Australian Politics Forum - • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #30 - Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:50pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:15pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 3:57pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 3:51pm:

This article is not an easy read. It may well make you decide that the death penalty is the only reasonable deterrent (given the number of predators involved AND how they are involved in perpetrating and perpetuating their horrific crimes).

The death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent.

Plus, it's barbaric.

There is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners.

Ok Greg. Thank you for your opinion.

Now please ...let me continue posting the rest of the article 👇

But he was said to have been traced after the hoard of images he allegedly uploaded to the site led back to a Brisbane daycare centre.

A small snippet of a bedsheet - seen in one of the pictures on the site - was identified after years of detective work and sparked a police swoop on the home of the former daycare worker.

On Tuesday, he was charged with 136 counts of rape and 110 counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10.

The vile website was also linked to Matthew David Graham whose video of an 18-month-old baby being abused was described as 'one of the worst things you could see'.

He was said to be so cruel even other paedophiles were disgusted by him.

Graham, 29, revelled in 'hurtcore' videos, which show sickening torture and sexual acts being carried out on children, even babies and toddlers.

In a series of private messages, he also coached one Russian member on how to rape and then murder a five-year-old, a court was told.

From his bedroom in his parents' home in Melbourne, Graham set up similar sick networks to complement the central Australian site.

Police found more than 1500 child abuse pictures and videos on his system when they raided the house.

Ok Greg. In your opinion : what ought to be done with Matthew David Graham?

Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners.

Oh that’s interesting Greg.

Well what happened in the case of Matthew David Graham is not that. You see both his parents stood BY their son because as far as they were concerned ... he was a good boy who needed support, professional psychological counselling and a psychiatric diagnosis to essentially help get him off the hook.

Oh and his parents also sourced a good lawyer for him to negotiate in an interesting plea bargain. If their good boy became an informer for the police his time in prison would be severely deducted.

Remember this 👉 He was said to be so cruel even other paedophiles were disgusted by him.

Now Greg...tell me what you think about our laws and how they relate to pedophiles like Matthew David Graham.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16804
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #31 - Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:54pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:45pm:

...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught then the system has proved its worth.

US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates.

Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent.

Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds? Wink

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:45pm:

However, as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught then the system has proved its worth. Of course there is no real way of measuring this, however what cannot be argued is that it certainly prevents recidivism.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 49781
Gender: male

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #32 - Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:59pm

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:41pm:

Being a moral agent Frank, it would follow that you'd be against the death penalty. Thou shalt not kill is a fundamental moral principle.

And criminals break this fundamental moral principle, THEREBY putting themselves outside the protection of the laws that guard this principle. They put themselves outside he law and morality by their own conscious actions.

Quote:

Here is what else I see as being wrong with your argument:

It does not address the issue of whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The evidence is lacking here for the death penalty.

The application of the death penalty can be arbitrary and influenced by factors such as race, socio-economic status, and the quality of legal representation. This raises concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the system.

The death penalty is irreversible, and there have been cases where innocent individuals have been wrongfully convicted and executed. This irreversible nature raises serious moral and ethical concerns.

It assumes that the criminal justice system can accurately determine guilt or innocence and fully assess an individual's moral responsibility. However, the system is not infallible, and errors can occur, leading to the execution of potentially innocent people.

It overlooks alternative punishments, such as life imprisonment without parole, that can ensure public safety without resorting to taking a life.

Advocating for retribution and revenge as a form of justice may perpetuate cycles of violence and not contribute to a more compassionate and empathetic society.

I don't accept your stance.

Deterrence is not a moral issue but a utilitarian one. But the death penalty is not about deterrence - it is not about future, not-yet cases - but about actual capital crimes committed.

Retribution is a moral issue and it is fundamental. Just deserts are just that - just. You can't take life and then turn around and claim that nobody ELSE can take life. It is moral cowardice and BS. You took life - what moral code was THAT about??
And why should it not apply to you, if you could apply it to your victim?

Be equal to your crime, do not be a coward.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 12906 Armidale Gender:	Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE • Reply #33 - Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:02pm It prevents recidivism if he offended again which he may have if it happened in the future. That would be prevented by not allowing him doing what he might do if he did it. If he did, it shows he would have and so he was not able to do what may have been done, which he was doing.
Back to top	IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 12906 Armidale Gender:	Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE • Reply #34 - Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 10:11pm If he was.
Back to top	IP Logged

Belgarion

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5539
Gender: male

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #35 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 8:58am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:45pm:

...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught then the system has proved its worth.

US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates.

Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent.

Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds? Wink

You did not address my statement, merely quoted some overseas figures. Do you not understand? Roll Eyes

Back to top

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 12906 Armidale Gender:	Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE • Reply #36 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:15am They want to run prison inmates through a gas chamber. Crime rates will fall steeply.
Back to top	IP Logged

Lisa Jones Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 39047 Sydney Gender:	Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE • Reply #37 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 11:48am After reading back ... I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change (hence the topic title). Does anyone here agree/disagree?? If so, why? If not, why not?
Back to top	If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free. HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415) IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 141826
Gender: male

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #38 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:00pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 11:48am:

After reading back ... I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change (hence the topic title).

Does anyone here agree/disagree??

If so, why?

If not, why not?

I disagree.

We will not reintroduce the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners in this country, and that's good.

It's barbaric, and offers no deterrent to other would-be criminals.

It's 2023, not 1823.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 141826
Gender: male

Re: • NO NEED FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #39 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:03pm

Belgarion wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 8:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:45pm:

...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught then the system has proved its worth.

US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates.

Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent.

Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds? Wink

You did not address my statement, merely quoted some overseas figures. Do you not understand? Roll Eyes

Indeed.

I fully understand that those US states who participate in the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners have much higher murder rates than those who don't.

I also understand, when it comes to countries, that the US (which has the death penalty) has a murder rate much, much higher than that of Australia (which has no death penalty).

The "deterrent" argument doesn't hold water.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 49781
Gender: male

Re: • NO NEED FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #40 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:22pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:03pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 8:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:45pm:

...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught then the system has proved its worth.

US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates.

Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent.

Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds? Wink

You did not address my statement, merely quoted some overseas figures. Do you not understand? Roll Eyes

Indeed.

I fully understand that those US states who participate in the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners have much higher murder rates than those who don't.

I also understand, when it comes to countries, that the US (which has the death penalty) has a murder rate much, much higher than that of Australia (which has no death penalty).

The "deterrent" argument doesn't hold water.

The threat of punishment of every kind has a deterrent effect. The threat of the severest penalty is no exception.
Otherwise you would have to argue than no punishment has any deterrent effect- obviously not the case.

But deterrent is only one, minor aspect of any punishment. It is a utilitarian, shop-keeper kinda calculated response. It matters, but not very much.

The main argument for any punishment is a moral one. It is about just deserts for those who knowingly violare the peaceful coexistence of people. The capital punishment is a just desert for who commit capital crimes.

The State has the authority to dispense punishments for every kind of transgression. It has the authority to make laws. If the death penalty is legally constituted in a democracy then there is no overreach by the state.

Barbaric - the death penalty should apply to capital crimes which are themselves barbaric. Eliminating barbaric criminals is not itself barbaric. It is just.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 141826
Gender: male

Re: • NO NEED FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #41 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:58pm

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:03pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 8:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:45pm:

...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught then the system has proved its worth.

US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates.

Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent.

Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds? Wink

You did not address my statement, merely quoted some overseas figures. Do you not understand? Roll Eyes

Indeed.

I fully understand that those US states who participate in the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners have much higher murder rates than those who don't.

I also understand, when it comes to countries, that the US (which has the death penalty) has a murder rate much, much higher than that of Australia (which has no death penalty).

The "deterrent" argument doesn't hold water.

The threat of punishment of every kind has a deterrent effect. The threat of the severest penalty is no exception.
Otherwise you would have to argue than no punishment has any deterrent effect- obviously not the case.

But deterrent is only one, minor aspect of any punishment. It is a utilitarian, shop-keeper kinda calculated response. It matters, but not very much.

The main argument for any punishment is a moral one. It is about just deserts for those who knowingly violare the peaceful coexistence of people. The capital punishment is a just desert for who commit capital crimes.

The State has the authority to dispense punishments for every kind of transgression. It has the authority to make laws. If the death penalty is legally constituted in a democracy then there is no overreach by the state.

Barbaric - the death penalty should apply to capital crimes which are themselves barbaric. Eliminating barbaric criminals is not itself barbaric. It is just.

Oh, but it is - it makes you no better than them.

Worse, in fact.

But let's get back to the fallacious 'deterrent' argument: why do US states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it?

Back to top

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #42 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:58pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 11:48am:

After reading back ... I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change (hence the topic title).

Does anyone here agree/disagree??

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Ok I’ve now checked back and read your responses. Has anyone considered the possibility that our posts in this topic are going round in circles? They’ve covered pretty much everything but not much else has been achieved. This vicious cycle actually reflects the vicious cycle which defines the inability to resolve a lot of issues relating to the crimes I’ve detailed in my OP.

For this reason : I still maintain we have a strong case for legal change.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 141826
Gender: male

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #43 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 2:02pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:58pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 11:48am:

After reading back ... I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change (hence the topic title).

Does anyone here agree/disagree??

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Ok I’ve now checked back and read your responses. Has anyone considered the possibility that our posts in this topic are going round in circles? They’ve covered pretty much everything but not much else has been achieved. This vicious cycle actually reflects the vicious cycle which defines the inability to resolve a lot of issues relating to the crimes I’ve detailed in my OP.

For this reason : I still maintain we have a strong case for legal change.

Which is?

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 12906 Armidale Gender:	Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE • Reply #44 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 2:08pm Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 11:48am: I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change . Does anyone here agree/disagree?? I agree that Lisa maintains that there is a strong case for legal change .
Back to top	IP Logged