Current Affairs and Politics

Is it time to clean up Kings Cross?

Reply
  Tools
Vital +

Registered User

Vital's Avatar
Joined
Jul '02
Times thanked
< 81
Posts
5,881

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst View Post

Oh sweety he's not trying at all, it's your intellectual poverty that's makes it appear that way.

In case you missed the irony, you and Didj are countering Buffed's argumentum ad populum with argumentum ad hominem.

Not exactly sure how you guys are claiming intellectual superiority. Perhaps one should educate oneself in dialectics 101.
robin78 +

no

robin78's Avatar
Joined
Oct '09
Times thanked
< 61
Posts
649

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin View Post

retrospective legislation? special powers? it is the government afterall


legislation and powers for what, exactly? what is it you are proposing?
gonefishin +

Registered User

gonefishin's Avatar
Joined
Mar '11
Times thanked
< 391
Posts
1,633
^ I assumed (incorrectly) that Jamie Bulgers killers had to be released upon turning 18 due to legislation in place, it was pure coincidence that their sentences expired when they turned 18 I have since established. Eitherway, they were taken on holidays and leisure trips whilst incarcerated-which doesn't wash with me but that is just IMO
claude glass +

Registered User

claude glass's Avatar
Joined
Jun '10
Times thanked
< 760
Posts
4,157

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vital View Post

In case you missed the irony, you and Didj are countering Buffed's argumentum ad populum with argumentum ad hominem.

Not exactly sure how you guys are claiming intellectual superiority. Perhaps one should educate oneself in dialectics 101.

But by that logic you can never claim intellectual superiority without that claim being construed as an ad hominem attack. The personal criticisms occur after repeated rational and informed arguments are continually ignored or refuted by ill-informed opinion. So dialectically valid in my view.
robin78 +

no

robin78's Avatar
Joined
Oct '09
Times thanked
< 61
Posts
649

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin View Post

Eitherway, they were taken on holidays and leisure trips whilst incarcerated-which doesn't wash with me but that is just IMO


Those trips look pretty bad to you and me and every other layperson but I'm pretty sure the psychologists/parole people/whoever it was who organized them wouldn't have done so because they wanted to spend time with a couple of nasty little pricks.


If the psychologists feel it might (or does) help prevent them from reoffending then surely that's the most important thing.
gonefishin +

Registered User

gonefishin's Avatar
Joined
Mar '11
Times thanked
< 391
Posts
1,633
^ yeah that would have been the theory used, I don't see how it could have worked however... I think it's fair to say that when somebody (sane) does something evil and grotesque that is planned/premeditated that they cannot be rehabilitated. the behaviour was not learned so it cannot be "unlearned". Once again just imo...
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalgrub View Post

I reckon in this case it should be manslaughter, not murder. It's a horrible crime and the guy sounds like an absolute fuckwit, but I doubt he intended to kill someone. Most males at 18 don't have the capacity to think about the long term consequences of their actions - you're brain really doesn't develope properly until around 24-25. I know guys who used to like to get involved in fights when they were that age, and are horrified about what could have happened, they were lucky...

Tougher sentences or not, people in this age bracket don't think about the law when it comes to these things. If he gets 20 years in prison that's still going to seriously screw up his life, coming out of prison aged 38 with no skills and probably hardened and warped by his stint there.

I don't know what the solution is, and or how people can be reformed - this guy clearly isn't in the insane serial killer group, but a scumbag who really messed up.

how the fuck do you know he didn't intend to kill someone? It's been said a few times on here and i don't understand how or why anyone can claim that. None of you know what his intentions were, you are making an assumption based on nothing.

His life is already fucked.........he works when he feels like it and he couch surfs at friends houses.

Peope like you should never be allowed to sit on jury's.............in three paragraphs you have managed to downplay any responsibility this guy had for committing his crimes.
gonefishin +

Registered User

gonefishin's Avatar
Joined
Mar '11
Times thanked
< 391
Posts
1,633
^ Digigrub you can't compare this guy to your mates that used to get in the odd stink, he went out to seriously injure somebody at random and he ended up killing them-now he needs to suffer the consequences of his actions just like the rest of us.
Dero13 +

Roar Roar Brisbane Roar!!!

Dero13's Avatar
Joined
May '10
Times thanked
< 1,292
Posts
5,242

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalgrub View Post

I reckon in this case it should be manslaughter, not murder. It's a horrible crime and the guy sounds like an absolute fuckwit, but I doubt he intended to kill someone. Most males at 18 don't have the capacity to think about the long term consequences of their actions - you're brain really doesn't develope properly until around 24-25. I know guys who used to like to get involved in fights when they were that age, and are horrified about what could have happened, they were lucky...

Tougher sentences or not, people in this age bracket don't think about the law when it comes to these things. If he gets 20 years in prison that's still going to seriously screw up his life, coming out of prison aged 38 with no skills and probably hardened and warped by his stint there.

I don't know what the solution is, and or how people can be reformed - this guy clearly isn't in the insane serial killer group, but a scumbag who really messed up.


99.9 % of people over 10 years of age know
Its common knowledge that you don't go smacking people in the head or you could kill them.

Even bellends understand this. If Loveridge is in that 0.1% oh well bad luck.
EeeeeeeJ +

Registered User

Joined
May '10
Times thanked
< 19
Posts
330
My main reaction to this incident is that I wouldn't want to be the deceased and to see reportage like this about me. The family of the deceased should have kept their comments to a minimal sorrow that they lost a family member so suddenly. One person's death may be a tragedy but it should not cause this much sensation.

I assume that King's Cross is much safer than it was 25 years ago. It has cleaned up and brothels etc have become less repugnant. The local council has also tried to make it physically cleaner. 25 years ago, many average people would have avoided the Cross but they might have fewer reservations about going there today.

I'm not convinced that there's a been a surge in intoxicated violence in the past several years, even if there's been a surge in reporting it. If there has, I don't think that increasing the price of alcohol will curb the violence. It might curb liver problems in decades to come. More expensive booze could force people on low incomes to budget for less alcohol. It's less likely to affect how much they consume on big nights (if it does, they might find something else, of which the government doesn't regulate the price, to get intoxicated).

Punishing one person exceptionally harshly won't discourage others from spending their Saturday nights looking for violence. On the other hand, that a harsh punishment could ruin someone's life is a poor argument for lenience when the punishment is for killing someone unprovoked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

the prosecution will have to prove reckless indifference ... beyond a reasonable doubt if it goes to trial.

If an accused hit a stranger in the head unprovoked while intoxicated, many reasonable jurors would want to know other facts before they could doubt that the accused acted with reckless indifference.
Honest Abe +

Old School

Honest Abe's Avatar
Joined
Dec '10
Times thanked
< 805
Posts
1,201

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeeeeeeJ View Post

I'm not convinced that there's a been a surge in intoxicated violence in the past several years, even if there's been a surge in reporting it. If there has, I don't think that increasing the price of alcohol will curb the violence. It might curb liver problems in decades to come. More expensive booze could force people on low incomes to budget for less alcohol. It's less likely to affect how much they consume on big nights (if it does, they might find something else, of which the government doesn't regulate the price, to get intoxicated).

It's the typical knee-jerk reaction by the media/wowsers and a complete furphy. But it's the only thing they can think of. Short of closing down all the venues, or putting half a dozen cops on every street corner, which they're not going to do, there's no way you can stop people getting pissed and behaving stupidly as a consequence.

That said, where is there any evidence that killer Loveridge had touched a drop that night? Even if he had had a drink, where is there any evidence that he was drunk or that alcohol played any part in his actions that evening? Maybe he's just an evil prick.
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vital View Post

In case you missed the irony, you and Didj are countering Buffed's argumentum ad populum with argumentum ad hominem.

Not exactly sure how you guys are claiming intellectual superiority. Perhaps one should educate oneself in dialectics 101.

Usually how these debates go are as follows:

Someone presents an opinion about something.
Others notice that this opinion is in fact, wrong according to available evidence
Others present the evidence and thus explain why the opinion is wrong
Someone ignores and continues with opinion which is wrong.

According to any objective measure of dialectical reasoning, this would constitute a fail. I lecture at tertiary level and if any of my students completely ignore the factual course content and provide an answer that is incorrect, then I do not award any marks for that answer. There is no claim of intellectual superiority and there is no ad hominem attack here, so perhaps one should educate oneself in dialectics 101?

In this thread, buffed's opinion is that sentencing is too lenient. For years however, people have been presenting the facts that generally demonstrate the following:

1. If people rely on the mass media as their primary information source, then they think sentencing is too lenient.
2. When people are given access to all of the available evidence related to the case, then they think sentencing is about right.
3. Tougher sentencing leads to increased recidivism
4. Rehabilitation leads to decreased recidivism

So here is a question for you, do you think we should do away with the justice system and just have trial by ad populum/mass media? Heck why don't we just bring back tarring and feathering while we're there.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,691
Posts
12,285

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeeeeeeJ View Post

1. More expensive booze could force people on low incomes to budget for less alcohol. It's less likely to affect how much they consume on big nights (if it does, they might find something else, of which the government doesn't regulate the price, to get intoxicated).

2. If an accused hit a stranger in the head unprovoked while intoxicated, many reasonable jurors would want to know other facts before they could doubt that the accused acted with reckless indifference.

1. What? It's not just people from lower socio-economic backgrounds who get mutant and cause violence.

2. As I have repeatedly said I would have no problems with Loveridge being locked up for the majority of his life if it so proves he showed reckless indifference in his unprovoked rampage. He's scum.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah View Post

2. As I have repeatedly said I would have no problems with Loveridge being locked up for the majority of his life if it so proves he showed reckless indifference in his unprovoked rampage. He's scum.

If you can't decide on reckless indifference based on the facts we know, then i hope you never get called up be on a jury.........softcoks like you should never be on a jury.

The only way this guy can get off, is if some slick laywer can prove diminished responsibility because loveridge never received proper toilet training when he was 4.
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,691
Posts
12,285

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

If you can't decide on reckless indifference based on the facts we know, then i hope you never get called up be on a jury.........softcoks like you should never be on a jury.

The only way this guy can get off, is if some slick laywer can prove diminished responsibility because loveridge never received proper toilet training when he was 4.

Oh snap, you just called me a softcock. I am enraged. I feel emasculated. Please Buffed, please don't injure me with your words again. They are so powerful and hurtful.

Spoiler:
Rhymes-with-banker
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
ticketsplease +

Frankee More

ticketsplease's Avatar
Joined
Sep '02
Times thanked
< 38
Posts
1,436
Lockouts prove key to curbing violence

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226443399549
http://soundcloud.com/frankeemore
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,857
Posts
50,278
Lockouts made shit worse in Melbourne, which is why they got rid of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

YossarianIsSane +

Registered User

YossarianIsSane's Avatar
Joined
Nov '05
Times thanked
< 182
Posts
1,404

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie View Post

Lockouts made shit worse in Melbourne, which is why they got rid of them.

Decreased violence in Newcastle though.

Perth, not sure. Anecdotally, it seems to me that closing hour restrictions and lockouts do result in more drunk people on the street at once. However, the coppers are pretty switched on when it comes to parking themselves in highly visible locations at precisely these times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_e_de View Post

It's the same as going out on a busy street and looking at the people around you, most of them are fgts.

Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726

Quote:

Originally Posted by YossarianIsSane View Post

Perth, not sure. Anecdotally, it seems to me that closing hour restrictions and lockouts do result in more drunk people on the street at once. However, the coppers are pretty switched on when it comes to parking themselves in highly visible locations at precisely these times.

I'm pretty sure the lockout here was simply set up as an excuse for the police to tell Aboriginal kids to fuck off out of Northbridge without it looking racist to the general public.

Still just as likely to get stabbed, king-hit, thrown out a top-storey window or have your head smashed in with a brick as ever from what I saw last time I got sucked into going to Northbridge.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
Weinertron +

random shoutbox generator

Weinertron's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 934
Posts
3,649

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie View Post

Lockouts made shit worse in Melbourne, which is why they got rid of them.

This. As a test case, Melbourne failed big time.

That said, melbourne's clubbing night-life is sprawled throughout the CBD and surrounds (Chapel St, Richmond, Brunswick) making a lock-out hard to police. If I understand correctly (with no thanks to Dero's snide contributions), the Cross is quite centralised which may assist police in shutting down any rabble-rousers. However, given the sheer amount of people that frequent the cross, heightened police presence would probably achieve fuck-all.

At any rate, if most of the violence occurs on the street, it seems beyond stupid to eject MORE people onto the street in order to curb violence



inb4 some stupid bullshit from dero
Fuck Everything Forever
YossarianIsSane +

Registered User

YossarianIsSane's Avatar
Joined
Nov '05
Times thanked
< 182
Posts
1,404

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle View Post

Still just as likely to get stabbed, king-hit, thrown out a top-storey window or have your head smashed in with a brick as ever from what I saw last time I got sucked into going to Northbridge.

From my personal experience, definitely less so in the last couple of years as compared with, say, 5 years ago. Although I think that's largely to do with a proliferation of small bars, the decline of Metros and better policing. Police presence on Aberdeen, Lake and James streets at the time of lockout or enforced closing hours is pretty noticeable.

Anyway the point is that, in certain circumstances, lockouts have been fairly effective at reducing violence. Other cases, not so much. Combined with other strategies (better transport and policing), I imagine they could be quite effective in King's Cross.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_e_de View Post

It's the same as going out on a busy street and looking at the people around you, most of them are fgts.

Onijin +

Pastor of Muppets

Onijin's Avatar
Joined
Jan '10
Times thanked
< 558
Posts
3,817
If they want to close clubs earlier, they need to either provide afterhours public transport or release more taxi permits to deal with the peak period which will be worse, IMO.
EeeeeeeJ +

Registered User

Joined
May '10
Times thanked
< 19
Posts
330

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

[More expensive Booze is] less likely to affect how much [people on low incomes] consume on big nights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

It's not just people from lower socio-economic backgrounds who get mutant and cause violence.

I overlooked pointing out this oversight in the reasoning. I thought that it was a very obvious oversight

Quote:

Originally Posted by YossarianIsSane

Decreased violence in Newcastle though.

Perth, not sure ... the coppers are pretty switched on when it comes to parking themselves in highly visible locations at precisely these times.

Melbourne's 2AM lockout meant that you couldn't get in after 2AM. The difference between it and Newcastle is that Melbourne didn't force venues to close. Venues could run until 10:00 so long as they didn't let any patrons in. You wouldn't get a rush of patrons leaving every venue at once.

I don't know what difference that makes. With Perth, you can put extra police in position at closing time. Melbourne didn't have a firm closing time like that. It could be that the main reason why Melbourne's 2AM lockout was cancelled was that people in Melbourne just protested against it.
van_tango +

someone like you

van_tango's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 13
Posts
102

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude View Post

For years however, people have been presenting the facts that generally demonstrate the following:

1. If people rely on the mass media as their primary information source, then they think sentencing is too lenient.
2. When people are given access to all of the available evidence related to the case, then they think sentencing is about right.
3. Tougher sentencing leads to increased recidivism
4. Rehabilitation leads to decreased recidivism

So here is a question for you, do you think we should do away with the justice system and just have trial by ad populum/mass media? Heck why don't we just bring back tarring and feathering while we're there.

I blame sensational journalists.
I don't have them at hand, but I am fairly sure there are studies proving all of those things.
More so than anything though, higher sentences don't actually have a real impact on reducing crime. The only thing you can effectively do for that end is make the likelihood of being caught more probable.
I've faith there is a future for us;
here as we are, or somewhere else.
CheelWinston +

not a cop

CheelWinston's Avatar
Joined
May '01
Times thanked
< 2,007
Posts
13,545
had an interesting chat with a relo who works for the DPP on the weekend

he says there are more people per capita in gaol in NSW than ever in history

and yet, criminals are still on the streets incriminating!

clearly we haven't caught them all. but we gotta! [no pokemon]
Listen to your friend Cheely Zane
He is a cool guy...
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by van_tango View Post

I blame sensational journalists.
I don't have them at hand, but I am fairly sure there are studies proving all of those things.
More so than anything though, higher sentences don't actually have a real impact on reducing crime. The only thing you can effectively do for that end is make the likelihood of being caught more probable.

so how do you rehabilitate a murderer?
Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeeeeeeJ View Post

I don't know what difference that makes. With Perth, you can put extra police in position at closing time. Melbourne didn't have a firm closing time like that. It could be that the main reason why Melbourne's 2AM lockout was cancelled was that people in Melbourne just protested against it.

With Perth, the biggest problem is there is no entertainment district.

Northbridge is a ramshackle conglomeration of pubs and clubs, businesses that are only open during the day and residential. So there are massive areas of poorly lit shop fronts, dark alleyways and dingy parks interspersed with pubs and clubs. So anyone leaving a club and getting locked out has plenty of space to cause some trouble and it's nearly impossible to police.

If they only zoned the suburb for entertainment venues and made an entertainment strip it would be much easier to police. But it will never happen while we have a large yokel population who are resistant to even changing trading hours let alone changing our city planning priorities.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,691
Posts
12,285

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

so how do you rehabilitate a murderer?

It depends why they murdered doesn't it (I'm not excusing murder btw if that's what you were going to respond to)?

I mean, if someone has psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies and they murder then it is very unlikely rehabilitation will have any effect, and if this can be demonstrated to be the case, then I think most people would have no problem in keeping these people locked up (I certainly wouldn't).

If someone commits murder as a reaction to being bashed consistently by the murder victim (a woman who has suffered at the hands of an abusive partner for instance), then I think there is a good chance that they can be rehabilitated. I still think they should be punished with jail time (though there has to be some consideration of what they had to personally endure).

If someone is schizophrenic and commits murder because they stopped taking their meds, leading to psychological delusions such as that guy who murdered his dad and stabbed his ex in the last year or two in Randwick (I think), then they should still be punished but they might have a chance at rehabilitation depending on whether they can be forced to take their medication upon release (I'd have no problem with such a case having some of their liberties taken away which would see the enforcement of medication btw).

You can see that there are differences in causation of actions, even if there is little difference in their outcomes, right?
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah View Post

It depends why they murdered doesn't it (I'm not excusing murder btw if that's what you were going to respond to)?

I mean, if someone has psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies and they murder then it is very unlikely rehabilitation will have any effect, and if this can be demonstrated to be the case, then I think most people would have no problem in keeping these people locked up (I certainly wouldn't).

If someone commits murder as a reaction to being bashed consistently by the murder victim (a woman who has suffered at the hands of an abusive partner for instance), then I think there is a good chance that they can be rehabilitated. I still think they should be punished with jail time (though there has to be some consideration of what they had to personally endure).

If someone is schizophrenic and commits murder because they stopped taking their meds, leading to psychological delusions such as that guy who murdered his dad and stabbed his ex in the last year or two in Randwick (I think), then they should still be punished but they might have a chance at rehabilitation depending on whether they can be forced to take their medication upon release (I'd have no problem with such a case having some of their liberties taken away which would see the enforcement of medication btw).

You can see that there are differences in causation of actions, even if there is little difference in their outcomes, right?

I disagree.

the second case would be manslaughter, ie provocation, self defence.......it's not murder

the third case, i don't see why or how you would release someone with schizophrenia who has murdered, back into society.......at the very least they should be committed to a secure mental health facility.

you need to separate murder from manslaughter
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,691
Posts
12,285

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

I disagree.

the second case would be manslaughter, ie provocation, self defence.......it's not murder

the third case, i don't see why or how you would release someone with schizophrenia who has murdered, back into society.......at the very least they should be committed to a secure mental health facility.

you need to separate murder from manslaughter

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure how they differentiate from manslaughter and murder in cases where there has been a record of sustained physical or mental abuse by a partner. I would think though, as I have pointed out previously, they take each individual case's circumstances into consideration. If a woman plans to kill her husband because of sustained physical or psychological abuse, that is she proactively plans her partner's death, I'm pretty sure she would be prosecuted with a murder charge.

Where as if she reactively kills her partner during another attack this would be manslaughter wouldn't it?

LA would know more obviously.

My point is that there are murders that are the result of the murder victim's previous actions, and these people are more likely to be able to be rehabilitated. Again, I'm not suggesting these type of murders go unpunished (or that they are a proportionate response to what has been reacted to) but your point was whether a murderer can be rehabilitated: my point is that there are murderers who can be, where it can be demonstrated that there is no evidence of psycho- or socio-pathological behaviour or significant psychological illness involved.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah View Post

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure how they differentiate from manslaughter and murder in cases where there has been a record of sustained physical or mental abuse by a partner. I would think though, as I have pointed out previously, they take each individual case's circumstances into consideration. If a woman plans to kill her husband because of sustained physical or psychological abuse, that is she proactively plans her partner's death, I'm pretty sure she would be prosecuted with a murder charge.

Where as if she reactively kills her partner during another attack this would be manslaughter wouldn't it?

LA would know more obviously.

My point is that there are murders that are the result of the murder victim's previous actions, and these people are more likely to be able to be rehabilitated. Again, I'm not suggesting these type of murders go unpunished (or that they are a proportionate response to what has been reacted to) but your point was whether a murderer can be rehabilitated: my point is that there are murderers who can be, where it can be demonstrated that there is no evidence of psycho- or socio-pathological behaviour or significant psychological illness involved.

read the definition of murder under the crimes act..........

an unprovoked act of murder or one where no self defence can be argued is murder...........manslughter can be argued in all other cases. in the case of murder, i'm not interested in rehabilitation, just lock them away in a jail or in asecure mental facility, i don't care.
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,691
Posts
12,285

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

read the definition of murder under the crimes act..........

an unprovoked act of murder or one where no self defence can be argued is murder...........manslughter can be argued in all other cases. in the case of murder, i'm not interested in rehabilitation, just lock them away in a jail or in asecure mental facility, i don't care.

I have read it.

And I would like to respond to you but seeing as you said that youre "not interested in rehabilitation" I now realise that your original question of "how do you rehabilitate a murderer" wasn't really a genuine question with any hint of tractability embedded within it. No amount of evidence that contradicts your views ever sways you. Your certainty is based on your gut and I can't argue with someone who isn't open to having a mature rational discussion when that person's gut is where they do their thinking.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm

Last edited by Geezah: 13-Aug-12 at 02:53pm

Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726
The law varies on what State you are in buffed.

In WA we have "wilful murder," "murder," "manslaughter" and "infantcide" charges (the last being where mothers kill a child of less than one year old due to having an unbalanced mind), and both "wilful murder" and "murder" can only be dropped to "manslaughter" if the accused demonstrates "provocation."

In other states you can also get the charge downgraded for "diminished responsibility," "excessive self-defence"
and "suicide pacts."

None of those will get your charges downgraded here. So we don't even uniformly apply a standard of murder or wilful murder across the whole country.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah View Post

I have read it.

And I would like to respond to you but seeing as you said that youre "not interested in rehabilitation" I now realise that your original question of "how do you rehabilitate a murderer" wasn't really a genuine question with any hint of tractability embedded within it. No amount of evidence that contradicts your views ever sways you. Your certainty is based on your gut and I can't argue with someone who isn't open to having a mature rational discussion when that person's gut is where they do their thinking.

why are people like you so concerned about rehabilition for murderers? i'm happy for my taxes to go to keeping vermin like that in jail for the rest of their lives and i'm sure i speak for most people when i say that
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle View Post

The law varies on what State you are in buffed.

In WA we have "wilful murder," "murder," "manslaughter" and "infantcide" charges (the last being where mothers kill a child of less than one year old due to having an unbalanced mind), and both "wilful murder" and "murder" can only be dropped to "manslaughter" if the accused demonstrates "provocation."

In other states you can also get the charge downgraded for "diminished responsibility," "excessive self-defence"
and "suicide pacts."

None of those will get your charges downgraded here. So we don't even uniformly apply a standard of murder or wilful murder across the whole country.

i don't care about the whole country, i'm referring to NSW
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,691
Posts
12,285

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

why are people like you so concerned about rehabilition for murderers? i'm happy for my taxes to go to keeping vermin like that in jail for the rest of their lives and i'm sure i speak for most people when i say that

Sorry dude, I can't be fucked arguing with you anymore.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
Davomaxi +

No. Money Down!

Davomaxi's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 1,068
Posts
7,390

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

why are people like you so concerned about rehabilition for murderers? i'm happy for my taxes to go to keeping vermin like that in jail for the rest of their lives and i'm sure i speak for most people when i say that

You only speak for people who are enamoured with their own idealism, and refuse to face reality. Maybe murderers 'should' be in jail forever, but the reality is that they aren't, they are let out all the time. Therefore is it not for the betterment of all society that some attempt is made for rehabilitation so they don't reoffend?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianwil1976 View Post

I killed all my family because they wouldn't suck my dick.

Medium Rurrrr!

See my blog http://ecentreofexcellence.blogspot.com.au/
Coezi +

Registered User

Coezi's Avatar
Joined
Dec '05
Times thanked
< 543
Posts
767
They don't re-offend if they're dead.

Gladiator games used to sort this shit out.
HERPA DERPA, HERPADEE DOO
I'VE GOT A PERFECT PUZZLE FOR YOU
HERPA DERPA, HERPADAH DEE
IF YOU ARE WISE, YOU'LL LISTEN TO ME.
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi View Post

You only speak for people who are enamoured with their own idealism, and refuse to face reality. Maybe murderers 'should' be in jail forever, but the reality is that they aren't, they are let out all the time. Therefore is it not for the betterment of all society that some attempt is made for rehabilitation so they don't reoffend?

hence why i argue for minimum life sentences........if they don't get let out, they can't reoffend so rehabilitation becomes a moot point
Davomaxi +

No. Money Down!

Davomaxi's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 1,068
Posts
7,390

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

hence why i argue for minimum life sentences........if they don't get let out, they can't reoffend so rehabilitation becomes a moot point

Yes but I'm asking you to look at things they way they actually are. Not the way you think they should be in your ideal world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianwil1976 View Post

I killed all my family because they wouldn't suck my dick.

Medium Rurrrr!

See my blog http://ecentreofexcellence.blogspot.com.au/
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi View Post

Yes but I'm asking you to look at things they way they actually are. Not the way you think they should be in your ideal world.

i am looking at things the way they are and i'm saying i don't think they're good enough
Lambretta +

Now Aussie....STILL dodgy

Lambretta's Avatar
Joined
Oct '01
Times thanked
< 932
Posts
22,768
I have no idea why people are attracted to Kings Cross - since they "gentrified" the place, kicked out the junkies and derro's, shut down all the porn places and underground clubs and opened up a load of trendy bars there, the place has gone to shit.

Get rid of esctasy and replace it with thousands more people all pissed up and ready for a fight. That'll really lift the ambiance of the place.

Sometimes people really fucking get what they wish for don't they?
Never mind the bollocks
Here's Lambretta
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,857
Posts
50,278
I was drinking in the cross last night, it was fairly amusing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

ticketsplease +

Frankee More

ticketsplease's Avatar
Joined
Sep '02
Times thanked
< 38
Posts
1,436
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sniffer-do...918-26415.html

Sniffer dogs and ID scanners for Kings Cross

NSW Police will be able to deploy drug sniffer dogs on Kings Cross streets and across the entire metropolitan rail network without a warrant as part of the state government's response to the fatal assault on teenager Thomas Kelly in Kings Cross.

The Premier, Barry O'Farrell, announced a range of new measures today, including a three-year ban on new liquor licences in the area and the introduction of ID scanners for more than 150 licensed venues in Kings Cross, Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay.
http://soundcloud.com/frankeemore
Kiron +

Mess with the best, Die like the rest!

Kiron's Avatar
Joined
Aug '07
Times thanked
< 372
Posts
4,382

Quote:

Originally Posted by ticketsplease View Post

Sniffer dogs and ID scanners for Kings Cross

NSW Police will be able to deploy drug sniffer dogs on Kings Cross streets and across the entire metropolitan rail network without a warrant as part of the state government's response to the fatal assault on teenager Thomas Kelly in Kings Cross.

Because MDMA is really the cause of Alcohol fuelled drunken violence.


Wasn't it like a year ago Police in Queensland were saying thank god the clubbing crowd were on MDMA because if they were drinking instead the Valley would be impossible to police?

Quote:

"We're at the point where we're saying thank God 80 per cent of them are using an illegal drug rather than alcohol, even though in 10 years they'll be suffering manic depressive disorders*," the officer said.

"But we just couldn't deal with that many people affected by alcohol."

Yak, yak, yak. Get a job
Kiron22 << Add me to Last.fm bitches so we can Hipster it up together
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie View Post

I was drinking in the cross last night, it was fairly amusing.

some of my best nights have been drinking in the cross.

fucking wowser pricks trying to ruin a good thing.
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
austraboy +

I like toast

austraboy's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 146
Posts
912

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiron View Post

Because MDMA is really the cause of Alcohol fuelled drunken violence.


Wasn't it like a year ago Police in Queensland were saying thank god the clubbing crowd were on MDMA because if they were drinking instead the Valley would be impossible to police?

Mind blowingly stupid and reactionary.

How on earth would dogs on trains have had any effect in stopping the death of that poor kid.

It's instances like this that really confirm that the MPs and the Police really don't have a clue about what they are dealing with.
Bracko +

Bracko's Avatar
Joined
Apr '02
Times thanked
< 2,133
Posts
39,709
ID scanners aren't a bad idea for the drinkers venues... as long as legislation prohibits their use from anything but violent crimes (wishful thinking?)

I think attack dogs would be more appropriate.
moojins +

Registered User

moojins's Avatar
Joined
Mar '08
Times thanked
< 225
Posts
445

Quote:

Originally Posted by YossarianIsSane View Post

From my personal experience, definitely less so in the last couple of years as compared with, say, 5 years ago. Although I think that's largely to do with a proliferation of small bars, the decline of Metros and better policing. Police presence on Aberdeen, Lake and James streets at the time of lockout or enforced closing hours is pretty noticeable.

How about reducing licensing costs to encourage smaller bars and venues to open up, thereby dispersing the enormous concentrations of people particular hotspots. My experience has always been that it's safer to go get a drink at a small bar in Newtown/Surry Hills/Glebe than run the gauntlet of the Cross or the City.
Onijin +

Pastor of Muppets

Onijin's Avatar
Joined
Jan '10
Times thanked
< 558
Posts
3,817
^Why not cheaper licenses for bars that set up outside of the Cross and the Rocks, just to augment your suggestion?

I rarely step into Northbridge nowadays, much more keen on smaller bars and other areas like Mt Lawley.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chimby View Post

Needs more Prog imo.

My SoundCloud
Reply

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Posting Rules

+
    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts