Thread: Nothing Constructive and Only Posted to Cause Controversy Again

Originally Posted by Sidney

Yeah I understand why you want to think like that.... its simpler, but your version of fair is no more relavent than mine. I am pretty sure the judge wouldn't even say it was fair... he hopefully would say that it was appropriate given all the circumstances, otherwise he shouldn't have given it.

I'm pretty sure that we have already had considerable discussion on the lack of deterant value around punative response to intentional crime and its a bigger reach to claim deterent value on unintentional outcome. Who are you deterring? The offender....? well you just but him into prison to train him to be an intentional criminal so clearly thats not the focus...

Other general members of the public? Does your target audience (18 yr old testosterone filled, low empathy scoring individuals) actually read the newspaper so that they can be informed?? Deterrant?

Sorry but this sort of sentencing is only designed to pacify the gen pop.... and its not very intelligent..

Fear of getting caught is the deterrant that actually works, not fear of consequences. 18yr olds with poor upbringings, testosterone and low perceptive development have no regard for consequences, if they are not concerned about getting caught. Punative sentences have little to no value in that respect. Thats why speeding policing works.... the money isn't that significant..

Exactly! And the bit I highlighted is the bit I really like. I do like playing devils advocate every now and then.

As I've said many times it is a society issue, ... you, me, the police, the judiciary, the legislature, the guy at the corner dairy buying a pie, everyone. There is too much 'there is a problem and it is for the police/legal (I won't use the word justice)/corrections to deal with' mentality.

see argument is good.....

Originally Posted by Sidney

see argument is good.....

I'm like that with the Ford/Holden debate. I keep quiet till someone drops their preference, then I'll back the other camp.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Cuddles is a term applied to anything other than locking someone in prison apparently...

I have no idea whether this kid is past the point and warrants imprisonment for what was an unintentional outcome from a deliberately reckless action.
But he gets 2+ years @ $99k per year of resource allocated to him with this sentence. Apparently we get a 75% chance that he will turn into a liftetime serious criminal for that investment. Sounds like a win to me.

Apparently international research indicates that supervison and one-on-one type of focus and training programs generate only a 25% re-offending rate.

And we have got $200k to work with over a couple of years... sentence him to 2 years on a dairy farm, with bracelet and pay the cocky $50K/year for 24/7 supervision?? Weekly external supervison and accountability follow up and other life skills training... surely the options are considerable..

Sweet Jesus no. Have you not heard the cow cockies even on this forum whine about their current affairs, let alone supervising a delinquent?

Seriously though, there does need to be a new solution and I think we will find its actually an old solution. That gap justs keeps getting bigger and bigger

Once he is sorted how do we go about correcting the wrong doings against the victim who has a life sentence?

I like the eye for an eye theory but that is not socially acceptable neither is giving a lobotomy in place of capital punishment in more severe cases. Be spending less than $100k a year on them but frees up a prison bed

What happens for the victim under the current system?

An eye for an eye doesn't help the first to lose one

Originally Posted by gimp

I agree with you however I don't really want an argument about it here

Of course I banned systolic this morning so that's less likely now

Glad to hear, he was informed by multiple members to tone it down and not be so aggressively abusive.

Good riddance I say.

As for the this tragic story, good points have been made from both sides of the spectrum which makes it very difficult to come up with the right answer. Although I tend to lean towards with what @Sidney said earlier about the flaws in them being in prison @ $100K per year to the tax payer. Perhaps this could be utilized somewhat different on the adolescent offender. Regardless, it is difficult to judge this scenario without actually being a judge.

Originally Posted by Sidney

What happens for the victim under the current system?

Think they get compensation from ACC for what it is worth

For whats its worth can be considerable... would you prefer for what you can extract instead of that?

Originally Posted by Sidney

For whats its worth can be considerable... would you prefer for what you can extract instead of that?

Not generally that much to be honest, but likely more than you could extract, particularly once expenses are taken out.

A good start would be more people devoting a bit of time to the youth. There is nothing like a good role model that they can actually spend time with, keep them on the right track from the get-go and get them contributing to society. It is becoming more difficult for people to be willing to do this though with H&S, needing to to work longer hours to pay for increasing mortgages and a whole raft of other policies put in the way.

Originally Posted by Pointer

Gimp, I think I love you

Steady on big fellah. Such outwardly expressions should be bathed in candle light and softened by a liberal application of wine.

Originally Posted by gimp

An eye for an eye doesn't help the first to lose one

yep just puts two one eyed people into the community...

Originally Posted by Sidney

yep just puts two one eyed people into the community...

Bloody Cantabrians!

Originally Posted by mikee

I think you might need to stand in line!!

Am I missing something with all of this man love circulating? Unless Gimp looks like Elle McPherson I'm out.