfeit your rights aside from basic human rights. Sick of people using the human rights act in the UK for bullshit stuff like a gay prisoner not having access to gay mags. Or in america a fat mafia guy that killed a number of people used the human rights to sue america over lack of food, though he got a normal amount of food.

In contract law, any contract entered into under duress is contestable. And sadly contract law does not supersede human rights laws no matter how much corporations like to try to convince people otherwise(at-will employment agreements are an excellent example of this). All contracts must be entered into voluntarily to be upheld.

Thing is human rights law is if your a prisoner of war, you are fed, watered and have access to health care. Not the kind of bullshit criminals use it for. A foreign criminal in the UK managed to able to stay in the UK because he said being sent back to his home country was against his human rights to have a family life. Though his family didnt live in the UK, had no girlfriend or kids in the UK. Total abuse by criminals is the humans rights act. Infact, innocent victims of crime should be using the human rights act to sue the criminals that fucked up their life.

 

[Aramis Night]

I say everyone should be finger printed and DNA cataloged so any crime you commit later in life, you are caught - will atleast catch a huge percentage of future criminals. Also you sign a contract at 18 that says you agree to all laws and if you break one you get 10 years minimum in prison and that you forfeit your rights aside from basic human rights. Sick of people using the human rights act in the UK for bullshit stuff like a gay prisoner not having access to gay mags. Or in america a fat mafia guy that killed a number of people used the human rights to sue america over lack of food, though he got a normal amount of food.

In contract law, any contract entered into under duress is contestable. And sadly contract law does not supersede human rights laws no matter how much corporations like to try to convince people otherwise(at-will employment agreements are an excellent example of this). All contracts must be entered into voluntarily to be upheld.

Thing is human rights law is if your a prisoner of war, you are fed, watered and have access to health care. Not the kind of bullshit criminals use it for. A foreign criminal in the UK managed to able to stay in the UK because he said being sent back to his home country was against his human rights to have a family life. Though his family didnt live in the UK, had no girlfriend or kids in the UK. Total abuse by criminals is the humans rights act. Infact, innocent victims of crime should be using the human rights act to sue the criminals that fucked up their life.

I don't disagree about how criminals managing to abuse rights is a problem. I was more referencing you point about 18 yr old's signing a contract to follow the laws. We hold them to those laws as is without a contract. The vast majority of laws are not even possibly known by an 18 yr old. Law is so convoluted in most places now that even lawyers whose job is to know the law, are only able to know it in their own specialty(criminal, estate, family, corporate, civil, etc.). And besides, what do you do with an 18 yr old that refuses to sign it? Is it really any kind of choice that doesn't amount to duress?

 

[Mau95]

You think you're the only country? I'm from Belgium and I see things like this every week in the newspapers. And isn't Australia that country where videogames get censored or banned really easily/quickly? At least you're strict on that part.

 

[WWmelb]

The one thing i haven't seen come up out of this is prison sentencing being used for protection of others. It isn't just about deterrence, rehab, punishment or vengeance. There is also the fact that while said criminal is incarcerated, they aren't hurting any more people.

This is the main thing about soft sentencing that gets me.

What is apparently a woeful lack of care for the protection of citizens that live their lives without encroaching on the lives of others. The ones who are the victims of crime.

Police are there to PROTECT innocents first and foremost. Courts are their to enforce this. If a murderer (yes i call her a murderer, as prolonged beatings over a course of days resulting in death doesn't, in my eyes, appear to be a death that rates as manslaughter), our citizens are only protected from this person for 7 6years.

Now, i may have been a little angry when i posted the OP. Yes, i definitely was. However, this isn't an isolated low sentencing in this country. If it was, i would say i need more facts, maybe i do anyways and will work to find out more, then i would probably be more open in my acceptance of the sentence.

We seem to punish petty crimes severely, yet crimes like this seem the opposite.

I don't have all the answers, but yeah i was angry about this. And i'm glad some discussion has come from it if nothing else.

 

[WWmelb]

We need the courts to start setting some serious examples, whether they actually work as a deterrent or not.

There is so much wrong with that statement.

For one, deterrence doesn't work. Those who commit crimes of that nature are impulsive and likely have a lot else wrong with them. They do not do a cost/benefit analysis of beating a child. To suggest as much is ridiculous.

So you advocate, then, punishment for the sake of it. That solves nothing, drains resources, and just creates further problems. Giving more power to the state doesn't help much either.

I understand your outrage. But a "tougher" penal system will do no good.

And t o this, i don't disagree completely. However, in this case, i don't think a beating prolonged over a period of days can qualify as impulsive. One beating, one day that went way too far i could see as impulsive or a snap thing, but over days and days? No.. i don't think so.

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

It does not need to work as a deterant. it needs to work as punishment.

That's an extremely unproductive and backwards way of thinking.

I hope you realize the mindset of zero accountability that you're pushing is exactly what criminals thrive on. If there aren't any consequences, why the hell not, right? Without consequences, the whole system would fall apart. But that's not to say that I think Australia needs a harsher penal system (I can't really comment on it, as I've never been there) but that's a dangerous way of thinking.

At least the woman in this case isn't getting a free college education while she's in lockup, at the expense of taxpayers who can't even afford an education for themselves, but I think I'm starting to get off topic. Honestly though, I don't see how this could possibly have been ruled as manslaughter, considering that it was deliberate and occurred over a number of days.

 

[General Vagueness]

To the people bringing up our lack of information or saying prison doesn't work or doesn't work that well: assuming the part about beating her kid to death is true, I don't care. Other people have discussed the reasons for a prison sentence and why being longer, or long enough, would be good (separation from the public, rehabilitation, punishment, and deterrence, from most important to least important in this particular case, IMHO). If she really is severely mentally ill then they should do something about it (and something competent and complete and attentive and medically sound) but any way you slice it this woman should be put away for a long time.

 

[Headsprouter]

So...she believes the child may have been conceived through a rape...so she felt anger and resentment towards her.

This brings up a point for abortion, I think. Better off quickly whisked away without being able to perceive the loss rather than slow, violent, at age 8 with a brain capable of fear.

Then again, she didn't know for sure. Also, her dad was completely useless. As for the level of punishment, the dad deserved what he got, maybe a little more, but considering the mother was likely mentally unstable...uhhhhh...

Raped, insane or not, her daughter didn't deserve to die that way. I don't know what the punishment will do to help it, though. People who kill kids are rarely of stable mind, I don't know if setting an example will really stop a person who thinks without logic.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

However, in this case, i don't think a beating prolonged over a period of days can qualify as impulsive. One beating, one day that went way too far i could see as impulsive or a snap thing, but over days and days? No.. i don't think so.

Perhaps "impulsive" was the wrong word. That's definitely a factor, but doesn't cover it completely. My point being that these people don't sit down and think about the possible benefits or consequences of beating a kid. They just do it. If killing the child was the intention, this person likely would have just done it.
Prisons should exist to possibly help people reform, or at the very least, keep them away from the rest of us. Deterrence and punishment are useless.

 

[Vegosiux]

I hope you realize the mindset of zero accountability that you're pushing is exactly what criminals thrive on. If there aren't any consequences, why the hell not, right? Without consequences, the whole system would fall apart. But that's not to say that I think Australia needs a harsher penal system (I can't really comment on it, as I've never been there) but that's a dangerous way of thinking.

Well, I don't go about killing people, because if I killed a person, I'd feel like shit. And I hate feeling like shit. What I mean to say here, the consequences don't necessarily have to be delivered by an external agent.

And no, I'm not saying all such external agents should be abolished. That'd be stupid. Just saying that, well, I don't need the law to tell me what is and isn't wrong. I generally go by the rule of thumb that whatever I'd take issue with when done to me, would likely be wrong if I did it to someone else.

 

[Dwarfman]

Police are there to PROTECT innocents first and foremost. Courts are their to enforce this. If a murderer (yes i call her a murderer, as prolonged beatings over a course of days resulting in death doesn't, in my eyes, appear to be a death that rates as manslaughter), our citizens are only protected from this person for 7 6years.

Protected from this person? Do you seriously believe this person is going to leave jail and bludgeon some random person with a vacuum cleaner pipe again? This single statement alone shows that you are over-reacting.

The above statement doesn't mean I don't disagree with you to some extent. Australian - especially Queensland - court decisions have been a mixed bag of late. But one shouldn't just jump into the pros and cons of a court's decision based upon an article severely lacking in information or the paranoia of thinking about this person finding another victim.

Personally if I was the Judge I would have agreed with the Prosecution and given the lady 10 years. That being said the article does state she gets 7 years without parole. That means the full 7 years. If it was with parole she'd probably be getting out of jail in 3-4 years. And that well and truly would be soft. That we can all agree on.

 

[chikusho]

It does not need to work as a deterant. it needs to work as punishment.

That's an extremely unproductive and backwards way of thinking.

I hope you realize the mindset of zero accountability that you're pushing is exactly what criminals thrive on.

Citation needed.

If there aren't any consequences, why the hell not, right? Without consequences, the whole system would fall apart.

I've never said that there shouldn't be consequences. Just that the current consequences are backwards and self-serving.

 

[Strazdas]

Beat a kid with a vacuum cleaner - 7 years.
download a movie - 15 years.

Out of interest, who has been convicted in Australia for 15 years for downloading a movie? For personal use, that is, not a distributor.

noone has ever been jailed for downloading. however it is pretty much impossible to download without distributing nowadays, as everyone moved to P2P methods. However just because noone has been jailed does not mean laws are different. The 15 years are pushed by the industry lobbysts and if experience tach us anything, they are going to get it.

It does not need to work as a deterant. it needs to work as punishment.

That's an extremely unproductive and backwards way of thinking.

A person has done a crime agasint a person and society as a whole. He deserves an appropriate punishment for his crime. This is as backwards as the console backward compactability. If its unproductive. thats the price im willing to pay to know that people who deserve punishment - are actually punished.

Police work to prevent and investigate crime. What happens after sentencing is completely out of their hands, so it's irrelevant to this matter.

So you agree then that police prevents crime, thus punishment for the crime (being caught by police is what leads to punishment, police is the tool to enforce our laws) does prevent crime.

He's saying the -prison system as punishment- is an ineffective way to reduce crime. However, the -prison system as rehabilitation- has had some great successes, just as an example.

Except that it hasnt. rehabilitation system so far has only lead to people doing crimes and then asking to be arrested because they will live better in prison than an average person that is free. i dont see system that encourages people to go to jail as a sucess.

You mean, the death penalty?

I was thinking of castration.

It does not need to work as a deterant. it needs to work as punishment.

Especially viable since she's crazy. I'm sure she will learn to not be crazy from her punishment.

She is not crazy. the fact that she was jailed and not sent to mental institution mean that the court decided she was not crazy.

 

[Aramis Night]

Police are there to PROTECT innocents first and foremost.

Since i just referenced this exact point in another ongoing topic i may as well correct it here too while i'm at it. In a 1981 case: Warren vs. District of Columbia, this very notion you stated was found to be legally false. The outcome of the case which is a standing precedent established that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The details of the case itself are chilling to put it lightly. Now of course this only applies to US law. Though i wouldn't be surprised if you may find similar findings in Canadian, UK, or Australian law as well.

 

[chikusho]

It does not need to work as a deterant. it needs to work as punishment.

That's an extremely unproductive and backwards way of thinking.

A person has done a crime agasint a person and society as a whole. He deserves an appropriate punishment for his crime. This is as backwards as the console backward compactability. If its unproductive. thats the price im willing to pay to know that people who deserve punishment - are actually punished.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. You think someone should be punished, therefore they should be punished. If that helps you sleep better at night, good for you. It actually helps noone.

Police work to prevent and investigate crime. What happens after sentencing is completely out of their hands, so it's irrelevant to this matter.

So you agree then that police prevents crime, thus punishment for the crime (being caught by police is what leads to punishment, police is the tool to enforce our laws) does prevent crime.[/quote]

I agree that Police work to prevent crime. They aren't always successful, and sometimes commit crimes themselves, that it sometimes "leads to punishment" is irrelevant. The police's involvement stops when suspects are handed over to the court. If the suspect is then beheaded or handed a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, police have no part in it either way.

He's saying the -prison system as punishment- is an ineffective way to reduce crime. However, the -prison system as rehabilitation- has had some great successes, just as an example.

Except that it hasnt. rehabilitation system so far has only lead to people doing crimes and then asking to be arrested because they will live better in prison than an average person that is free. i dont see system that encourages people to go to jail as a sucess.[/quote]

Citation needed.

Even if that was true (which is extremely unlikely), it's plenty better than a system that trains its participants into becoming more effective and less empathetic criminals.

You mean, the death penalty?

I was thinking of castration.[/quote]

Rape is about exertion of power, not sexual desire. It changes nothing in those who are inclined to be repeat offenders.

To round this off, let me quote myself from earlier in the thread:
"The key thing to remember here is that the world does not become a better place if someone who has done something bad gets punished. However, the world does become a better place if that person starts doing something good."

 

[Strazdas]

This makes no sense to me. It's like saying an airplane isn't a form of transportation. The only purpose of prison sentencing is as a deterrent. Why do you send someone to prison? To convince them that the alternative is better. There are a few justifications for punishment (retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation according to the wikipedia page). However, retribution is socially unacceptable. Incapacitation only really applies to those who get a death sentence. What we're left with is rehabilitation and deterrence.

Considering the original comment was made about harsher sentences, I don't see how harsher sentences could act as anything other than a deterrent. The thing about rehabilitation is that no specific sentence is appropriate. It's as likely to take a month as never work at all.

As I understand it, prison sentencing (as a punishment) can serve as nothing other than a deterrent. Ideally, sentences would be "go to prison until you're fit to become a productive member of society again". Everything else (prison time, fines) is only there to convince you not to do the crime.

The reason people are sent to prison is first and foremost removal from society. they are deemed dangerous to be left free, thus they are imprisoned. Imprisonment, of course, has its deterrents, like not being free. and then the others depends on what kind of prison it is. is it a resort home or a black cell to pick extremes.
From the wiki page that you yourself quoted you forgot incapacitation. which is what the prison was invented for. Also i would doublt that retribution is socially unacceptable. While direct harmful retribution is illegal, there are plenty of people who are willing to do retribution, both criminals and not.
Harsher sentences act as deterrent, as a retribution (you did a crime to society, therefore you deserve to be punished according to your crime, and if your a cold blooded killer, the amount of punishment depends n how much the law values life. in this case 7 year olds life is valued of 7 years in prison). It also act as incapacitation, by not allowing her to beat any more kids (lets ignore intra-prison crime for now) for 7 years. After that, she is once againt capable to do that.

This isn't really the first time that someone that shouldn't have had children to begin with beats theirs to death.

My question is what are the courts doing to make sure that this person doesn't breed again when she's out in 7 years?

Nothing. Currently ability to breed is considered a "human right" and nothing can be done about it sadly.

The key thing to remember here is that the world does not become a better place if someone who has done something bad gets punished. However, the world does become a better place if that person starts doing something good.

It does become a "better place" if somone who does "Bad" things get removed from the world, hence why imprisonment exists. to remove people.

I say everyone should be finger printed and DNA cataloged so any crime you commit later in life, you are caught - will atleast catch a huge percentage of future criminals.

well when you are getting a new passport now you get fingerprinted and that database can be used by the police. DNA cataloging is not yet popular here in 2nd world.

Capcha: collaborate and listen
What is capcha judging us now?

 

[Bat Vader]

I know that having kids is a right that all humans have but at the same time though I feel that if a human beats their kids to the point where it kills them; that the person should not be able to have or raise kids ever again. Anyone that savagely beats their kids needs to have their right to have or raise kids taken away.

The only way to get it back would be to go through a very long rehabilitation program and at the end of it the person needs to feel powerful remorse and actually be sorry for what they did and prove that they can actually take care of a child without hurting it.

From what I read the stepfather is also getting three years in jail because he knew about what was happening but didn't seek medical help or tell the police about it. How could someone ignore something like this and try to justify it?

 

[Vegosiux]

How could someone ignore something like this and try to justify it?

The same way we all ignore rather glaring problems in our society and just remind ourselves that we have better and more important things to do, I suppose.

Now, the difference being that the stepfather was also directly responsible for the girl's well-being and failed to own up to that responsibility.

Or maybe he was afraid he'd get a beating too if he spilled the beans, I don't know.

 

[chikusho]

The reason people are sent to prison is first and foremost removal from society. they are deemed dangerous to be left free, thus they are imprisoned.

Citation needed.
This is a blanket statement that isn't applicable to many specific cases and situations.
Punishment and prison sentencing is based on severity of a singular crime, not the likelihood of further transgressions (even if that might be taken into account at a later stage).
If the reason truly is "removal from society" rather than "punishment," the system is very poorly developed for that purpose.

Harsher sentences act as deterrent, as a retribution (you did a crime to society, therefore you deserve to be punished according to your crime, and if your a cold blooded killer, the amount of punishment depends n how much the law values life.

Rather, is _intended_ as a deterrent, albeit not a very successful one.
There is little to no evidence that correlates harsher sentencing to any kind of reduced crime-rates.

The key thing to remember here is that the world does not become a better place if someone who has done something bad gets punished. However, the world does become a better place if that person starts doing something good.

It does become a "better place" if somone who does "Bad" things get removed from the world, hence why imprisonment exists. to remove people.

That would be assuming that every person who has commited a criminal act is a person who actively does and would continue to do criminal things. In which case, temporary removal would be incredibly inefficient, down-right stupid and ultimately just postponing further crimes.

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

It does not need to work as a deterant. it needs to work as punishment.

That's an extremely unproductive and backwards way of thinking.

I hope you realize the mindset of zero accountability that you're pushing is exactly what criminals thrive on.

Citation needed.

If there aren't any consequences, why the hell not, right? Without consequences, the whole system would fall apart.

I've never said that there shouldn't be consequences. Just that the current consequences are backwards and self-serving.

You don't need a citation to understand that, just a bit of common sense. Simply demanding facts about that which is self evident doesn't really make a compelling argument.

And self-serving? Yes, because the tax-payers get SO much out of this deal, don't they? They get to pay thousand a year to keep the people who caused them harm detained. And sometimes even paying for them to get a college degree while in jail while they can't even afford an education for themselves. But that's all part of the rehabilitation, right?