tattoodguy said:
jonathan - people should pay for prison? and you say Some should pay and some shouldnt?
seee ur not a fair person.
My policy was very fair. It understood that some cannot find work as easy, others come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The system regulations would apply to all, so it is fair.
What my proposal required was that a person who makes over a certain amount of money after they leave prison should be taxed extra for a given period (and not to the full extent of the prison costs). If a person drops below as threshold, then taxing would cease. If a person had too many support payments to make, the taxing would cease until financial stability. Who determines this payment? A board or tribunal based on merit and review process.
An ex-inmate would still be entitled to support payment when they leave prison, and poor people would simply not make the threshold to pay back. A problem I found with this at first was it would prevent crime before it happens (hence makes punishment more harsher), but what about those who are released, we want them to be committed to rehabilitation and a life away from crime. How do we do this? We simply ensure they are involved in the community, and impose a "Good Samaritain" clause, that if a person gets involved with the community, helps out or even seeks help for their problems, then the taxing will cease. It gives them something to work towards. A great deal of crime ccurs because people are bored, their time is not occupied and so their networks of social connection are limited to crime gangs and to criminal activity.
you think our laws are appplied fairly? thats not reasonable.
In theory they are. However I do acknowledge that laws can be applied unfairly. Don't think I don't understand this. I wrote a massive essay for law about justice and popular perception last week.
the government should pay for prison - alot of prisoners are innocent and now ur going to further punish them.
The government do and would still pay for prison. The pay-for-prison scheme is about getting rich crooks, to pay for their time, add a strain to enhance deterrence and encourage rehabilitation.
In terms of your second point, the penal code under law should not be inhibited by poor procedure of the courtroom.
alot of prisoners are the victims of crime - they should have a right to commit some crimes.
You have no right to commit a crime. If you have a right, then it's not a crime.
the vast majority of people who are in jail really dont deserve it. Alot of them are pettty harmless criminals.
They are still criminals, and the law stipulates they should be gaoled for their offences. But tattoodguy, I am not a lock-them-away person. I believe that criminals should be rehabilitated, shamed and reintegrated back into the community.
Why dont you think of rehabilitating prisoners instead - if you want to save some money why not advocate home detention etc?
I do, see my explanation. Tattoodguy, I am a big fan of John Braithwaite, a criminologist at ANU, who is the creator of the "Republican Model" which is about rehabilitation and retribution. It's a terriffic mix.
stufff like this.
i think their is some evidence that stuff liek this works?
doesnt drug court give people chances? i heard drug courts are pretty successful.
I agree. Drug courts are great, it puts responsibility back on offenders to clean their act up and seek help. If they don't, then they will be put in gaol. However I have also read into the problems of such setups, as the system will only help you if you plead guilty. If you don't plead guilty, you are tried and if found guilty, straight to gaol.
Why contribute to ruining this country - why jump on the band wagon with a government of opppressors, hypocrites and liars?
It's such a nice statement you said, but you're not in my position, nor do you have the experience and knowledge to make such comments.
Arnt u ashamed of ur political party? dont you have a problem with lying? Shouldnt politicians be punished for breaking promises?
I am a very honest person. You don't know me, and I don't lie in politics. I tell it as it is. If you believe a politician, one has to ask about your sanity (a little joke). Politicians (under the case of Wilmot v SA) have immunity from being sued because their promises and statements of policy are subject to factors which are often beyond their control. You should realise that.
I am not ashamed of my party. As I said, it takes courage to support a party which cops heaps of criticism for trying to stand up for what it believes in. I am proud of that.
Why dont u get off the fucking band wagon - anyone can shit on the pooor, criminals, uneducated, drug addicts etc - most pple odnt have alot of sympathy for these people - you dont need to further punish these people just to apppease the majority to score votes.
I wont punish the poor. I have a whole heap of ideas mate. In three years I am going to run for council. I want a crime prevention plan, my community run by the ALP have not responded with any plan. Our suburbs are the worst for crimes like assault in NSW and we have no plan. We are not in the Community Builders programme and they are simply putting more police out there. It's not enough.
you dont kick people when there down Its unaustralian.
No, what's Unaustralian is forgetting about them. Poverty does not lead to crime. No direct link has been established.
Why dont you come up wit6h something original instead of hiding behind ur political party - why dont you speak out about how our politicians are ruining this country - why dont you tell the truth - i know ur a relatively intelligent guy - you should infiltrate our government and destroy it.
I respect people mate. Even the ALP. If people elect a government, we should have some faith. I will tell you, I agree with some things Bob Carr does. I have my opinion and my party respects everyone's opinion. The Liberals are a party that promote diverse opinion, the ALP doesn't. The ALP pioneered the 'caucus' idea that restricts the ability of its members to speak out against its party in parliament.
Australia deserves better.
We always do.
the only decent politican was pauline hansen - she was fucked over by our govenrment - what happened there why was she let offf? did our government go on which hunt to remove the competition?
She was good. Unethical though. And had a record of not following electoral rules. I do feel for her, and I believe she has a lot of support. Again I note she had some excellent ideas.
If you ever get into proper politics etc? would you let me write a few speaches for you?
Mate, no one has ever written a speech for me, and no one ever will. My words are mine. If a person can't make the link between thought and rhetoric, let them not speak.