Blog comments

• Are criminals asked why they think they have the right to take what is not theirs?
  Should we believe that rapists and murderers don't know it is wrong to rape and kill? If they don't know, or can't help themselves, then permanent homes "Locked" for the mentally ill should be provided.
  If they are literate, they should know, and if so the should be in jail for life. Murder and rape are not accidents. A decision NOT to proceed with a crime can be made at the last second.
  I believe you could ask absolutely anyone you meet if they think stealing, murder and rape are crimes and they would say "Yes"

  SHELLEY THOMPSON Tuesday 16 March, 2010 - 2:39 PM

• A soft, Incompitent Government like the one we have now breeds a soft Judiciary and an Incompitent, Politically biased Public Service. This in turn leads to criminals knowing that the punishment will be light for most things and encourages them to commit further and more serious crimes. The only way to slow the crims up is to make the punishments fit the crime and to hell with the criminals rights because as far as i'm concerned they lost their rights when they committed the crimes.

  Darryl Monday 1 March, 2010 - 12:31 PM

• Mr Rudd's offer of $25 million to the Taliban is sending a message to the world that Australia is weak
  on terrorism. Australian society needs to toughen up or accept that a more dominant group is going to change our way of life.

  simon smith Friday 26 February, 2010 - 4:26 PM

• Let the People Elect Judges http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=555335 And this should include ALL the quasi courts e.g. Commissioners, Ombudsman and other crucial decision makers. We really need citizen initiated referenda on ALL the fundamental issues affecting us. E.g. mass medication with fluoride against our will, having our assets privatised against our will, council amalgamation against our will, denied access to public service in our very own country on equal terms, and courts which do not represent the views and values of the community etc. If people have no faith in their political leadership they can exercise their inalienable civil right by refusing to be governed. Our constitution says we have the RIGHT to vote for people representatives (there is no mention of political parties, which only represent their own selfish interests in our constitution, only representatives of the people). Statute law cannot override our constitution without a referendum to make voting compulsory. Government needs to be reminded to obey the law and that they are NOT above the law. The whole idea of giving any politician/party a mandate and a carte blanche to do whatever they like, for a whole three years is ludicrous and totally inconsistent with the notion of democracy. Its plain obvious we urgently need a 21st century human rights act to stop politicians imposing repressive laws on us, ignoring our democratic wishes on law and order, and treating us like sheeple. I believe Australia is a juristocracy, not a democracy, where the people are in control of their electorates and their destiny. Stand up and think! And dont consent to be ignored and over-governed like sheeple!
  Australias lone stance against civil rights bill:how juristocracy enables this and blocks debate http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=616222

  Jennifer Nash Friday 26 February, 2010 - 2:47 PM

• Michael as you know I agree with you on the issue of changing the laws .It did occur to me today there are 2 more problems with the system which directly relate back to the Labor State Government.
  1. The courts are bound by previous case law, so by effect the Attorney General as a matter of practice not appealing light sentences, makes a downward spiral which defendants can rely on.2. I believe that the judges are appointed by the government on recommendations from the Bar Association. So I wonder why after 11 years of socialist governments we have judges who are more shall we say of the left way of thinking.Bleeding hearts appoint bleeding hearts.3 Just thought of another one,funding , if the DPP were better funded and money not wasted on rubbish then maybe the Gabe Watson, Patel and this matter might not have happened. God knows how they think they are going to get a conviction on some of these matters coming up.

  Andrew Friday 26 February, 2010 - 11:23 AM

• I read an article this week in B Mag. a lifestyle Magazine, written by Elizabeth Mabin, a Journalist,and about "Truth in Sentencing". Elizabeth quotes Chief Justice Paul DeJersey who says and I quote "our sentencing process works efficiently, fairly and well. "Critics of the system generally lack the advantage of having witnessed the sentencing - they will not have heard the canvassing of the broad range of relevant circumstances by both sides as has the sentencing Judge and, where there is an appeal, the Judges of Appeal. The process is carried through with the utmost of care."
  I question deJerseys use of the words "utmost of care" for if the word care includes Feeling in its definition, then he certainly showed neither care nor feeling for the Victims. It didn't matter their age, health - mental or physical; De Jersey just can't seem to see why his downgrading of the sentences to a lesser term of imprisonment has caused so much angst our here in the real world.
  Q.U.T. Lecturer and Co-Author of the Book - Principles of Sentencing, Nigel Stobbs, tells us that "keeping prisoners out of prison IS ENCOURAGED", and cites that abomination of a Statute - the one that gives Politicians, Justices and Magistrates, those practicing law - an easy way out, the "Penalties and Sentences Act, 1992". This Act must be repealed. So too is the actual Act of Sentencing by our Law Makers and their politically appointed Justices and Magistrates. We the people, for the people demand that they withdraw their heads from the sand and come and join us in the real world and do what they are paid to do - LISTEN and carry out our WILL, the will of the People!!!!

  Phil of Springwood Friday 26 February, 2010 - 9:54 AM