Child killer walks free
ralph
society.
Rehabilitated? Yeah sure. Shame he likely won't move next door to
one of those parole board members.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/hammer-attack-child-killer-freed-20091228-lgs8.html
Notorious child killer Austin Allan Hughes has walked free from jail
after 16 years behind bars.
Hughes was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years in jail in 1994, after
being convicted of bashing his girlfriend's six-year-old son to death
on the NSW south coast the previous year.
Sylvia Else
> Great society we live in that can release people like this back into
> society.
>
> Rehabilitated? Yeah sure. Shame he likely won't move next door to
> one of those parole board members.
In two years he'd be released anyway.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
> Great society we live in that can release people like this back into
> society.
What is your preference?
> Rehabilitated? Yeah sure. Shame he likely won't move next door to
> one of those parole board members.
From where did you get the idea that prisoners in jail are rehabilitated?
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/hammer-attack-child-killer-freed-20091228-lgs8.html
>
> Notorious child killer Austin Allan Hughes has walked free from jail
> after 16 years behind bars.
>
> Hughes was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years in jail in 1994, after
> being convicted of bashing his girlfriend's six-year-old son to death
> on the NSW south coast the previous year.
He served 16 years in jail, 2 years more than the minimum period. The
reasion for that is not explained.
Phil Allison
"ralph"
** More details of the case are here:
The mother of the victim ( now calling herself "Anjelic Karstrom" ) was the
instigator of the assault that led to murder.
Is she out ?
.... Phil
Epsilon
Missed this bit of the SMH report, toaster-boi? "He was released this
morning, while the murdered boy�s mother remains behind bars."
ralph
wrote:
>ralph wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:19:38 +1100, "Epsilon" <n...@this.address.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ralph wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:59:22 +1100, "Epsilon" <n...@this.address.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ralph wrote:
>>>>>> Great society we live in that can release people like this back
>>>>>> into society.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your preference?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My preference is that we lock up these sorts of violent psychopaths
>>>> for life with no parole.
>>>
>>> Why do you shy away from the death penalty for such people?
>>>
>>
>> I do not support state-sanctioned murder, however appealing on a
>> visceral level.
>>
>> For me, the issue is protecting society ... and locking someone up
>> does that as effectively as the death penalty, while eliminating the
>> risk the state will execute an innocent person.
>
>The point is that violent psychopaths are usually known as such, because of
>their violence, well before they kill someone. The justification of locking
>them up for life does nor require anything more than that someone recognises
>them as violent psychopaths. You do realise the implications of your
>proposal?
>
What is my proposal exactly? Please don't try to invent my position
for me.
I am suggesting we need longer non-parole sentences for murder and
rape, and for repeat violent offenders in general.
I am talking post-conviction ... I have said nothing about doing
something to people not charged, as you seem to be implying.
>>> And a more difficult question - how do you categorise some people as
>>> those to be locked up for life, and the others who can be released?
>>>
>>
>> We somehow do it today.
>
>No, we don't.
>
>> But let's start with longer mandatory minimum sentencing for violent
>> offenders.
>
>Just populist gibberish. You want tax-payers to pay for your sense of
>well-being. We would be better of dealing with what causes these people to
>be violent.
>
LOL ...yes can't argue with that ... we would if we could, BUT WE
CAN'T.
Or perhaps you can amuse us ... how do you propose we deal with the
"causes"? As a society, we will not condone removing children from
neglectful parents unless they are shown to be physically in danger.
And even if we did remove them, we couldn't find enough stable foster
homes to replace the bad parents anyway.
By time they are adults, these people have had years of neglect and
already turned to violence ... the battle is lost and all the overpaid
ineffectual psychologists and social workers in the world can't fix
these types, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
Yet the legal industry and softcocks continue to push this nonsense
idea of "rehabilitation" - when it's clear that no such thing is
possible for some people. They are hard-wired to re-offend. And when
they do, we repeat the charade of another token sentence then back on
the streets for us, the next victims-in-waiting.
Good for the incomes of solicitors, social workers, parole officers
and the like ... bad for the rest of society, in particular the next
random innocent victim.
>>>>>> Rehabilitated? Yeah sure. Shame he likely won't move next door
>>>>>> to one of those parole board members.
>>>>>
>>>>> From where did you get the idea that prisoners in jail are
>>>>> rehabilitated?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh but they must be well on their way, otherwise the parole board
>>>> has no justification in releasing them.
>>>
>>> The only justification for release is that there is no purpose to be
>>> served in keeping them locked up after the non-parole period has
>>> expired. People go to jail as punishment, not to be rehabilitated.
>>>
>>
>> It is also to protect society by not having vicioius thugs roaming the
>> streets.
>
>Social hygiene as a theory to deal with potential violence is known, but
>rarely applied in the real world.
>
Potential? We are talking convicted criminals. Nothing "potential"
about it.
It's absurd that a 26 year-old man managed to collect a lengthy
criminal record yet still remained on the streets to commit another
armed robbery and then flee police, but because softcocks like
yourself defend this status quo, a 2 year old girl was tragically
killed in Sydney the other day.
>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/national/hammer-attack-child-killer-freed-20091228-lgs8.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notorious child killer Austin Allan Hughes has walked free from
>>>>>> jail after 16 years behind bars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hughes was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years in jail in 1994,
>>>>>> after being convicted of bashing his girlfriend's six-year-old
>>>>>> son to death on the NSW south coast the previous year.
>>>>>
>>>>> He served 16 years in jail, 2 years more than the minimum period.
>>>>> The reasion for that is not explained.
>>>>
>>>> Only 14 years minimum for participating in a hammer-attack on a
>>>> child.
>>>>
>>>> Amazing.
>>>
>>> A hammer attack on an adult is different?
>>
>> Either way, it's worthy of a 50-year non-parole sentence.
>
>That's a death sentence, wimp. You are really just an adherrent of the
>"lock 'em up and throw away the key" school of public policy, with all its
>mindless drivellings.
It's prison, not a death sentence ... it keeps criminals off the
streets, because for all your talk, you haven't actually got any other
way of EFFECTIVELY dealing with the causes of violence have you?
You drivel your own softcock psycho-babble about (non-existent)
methods of dealing with the causes of violence ... sounding like any
other defender of our revolving door legal industry that props up
violent crime rates in order to protect the incomes of those in the
industry, victims be damned.
ralph
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>ralph wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:59:22 +1100, "Epsilon" <n...@this.address.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ralph wrote:
>>>> Great society we live in that can release people like this back into
>>>> society.
>>> What is your preference?
>>>
>>
>> My preference is that we lock up these sorts of violent psychopaths
>> for life with no parole.
>>
>>>> Rehabilitated? Yeah sure. Shame he likely won't move next door to
>>>> one of those parole board members.
>>>From where did you get the idea that prisoners in jail are rehabilitated?
>>
>> Oh but they must be well on their way, otherwise the parole board has
>> no justification in releasing them.
>>
>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/national/hammer-attack-child-killer-freed-20091228-lgs8.html
>>>>
>>>> Notorious child killer Austin Allan Hughes has walked free from jail
>>>> after 16 years behind bars.
>>>>
>>>> Hughes was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years in jail in 1994, after
>>>> being convicted of bashing his girlfriend's six-year-old son to death
>>>> on the NSW south coast the previous year.
>>> He served 16 years in jail, 2 years more than the minimum period. The
>>> reasion for that is not explained.
>>
>> Only 14 years minimum for participating in a hammer-attack on a child.
>
>It looks a bit on the low side, but apparently the court thought it
>appropriate at the time, and the court had the benefit of knowing the
>relevant facts, rather than just one of them.
>
>Have you read the original judgment (which appears not to be online), or
>are you just using the one fact available to you to form a view?
>
Yes ... I am simply using the fact that a young child was apparently
hammered to death by the couple.
Was he somehow forced to participate by the woman? Was he physically
prevented by her from seeking help while the crime was taking place?
I have assumed not, but feel free to elaborate on any extenuating
circumstances that you feel morally justifies the courts imposing such
a sentence.
Epsilon
I am telling you that the implications of your proposal have been closely
examined by many in different countries over many years, and those
implications have usually been rejected. Youm on the other hand, are
blissfully ignorant of what your proposals imply.
>>>> And a more difficult question - how do you categorise some people
>>>> as those to be locked up for life, and the others who can be
>>>> released?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We somehow do it today.
>>
>> No, we don't.
>>
>>> But let's start with longer mandatory minimum sentencing for violent
>>> offenders.
>>
>> Just populist gibberish. You want tax-payers to pay for your sense
>> of well-being. We would be better of dealing with what causes these
>> people to be violent.
>>
>
> LOL ...yes can't argue with that ... we would if we could, BUT WE
> CAN'T.
Speak for yourself. Merely because *you* can't carries no weight.
> Or perhaps you can amuse us ... how do you propose we deal with the
> "causes"? As a society, we will not condone removing children from
> neglectful parents unless they are shown to be physically in danger.
> And even if we did remove them, we couldn't find enough stable foster
> homes to replace the bad parents anyway.
Oh-oh! It looks like you have an inkling that social darwinism has its
drawbacks. Just an inkling.
> By time they are adults, these people have had years of neglect and
> already turned to violence ... the battle is lost and all the overpaid
> ineffectual psychologists and social workers in the world can't fix
> these types, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
Implying that you are prepared to throw those people on the scrapheap,
permanently. That's the death penalty.
> Yet the legal industry and softcocks continue to push this nonsense
> idea of "rehabilitation" - when it's clear that no such thing is
> possible for some people. They are hard-wired to re-offend. And when
> they do, we repeat the charade of another token sentence then back on
> the streets for us, the next victims-in-waiting.
Cite one, just one, in "the legal industry and softcocks " who says anything
about rehabilitation? You won't, because you can't. You are just spouting
gibberish, and demonstrating the poverty of your understanding of what might
be useful socvial policy. For you, it's simply a matter of ever-harsher
criminal penalties, when you concede that deterence doesn't work. The
typical solution of the mindless dribbler.
> Good for the incomes of solicitors, social workers, parole officers
> and the like ... bad for the rest of society, in particular the next
> random innocent victim.
See above.
>>>>>>> Rehabilitated? Yeah sure. Shame he likely won't move next door
>>>>>>> to one of those parole board members.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From where did you get the idea that prisoners in jail are
>>>>>> rehabilitated?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh but they must be well on their way, otherwise the parole board
>>>>> has no justification in releasing them.
>>>>
>>>> The only justification for release is that there is no purpose to
>>>> be served in keeping them locked up after the non-parole period has
>>>> expired. People go to jail as punishment, not to be rehabilitated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is also to protect society by not having vicioius thugs roaming
>>> the streets.
>>
>> Social hygiene as a theory to deal with potential violence is known,
>> but rarely applied in the real world.
>>
>
> Potential? We are talking convicted criminals. Nothing "potential"
> about it.
You have already conceded that these people are a dead-weight on society.
They can't be rehabilitated, reformed or redeeemed. Your solution is to
locke 'em up for a very long time.
So, one clear implication of your proposal - why should society have to wait
until one of those you dribble about commits a crime? Society has always
been prepared to take pre-emptive action. You were aware of that
implication, weren't you? Of course you were!
> It's absurd that a 26 year-old man managed to collect a lengthy
> criminal record yet still remained on the streets to commit another
> armed robbery and then flee police, but because softcocks like
> yourself defend this status quo, a 2 year old girl was tragically
> killed in Sydney the other day.
There you go! That's your fundamental justification for locking someone up
for a very long time. They don't need to commit another crime.
Penny dropped yet, fuckwit?
>>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/national/hammer-attack-child-killer-freed-20091228-lgs8.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notorious child killer Austin Allan Hughes has walked free from
>>>>>>> jail after 16 years behind bars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hughes was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years in jail in 1994,
>>>>>>> after being convicted of bashing his girlfriend's six-year-old
>>>>>>> son to death on the NSW south coast the previous year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He served 16 years in jail, 2 years more than the minimum period.
>>>>>> The reasion for that is not explained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only 14 years minimum for participating in a hammer-attack on a
>>>>> child.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazing.
>>>>
>>>> A hammer attack on an adult is different?
>>>
>>> Either way, it's worthy of a 50-year non-parole sentence.
>>
>> That's a death sentence, wimp. You are really just an adherrent of
>> the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" school of public policy,
>> with all its mindless drivellings.
>
> It's prison, not a death sentence ... it keeps criminals off the
> streets, because for all your talk, you haven't actually got any other
> way of EFFECTIVELY dealing with the causes of violence have you?
The implcation of locking people up for a very long time is that the costs
to society are very great. Those resources could be far better used
elsewhere, and the resources are simply wasted on locking up these people.
It is clearly to legally execute them. Saves society a lot of unnecessary
trouble.
Go on, admit it! You really want the death penalty for everyone who looks
sideways at you!
> You drivel your own softcock psycho-babble about (non-existent)
> methods of dealing with the causes of violence ... sounding like any
> other defender of our revolving door legal industry that props up
> violent crime rates in order to protect the incomes of those in the
> industry, victims be damned.
Says the populist mundless dribbler who is basically advocating the death
penalty for the socially underprivileged in the community. But is soo thick
that the implications of its dribbling are far beyond it's feeble
comprehension.
ralph
wrote:
In fact, longer prison sentences have led to drops in crime rates in
the US.
>
>>>>> And a more difficult question - how do you categorise some people
>>>>> as those to be locked up for life, and the others who can be
>>>>> released?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We somehow do it today.
>>>
>>> No, we don't.
>>>
>>>> But let's start with longer mandatory minimum sentencing for violent
>>>> offenders.
>>>
>>> Just populist gibberish. You want tax-payers to pay for your sense
>>> of well-being. We would be better of dealing with what causes these
>>> people to be violent.
>>>
>>
>> LOL ...yes can't argue with that ... we would if we could, BUT WE
>> CAN'T.
>
>
>Speak for yourself. Merely because *you* can't carries no weight.
>
>
>> Or perhaps you can amuse us ... how do you propose we deal with the
>> "causes"? As a society, we will not condone removing children from
>> neglectful parents unless they are shown to be physically in danger.
>> And even if we did remove them, we couldn't find enough stable foster
>> homes to replace the bad parents anyway.
>
>
>Oh-oh! It looks like you have an inkling that social darwinism has its
>drawbacks. Just an inkling.
>
Evasion noted.
Want to answer the question, since you are the one who say we can.
>
>> By time they are adults, these people have had years of neglect and
>> already turned to violence ... the battle is lost and all the overpaid
>> ineffectual psychologists and social workers in the world can't fix
>> these types, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
>
>
>Implying that you are prepared to throw those people on the scrapheap,
>permanently. That's the death penalty.
>
Evasion noted again. Still waiting.
Better they should be safely locked up than on the streets raping,
killing and maiming killing innocent victims, right?
>
>> Yet the legal industry and softcocks continue to push this nonsense
>> idea of "rehabilitation" - when it's clear that no such thing is
>> possible for some people. They are hard-wired to re-offend. And when
>> they do, we repeat the charade of another token sentence then back on
>> the streets for us, the next victims-in-waiting.
>
>
>Cite one, just one, in "the legal industry and softcocks " who says anything
>about rehabilitation? You won't, because you can't. You are just spouting
>gibberish, and demonstrating the poverty of your understanding of what might
>be useful socvial policy. For you, it's simply a matter of ever-harsher
>criminal penalties, when you concede that deterence doesn't work. The
>typical solution of the mindless dribbler.
>
And yet still you won't even offer an alternative.
Perhaps you'd like to expand on how we can deal with causes of crime -
let's see if it's not "rehabilitation" shall we?
Or refuse to back up your own words and just admit you are another
full of shit softcock.
>
>> Good for the incomes of solicitors, social workers, parole officers
>> and the like ... bad for the rest of society, in particular the next
>> random innocent victim.
>
>
>See above.
>
>
>>>>>>>> Rehabilitated? Yeah sure. Shame he likely won't move next door
>>>>>>>> to one of those parole board members.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From where did you get the idea that prisoners in jail are
>>>>>>> rehabilitated?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh but they must be well on their way, otherwise the parole board
>>>>>> has no justification in releasing them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only justification for release is that there is no purpose to
>>>>> be served in keeping them locked up after the non-parole period has
>>>>> expired. People go to jail as punishment, not to be rehabilitated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is als to protect society by not having vicioius thugs roaming
>>>> the streets.
>>>
>>> Social hygiene as a theory to deal with potential violence is known,
>>> but rarely applied in the real world.
>>>
>>
>> Potential? We are talking convicted criminals. Nothing "potential"
>> about it.
>
>
>You have already conceded that these people are a dead-weight on society.
>They can't be rehabilitated, reformed or redeeemed. Your solution is to
>locke 'em up for a very long time.
>
>So, one clear implication of your proposal - why should society have to wait
>until one of those you dribble about commits a crime? Society has always
>been prepared to take pre-emptive action. You were aware of that
>implication, weren't you? Of course you were!
>
>
>> It's absurd that a 26 year-old man managed to collect a lengthy
>> criminal record yet still remained on the streets to commit another
>> armed robbery and then flee police, but because softcocks like
>> yourself defend this status quo, a 2 year old girl was tragically
>> killed in Sydney the other day.
>
>
>There you go! That's your fundamental justification for locking someone up
>for a very long time. They don't need to commit another crime.
>
>Penny dropped yet, fuckwit?
>
Problem solved.
Instead, we have gutless softcocks who can't answer a straightforward
question - how do YOU propose society can address the causes of
violence as you suggest is possible?
Of course you don't answer because you can't.
>
>>>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/national/hammer-attack-child-killer-freed-20091228-lgs8.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notorious child killer Austin Allan Hughes has walked free from
>>>>>>>> jail after 16 years behind bars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hughes was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years in jail in 1994,
>>>>>>>> after being convicted of bashing his girlfriend's six-year-old
>>>>>>>> son to death on the NSW south coast the previous year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He served 16 years in jail, 2 years more than the minimum period.
>>>>>>> The reasion for that is not explained.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only 14 years minimum for participating in a hammer-attack on a
>>>>>> child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amazing.
>>>>>
>>>>> A hammer attack on an adult is different?
>>>>
>>>> Either way, it's worthy of a 50-year non-parole sentence.
>>>
>>> That's a death sentence, wimp. You are really just an adherrent of
>>> the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" school of public policy,
>>> with all its mindless drivellings.
>>
>> It's prison, not a death sentence ... it keeps criminals off the
>> streets, because for all your talk, you haven't actually got any other
>> way of EFFECTIVELY dealing with the causes of violence have you?
>
>
>The implcation of locking people up for a very long time is that the costs
>to society are very great. Those resources could be far better used
>elsewhere, and the resources are simply wasted on locking up these people.
>
Do tell.
And what is the cost of a 2 year old girl murdered by fleeing thugs?
>It is clearly to legally execute them. Saves society a lot of unnecessary
>trouble.
>
>Go on, admit it! You really want the death penalty for everyone who looks
>sideways at you!
>
I've already said I oppose the death penalty ... but apparently lying
about my position is easier for you than defending your own.
>
>> You drivel your own softcock psycho-babble about (non-existent)
>> methods of dealing with the causes of violence ... sounding like any
>> other defender of our revolving door legal industry that props up
>> violent crime rates in order to protect the incomes of those in the
>> industry, victims be damned.
>
>
>Says the populist mundless dribbler who is basically advocating the death
>penalty for the socially underprivileged in the community. But is soo thick
>that the implications of its dribbling are far beyond it's feeble
>comprehension.
Yawn ... pathetic gutless liar has to invent my position because he is
too ashamed to articulate his own.
Epsilon
And they have the death penalty!
But the comparison of the proportion of the population in jail in the US
isn't so good, is it? That's what you get with your mindless approach.
>>>>>> And a more difficult question - how do you categorise some people
>>>>>> as those to be locked up for life, and the others who can be
>>>>>> released?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We somehow do it today.
>>>>
>>>> No, we don't.
>>>>
>>>>> But let's start with longer mandatory minimum sentencing for
>>>>> violent offenders.
>>>>
>>>> Just populist gibberish. You want tax-payers to pay for your
>>>> sense of well-being. We would be better of dealing with what
>>>> causes these people to be violent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL ...yes can't argue with that ... we would if we could, BUT WE
>>> CAN'T.
>>
>>
>> Speak for yourself. Merely because *you* can't carries no weight.
>>
>>
>>> Or perhaps you can amuse us ... how do you propose we deal with the
>>> "causes"? As a society, we will not condone removing children from
>>> neglectful parents unless they are shown to be physically in danger.
>>> And even if we did remove them, we couldn't find enough stable
>>> foster homes to replace the bad parents anyway.
>>
>>
>> Oh-oh! It looks like you have an inkling that social darwinism has
>> its drawbacks. Just an inkling.
>>
>
> Evasion noted.
>
> Want to answer the question, since you are the one who say we can.
Tell me - by what stretch of your poverty-struck imagination did you
persuade yourself that I would even remotely consider doing the bidding of a
moron like you? Pearls before swine...
>>> By time they are adults, these people have had years of neglect and
>>> already turned to violence ... the battle is lost and all the
>>> overpaid ineffectual psychologists and social workers in the world
>>> can't fix these types, no matter how much you wish it were
>>> otherwise.
>>
>>
>> Implying that you are prepared to throw those people on the
>> scrapheap, permanently. That's the death penalty.
>>
>
> Evasion noted again. Still waiting.
See above.
> Better they should be safely locked up than on the streets raping,
> killing and maiming killing innocent victims, right?
It's your fantasy.
>>> Yet the legal industry and softcocks continue to push this nonsense
>>> idea of "rehabilitation" - when it's clear that no such thing is
>>> possible for some people. They are hard-wired to re-offend. And
>>> when they do, we repeat the charade of another token sentence then
>>> back on the streets for us, the next victims-in-waiting.
>>
>>
>> Cite one, just one, in "the legal industry and softcocks " who says
>> anything about rehabilitation? You won't, because you can't. You
>> are just spouting gibberish, and demonstrating the poverty of your
>> understanding of what might be useful socvial policy. For you, it's
>> simply a matter of ever-harsher criminal penalties, when you concede
>> that deterence doesn't work. The typical solution of the mindless
>> dribbler.
>>
>
> And yet still you won't even offer an alternative.
No-one cited. No surprises, there.
> Perhaps you'd like to expand on how we can deal with causes of crime -
> let's see if it's not "rehabilitation" shall we?
Not for the likes of you.
> Or refuse to back up your own words and just admit you are another
> full of shit softcock.
Your conclusion - your problem.
Get off, you fool!
> Of course you don't answer because you can't.
Your conclusion - your problem.
She wasn't murdered.
>> It is clearly to legally execute them. Saves society a lot of
>> unnecessary trouble.
>>
>> Go on, admit it! You really want the death penalty for everyone who
>> looks sideways at you!
>>
>
> I've already said I oppose the death penalty ... but apparently lying
> about my position is easier for you than defending your own.
Inconsistency is your middle name.
>>> You drivel your own softcock psycho-babble about (non-existent)
>>> methods of dealing with the causes of violence ... sounding like any
>>> other defender of our revolving door legal industry that props up
>>> violent crime rates in order to protect the incomes of those in the
>>> industry, victims be damned.
>>
>>
>> Says the populist mundless dribbler who is basically advocating the
>> death penalty for the socially underprivileged in the community.
>> But is soo thick that the implications of its dribbling are far
>> beyond it's feeble comprehension.
>
> Yawn ... pathetic gutless liar has to invent my position because he is
> too ashamed to articulate his own.
Your brain hurts, eh? Well, it's just the one cell having a whinge.
DM
> Great society we live in that can release people like this back into
> society.
Sure is. Releasing a prisoner on parole after the non-parole period
has expired is the mark of a just and compassionate society. We set
non-parole periods for a reason. The prospect of parole makes
prisoners more compliant with the requests society make of them. In
return for the prospect of parole we expect good behaviour in prison
and participation in rehabilitation programs. The alternative is
prisoners who emerge at the end of their sentence hardened, unprepared
for life outside prison and more likely to re-offend.
DM
Phil Allison
"DM"
ralph
> Great society we live in that can release people like this back into
> society.
Sure is. Releasing a prisoner on parole after the non-parole period
has expired is the mark of a just and compassionate society.
** Absolute nonsense.
We set non-parole periods for a reason. The prospect of parole makes
prisoners more compliant ..
** So it suits the prison system.
In return for the prospect of parole we expect good behaviour in prison
and participation in rehabilitation programs.
** So it suits the prison system.
The alternative is prisoners who emerge at the end of their sentence
hardened, unprepared for life outside prison and more likely to re-offend.
** That happens with the majority of prisoners anyhow.
So very dangerous people are released and we just wait for them to ruin
someone else's life.
..... Phil
ralph
wrote:
Why your fascination with the death penalty?
>But the comparison of the proportion of the population in jail in the US
>isn't so good, is it? That's what you get with your mindless approach.
>
Why would that matter to anyone as long as crime rates are reduced?
Oh that's right ... it matters to softcocks like "Epsilon" who bleat
that prison is the same as the "death penalty" and support the right
of violent criminals to "pay their debt" with a few years at most,
only to be let out to rape/murder/maim their next victims.
Evasion noted ... as I said, curing the causes of violence was just
your mindless wanking.
>
>>>> By time they are adults, these people have had years of neglect and
>>>> already turned to violence ... the battle is lost and all the
>>>> overpaid ineffectual psychologists and social workers in the world
>>>> can't fix these types, no matter how much you wish it were
>>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Implying that you are prepared to throw those people on the
>>> scrapheap, permanently. That's the death penalty.
>>>
>>
>> Evasion noted again. Still waiting.
>
>See above.
>
Evasion noted again.
>
>> Better they should be safely locked up than on the streets raping,
>> killing and maiming killing innocent victims, right?
>
>It's your fantasy.
>
That's right ... to you criminal-loving softcocks, there is no crime
... it's all a fascist conspiracy.
>>>> Yet the legal industry and softcocks continue to push this nonsense
>>>> idea of "rehabilitation" - when it's clear that no such thing is
>>>> possible for some people. They are hard-wired to re-offend. And
>>>> when they do, we repeat the charade of another token sentence then
>>>> back on the streets for us, the next victims-in-waiting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cite one, just one, in "the legal industry and softcocks " who says
>>> anything about rehabilitation? You won't, because you can't. You
>>> are just spouting gibberish, and demonstrating the poverty of your
>>> understanding of what might be useful socvial policy. For you, it's
>>> simply a matter of ever-harsher criminal penalties, when you concede
>>> that deterence doesn't work. The typical solution of the mindless
>>> dribbler.
>>>
>>
>> And yet still you won't even offer an alternative.
>
>No-one cited. No surprises, there.
>
Well you're a softcock and you bleat about rehabilitation (or at least
putting violent crims back on the streets as fast as possible). So
how many cites do you want?
But if it helps ... what part of the phrase
"correctional/rehabilitative opportunities don't you understand
softcock?...
http://www.dcs.nsw.gov.au/careers/recruitment/Probation_and_Parole_Docs/Position_Description.pdf
Primary Objective
Provide professional supervision of offenders serving a non custodial
sentence through developing and maintaining case plans, allocation of
programs, crisis intervention, counselling and enforcing release
conditions and prepare and present offender assessments and recommend
appropriate sentencing options to the Courts and other judicial bodies
to maximise correctional/rehabilitative opportunities during a term of
sentence so that the impacts of crime on the community are reduced.
>
>
>> Perhaps you'd like to expand on how we can deal with causes of crime -
>> let's see if it's not "rehabilitation" shall we?
>
>Not for the likes of you.
>
>
>> Or refuse to back up your own words and just admit you are another
>> full of shit softcock.
>
>Your conclusion - your problem.
>
Evasion noted.
>
>>>> God for the incomes of solicitors, social workers, parole officers
Evasion noted.
>
>
>> Of course you don't answer because you can't.
>
>Your conclusion - your problem.
>
Evasion noted.
That's right softcock ... I suppose the infant committed suicide when
the thugs rammed her parents car?
Typical softcock ... no matter how often they reoffend, it's never the
criminals fault.
>
>>> It is clearly to legally execute them. Saves society a lot of
>>> unnecessary trouble.
>>>
>>> Go on, admit it! You really want the death penalty for everyone who
>>> looks sideways at you!
>>>
>>
>> I've already said I oppose the death penalty ... but apparently lying
>> about my position is easier for you than defending your own.
>
>Inconsistency is your middle name.
>
I've consistently said you're a liar ... thanks for not denying it.
>
>>>> You drivel your own softcock psycho-babble about (non-existent)
>>>> methods of dealing with the causes of violence ... sounding like any
>>>> other defender of our revolving door legal industry that props up
>>>> violent crime rates in order to protect the incomes of those in the
>>>> industry, victims be damned.
>>>
>>>
>>> Says the populist mundless dribbler who is basically advocating the
>>> death penalty for the socially underprivileged in the community.
>>> But is soo thick that the implications of its dribbling are far
>>> beyond it's feeble comprehension.
>>
>> Yawn ... pathetic gutless liar has to invent my position because he is
>> too ashamed to articulate his own.
>
>Your brain hurts, eh? Well, it's just the one cell having a whinge.
That's it? The final impotent anti-climax of a wanking softcock.
So much for curing the causes of violence eh? Thanks for demonstrating
you're really just another softcock who feebly defends the right of
violent criminals to murder children with impunity.
bringyagrogalong
>
> Great society we live in that can release people like this back into
> society.
It's right up there with lowlife scum who rail against having to pay
child support to their own kids.
What say you, Ralph?
DM
> "DM"
> ralph
>
> > Great society we live in that can release people like this back into
> > society.
>
> Sure is. Releasing a prisoner on parole after the non-parole period
> has expired is the mark of a just and compassionate society.
>
> ** Absolute nonsense.
>
> We set non-parole periods for a reason. The prospect of parole makes
> prisoners more compliant ..
>
> ** So it suits the prison system.
It also benefits society when prisoners learn to control their
behaviour and comply with rules.
> In return for the prospect of parole we expect good behaviour in prison
> and participation in rehabilitation programs.
>
> ** So it suits the prison system.
Society also benefits when prisoners learn to behave themselves and
participate in rehabilitation programs before the end of their
sentence
>
> The alternative is prisoners who emerge at the end of their sentence
> hardened, unprepared for life outside prison and more likely to re-offend.
>
> ** That happens with the majority of prisoners anyhow.
>
> So very dangerous people are released and we just wait for them to ruin
> someone else's life.
Actually over 60% of non-indigenous prisoners end up being released on
parole. The figure for indigenous prisoners is 50%. So your claim the
majority of prisoners emerge unprepared for life outside prison is
incorrect.
Coincidentally there is a 10% greater likelihood that an indigenous
prisoner will re-offend within 12 months than a non-indigenous
prisoner. The same difference as the likelihood the prisoner will be
released on parole. Interesting, don't you think?
DM
Phil Allison
"DM"
"Phil Allison"
> ralph
>
> > Great society we live in that can release people like this back into
> > society.
>
> Sure is. Releasing a prisoner on parole after the non-parole period
> has expired is the mark of a just and compassionate society.
>
> ** Absolute nonsense.
>
> We set non-parole periods for a reason. The prospect of parole makes
> prisoners more compliant ..
>
> ** So it suits the prison system.
It also benefits society when prisoners learn to control their
behaviour and comply with rules.
** Shame how that naive idea do not actually work when they leave prison.
> In return for the prospect of parole we expect good behaviour in prison
> and participation in rehabilitation programs.
>
> ** So it suits the prison system.
Society also benefits when prisoners learn to behave themselves and
participate in rehabilitation programs before the end of their
sentence
** Shame how that naive idea do not actually work when they leave prison.
> The alternative is prisoners who emerge at the end of their sentence
> hardened, unprepared for life outside prison and more likely to re-offend.
>
> ** That happens with the majority of prisoners anyhow.
>
> So very dangerous people are released and we just wait for them to ruin
> someone else's life.
Actually over 60% of non-indigenous prisoners end up being released on
parole. The figure for indigenous prisoners is 50%. So your claim the
majority of prisoners emerge unprepared for life outside prison is
incorrect.
** Huh ???
Those numbers are totally IRRELEVANT to the topic.
You totally brainless wanker !!
Piss off
.... Phil
DM
A direct hit with secondary explosions.
I love it when they start to foam at the mouth and rant!
DM
Epsilon
>
> I love it when they start to foam at the mouth and rant!
Makes you feel united with them, eh?
Phil Allison
"Demented Moron " <d-m...@adfa.edu.au>
> A direct hit with secondary explosions.
** Arrrrrggggghhhhhh !!!
Another fuckwit, bloody TROLL !!
Should all be castrated and stuck on an island till they starve.
.... Phil
DM
Actually that was tried here 200 years ago, but it didn't work.
Speaking of trolls, are you ready to discuss prison policy yet or are
you still ranting?
DM
Phil Allison
"Demented Autistic Moron " <d-m...@adfa.edu.au>
> A direct hit with secondary explosions.
Arrrrrggggghhhhhh !!!
Another fuckwit, bloody ASD fucked TROLL !!
Krudd the Dud
How about the lowlife scum such as yourself who send their children whoring?
What say you, SerGay, you filthy pedophile?
ralph
wrote:
If early release really did make them less likely to re-offend (and
I'd love to see any evidence of that), why not even shorter sentences?
In fact, the reality today is we see crims building up lengthy
criminal records (as was the case on the guy just charged in the
pursuit that killed the little girl), making it rather specious to
suggest parole and shorter sentencing does anything but give some
crims faster opportunities to reoffend more often.
IMO, for repeat violent offenders, we should forget the fiction about
rehabilitation back into society altogether and concentrate on
protecting innocent members of our "just and compassionate" society by
imposing longer prison terms. We could actually save money locking up
violent crims for life in that we'd need less police, solicitors, and
judges to investigate and prosecute violent thugs, and less on money
spent on counsellors to deal with the long-term psychological effects
of violent crimes on completely innocent victims and their families.
ralph
I say you're still a liar who fabricates quotes, and a racist.
Just go back to wanking off over Tex will you Adolf.