SA Footy

Psyber wrote:You didn't know me in the Vietnam days, when my mail was being opened.
Years later, when I was advising ASIO on an unrelated technical matter, I asked them about it, and they told me it must have been the Federal Police because of how obviously and clumsily done it was at the time.

Good on ya Psyber, those were the authentic protest days where people had real conviction for the movement they were supporting and marching for. I wish we had that today as I'm sure the world would be a better place.

Just came across this thread. My view has always been: I oppose the death penalty and I do not respect other countries' right to enforce it. Who are we to play God? I don't believe that it is our right to take human life.

I've always thought the above, ever since I was old enough to have an opinion on the matter, but I found myself rethinking my views in light of the Morcombe case. I hope that cretin is murdered in prison - I hope it's painful. I considered whether I would support the death penalty for people like him, or alternatively, vigilante law. I stayed up all night one night, just thinking about it, because it was the first time I'd ever seriously questioned my belief in this regard. I came to the conclusion that I still don't support the death penalty, nor do I advocate vigilantism. I do think that there should be a public register for sex offenders, and I think that they should be surgically castrated. People like Brett Cowan are not victims of an illness - they are compelled to commit these acts, which is a very different matter. Ultimately, it is within their control to suppress these urges. And I don't know how my beliefs would hold up if anyone ever did something to one of my children - I'd want to have a go at killing them myself, certainly. Given the chance, I don't know if I would or would not.

In the case of murder, I oppose the death penalty also. In this context, I also strongly reject the idea of prison as a rehabilitation facility. I don't think that there is enough evidence - and there seems to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that prison can successfully treat offenders. I think it makes them worse. And the parole system is a joke, and continues to fail people in all states across Australia. A life sentence should mean just that - no parole.

Life sentence = no parole? May as well execute murderers.

Life sentence = no parole, UNTIL there is supporting evidence to show that a) prison is an effective rehabilitation facility; b) the parole system has been made less susceptible to manipulation by parolees. And for sex offenders who murder, life without parole regardless. For their own safety and for the safety of others. Sex offenders reoffend. It is never a one-off incident. Maybe life without parole without considering individual cases would be considered a violation of human rights - it is - but what's the alternative? Putting children and the vulnerable in danger.

Execution would probably cost the taxpayers less money, and some people may be better off dead than alive, but I believe that it's wrong for humans to take human life.

Life without parole for sex offenders? Going to be a lot of innocent people locked up forever.

fisho mcspaz wrote:I don't think that there is enough evidence - and there seems to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that prison can successfully treat offenders.

There is evidence, you're just looking at the wrong countries.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Life without parole for sex offenders? Going to be a lot of innocent people locked up forever.

Sex offenders found guilty of rape AND murder, yes, life without parole, unless the perpetrator was ruled not responsible for his/her actions due to mental illness. Those found guilty of rape but not murder, a period of incarceration and treatment such as is available. For multiple sex offenders who have not committed murder, a period of incarceration and then some form of detention or restrictive measure to reduce the risk of reoffending. Whatever supportive treatment there is should also be made available and probably mandatory.

What exactly do you mean by innocent people, by the way? Do you mean people convicted wrongly, or do you mean that sex offenders are not responsible for their actions? I think the latter would have to be considered on an individual case basis - are their actions a result of an illness, or a compulsion? (And yeah, I said earlier 'life without parole without considering individual cases' but I meant for those who were both a) found guilty of rape AND murder; b) judged to be of sound mind and responsible for their actions. If those criteria are met - automatic life sentence without parole.)

Some people are made bad by bad treatment - is that what Ned Kelly said? I think that's true a lot of the time. And it's terrible, and I don't know what can be done about it because the systems that are meant to care for people are underresourced and understaffed. I was involved with Child Protection services briefly and there's only so much they can do for families at risk, because there are so many who need help. But regardless of upbringing or trauma, people still have to be held accountable for their actions. It's no good, but show me a better alternative.

Innocent people in regards to false accusations.

Ok did anyone see the story about the kid who axed to death, in/near Quorn, 2 young girls?

What do we do with a person like that. I cant remember what sentence he got...maybe 25 years or something similar. He''ll be 43 when he gets out.

He will re-offend there is no doubt!

If he was to kill any of my loved ones, i'd hunt him down and take revenge. Obviously i'd get locked up and then have to take every parole board member to court for gross negligence in their duty.

I wonder how i'd go?

Minimum 33 years

What about mothers that kill their kids?

The Sleeping Giant wrote:What about mothers that kill their kids?

Life in prison! This has to be one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Kids are the most innocent in our community and instinctively rely upon parents for protection. For a parent to not only neglect this duty but to defy it through the commit of murder is an horrendous crime and the ultimate betrayal of connatural duty and instinct.

Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:

The Sleeping Giant wrote:What about mothers that kill their kids?

Life in prison! This has to be one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Kids are the most innocent in our community and instinctively rely upon parents for protection. For a parent to not only neglect this duty but to defy it through the commit of murder is an horrendous crime and the ultimate betrayal of connatural duty and instinct.

Unfortunately, sometimes it happens because of a post-partum psychosis, which can start early or up to 6 months later, and can drag on if undetected and untreated.

I remember an incident at the QEH where the Obstetric Registrar walked into the maternity ward with the Ward Sister on routine rounds just it time to stop a mother throwing her 2 day old baby out a 5th floor window. (Hospital windows were able to be opened in those days.)

It turned out she was totally convinced the baby was dead already and she should get it out of the ward before it caused other babies to die by contamination. A week later after some medication, and a quick course of ECT to speed her response for the baby's sake, she was looking after it well and breast-feeding. (That was safe on the medication used.)

Psyber wrote:

Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:

The Sleeping Giant wrote:What about mothers that kill their kids?

Life in prison! This has to be one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Kids are the most innocent in our community and instinctively rely upon parents for protection. For a parent to not only neglect this duty but to defy it through the commit of murder is an horrendous crime and the ultimate betrayal of connatural duty and instinct.

Unfortunately, sometimes it happens because of a post-partum psychosis, which can start early or up to 6 months later, and can drag on if undetected and untreated.

I remember an incident at the QEH where the Obstetric Registrar walked into the maternity ward with the Ward Sister on routine rounds just it time to stop a mother throwing her 2 day old baby out a 5th floor window. (Hospital windows were able to be opened in those days.)

It turned out she was totally convinced the baby was dead already and she should get it out of the ward before it caused other babies to die by contamination. A week later after some medication, and a quick course of ECT to speed her response for the baby's sake, she was looking after it well and breast-feeding. (That was safe on the medication used.)

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Innocent people in regards to false accusations.

Ah. I confess, I don't know. Judge and juries in such trials (if the matter went to court) would have to undergo a strict screening process in order to eliminate the risk of personal bias (as much as possible, anyrate), and there would need to be validation criteria for every piece of evidence submitted. I think that criminal charges to be laid against those making false accusations should be considered, with a mandatory 3-month jail sentence to be served (no good behaviour bond).

People don't often make false accusations and it make to trial, a lack of evidence would be much more likely imo

http://gu.com/p/4v7j5

Tell me how that isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

Probably suffered significantly less than his victims.

RustyCage wrote:Probably suffered significantly less than his victims.

So you think people should be tortured?

No I don't, but I also don't feel sorry for him