Daniel Morcombe

[weg]

CU is just telling it as it is.

Vigilantism, is unlawful but it's part of that system. The only way to provide 100% protection is if in total seclusion, and nobody can tolerate that for more than a few days/weeks.

This creature WILL become every prisoners business for the entire term of his prison sentence. There are 'prison' rules, and this comes under that banner - everyone lives by them so no different treatment or set of rules for him.

 

[weg]

Such a beautiful little boy.

What he had to endure & now what his parents are going though is unimaginable for me. Cannot read the full updates in the papers - too distressing.

Much the same here.

I find if I can't read the updates and I'm a stranger, what must those parents feel?

I have a just turned 13yo who walks home from school, and today had a little panic attack, and got in my car to see why he was 2 minutes late (he was about 8 houses away from home) because of this being in the papers so much in the last few days.

Very sad and tragic for everyone.

 

[shuggy]

What year do you think we're living in? I doubt they would get away with that sort of thing these days (which is a shame in regards to this mongrel piece of turd). As someone else said, he/it will become a protected species whilst it rots in gaol (again - a shame).

It's true and they do get away with it but it's more a case of turning a blind eye rather than joining in.

 

[virgo]

Daniel

And that is why i support capital punishment in Singapore where i come from!

Very very distressing to me to read as a mum!

 

[cu@thetop]

I thought you were a member of the legal profession, CU?

Vigilantism (i.e. taking revenge outside the law) - even in prison - is unlawful, is it not?

Whatever the crime, our justice system must surely never be a willing advocate of vigilantism, just as, nor ever should any officer of the court.

Certainly, the offender deserves the full punishment of the law: no less, and - equally - no more.

This is not a 'soft' option: It is a defining principle of our justice system. The mob's fury towards the offender is not sufficient to inform our legal system's task. Particularly as, once incarcerated, responsibility for the protection of all prisoners falls upon our legal system, and any failure in that area can't but harm the community's respect for the propriety and effectiveness of that legal system.

I'm not defending a paedophile: I'm defending the integrity of what seeks to protect our community from them. Better our justice system retain its community's respect, than it be publicly seen as complicit in any unlawful treatment of a prisoner (no matter how reviled and hated by that same community).

100% agreed - the system is more important then the individual in order to afford the individual the greatest rights vis a vis the state.

But after a while you realize there are grubs who will utilize the system and its benefits without contributing in any way whatsoever. Where is his remorse? Where is there consideration for the Morcombe family? Our system protects the weak, which is good, but why is the murderer protected against much less sinister forces (incaceration with food water and shelter by the state) for an event in which no protection was offered to the victim child from sexual abuse and death?

A double standard our murderer avails himself of (assuming the coppers got the right man -a reason I never support the death penalty) and we polite society accept this for the greater good etc etc.

Our system will protect this man from our primal urge to kill him or tear him apart limb from limb- mob rule should never be allowed - but is the system for the protection of all? An opportunist predator with no remorse- snatching the child like a killer whale grabs a seal- toying with him before devouring him. Mr whale will now find himself surrounded by other such predators so there is some poetic justice to it.

Our legal system is about rehabilitation, protection of society and retribution. Can an essentially "sick" individual be cured so that society is safe? No, not in this case one suspects. Will this sick individual contribute to society- probably not to the extent that it outweighs his burden to society- so there is no upside to this equation. Put him down? -no that's what Hitler was getting up to before he started on the Jews.

The conclusion is amost inevitable-lock him up for life. But we don't do hard labour anymore so he is left to sit in his cell to reflect on his ways; a waste of time to one without the usual social conscience. So no physical discomfort for him.

If prisoners take it into their hands- it is regrettable but ultimately non preventable. Should we make the other prisoners sit in on tolerance workshops?

At least it may focus the prisoners attack away from the warders.

Condone his assault by fellow prisoners? well I'd be lying to say I wouldn't tacitly approve (seeing we can't use his kidneys like the Chinese would).

Would I act for him as a client?- no, not because of the crime as all should have representation; in this case the passage of time has fuelled my bitterness as the suffering to the family is compounded.. I would not be able to be sufficiently objective in my work.

Waste of taxpayer money locking him up for life? Nope- money well spent in my book- anyway lets introduce economic rationalism and make prisoners pay their way.

We have a fairly good legal system- but sometimes the notion of "justice" seems to be missing.

 

[willair]

I really hope this is not a false lead. I can't begin to imagine what this family has been through.

I just hope that this person is not innocent, and they have a rock solid case ,and as the law does nothing in vain just the look on the parents faces from the start to now tells a very sad story,as for this person "IF" he goes inside,from my understanding about where he will sleep in "IF"
he is the one??? in the protected section he will be with accountants who steal millions from old people,-bikes that broke the silent code and have had the club patches cut from their arms,doctors,ex drug running high end police,and every sort of animal in the zoo,all it takes is a full moon..

 

[mary&mat]

Eloquently put cu@thetop.

Definite food for thought.

Agree re the death penalty; agree mob mentality cannot rule & these people should be afforded the same level of defence as other alleged crimminals or we undermine our own evolution as a society.

The part I have a problem with is when a prisoner, proven guilty, then seeks to use the system to his/her benefit eg taxpayer funded defence appeals, the right to education inside jail, the right to food, healthcare, protection, television for goodness sake!!!! etc.

I would love to see hard labour return (or some actual form of punishment other than just being deprived of the freedom to come & go as one pleases). I get the impression some of these 'things' living inside prison are treated better than their victims & the families of victims.

Chemical castration wouldn't go astray either.

 

[evand]

You're wrong. I heard it from the horses moth. A friend of mine's sister is one.

What year do you think we're living in? I doubt they would get away with that sort of thing these days (which is a shame in regards to this mongrel piece of turd). As someone else said, he/it will become a protected species whilst it rots in gaol (again - a shame).

 

[evand]

What perfect world do you live in?

I thought you were a member of the legal profession, CU?

Vigilantism (i.e. taking revenge outside the law) - even in prison - is unlawful, is it not?

Whatever the crime, our justice system must surely never be a willing advocate of vigilantism, just as, nor ever should any officer of the court.

Certainly, the offender deserves the full punishment of the law: no less, and - equally - no more.

This is not a 'soft' option: It is a defining principle of our justice system. The mob's fury towards the offender is not sufficient to inform our legal system's task. Particularly as, once incarcerated, responsibility for the protection of all prisoners falls upon our legal system, and any failure in that area can't but harm the community's respect for the propriety and effectiveness of that legal system.

I'm not defending a paedophile: I'm defending the integrity of what seeks to protect our community from them. Better our justice system retain its community's respect, than it be publicly seen as complicit in any unlawful treatment of a prisoner (no matter how reviled and hated by that same community).

 

[cu@thetop]

in the protected section he will be with accountants who steal millions from old people,-bikes that broke the silent code and have had the club patches cut from their arms,doctors,ex drug running high end police,and every sort of animal in the zoo,all it takes is a full moon..

A mate of mine reckons it is referred to by other prisoners as "the boneyard".

 

[willair]

I'm not defending a paedophile: I'm defending the integrity of what seeks to protect our community from them. Better our justice system retain its community's respect, than it be publicly seen as complicit in any unlawful treatment of a prisoner (no matter how reviled and hated by that same community).

The fact that many people think this way, and think that's the way the system works in the real world ,you can only protect your kids so far..

 

[willair]

A mate of mine reckons it is referred to by other prisoners as "the boneyard".

My brother who is in the higher part of your trade has told me some shockers on what happens from the people he and the government defends ,he just calls it the zoo,and i can see why Barristers drink and use other items to front up each day must be a very hard job not something i could ever do..

 

[INVSTOR]

It's sad that kids can't play on the streets these days! My daughter has started to walk home from school occassionally with a friend/group of friends but it makes me feel nervous. We live in a small cul-de-sac with a lane at the end and I even don't feel that comfortable with her playing on the road a couple of houses away. A man attempted to steal my dog last week so I'm personally reminded there are freaks out there!

 

[Lamingtons]

A man attempted to steal my dog last week so I'm personally reminded there are freaks out there!

Oh my! That is scary.
Remember the case in Victoria (i think) where the mother fought off someone grabbing her daughter? He told her that he would get her no matter what!

I'd be packing and moving interstate overnight!

 

[INVSTOR]

Oh my! That is scary.
Remember the case in Victoria (i think) where the mother fought off someone grabbing her daughter? He told her that he would get her no matter what!

I'd be packing and moving interstate overnight!

Really? My dog, not my child. If it were my child I would move.

Stuff happens everywhere though.

 

[Lamingtons]

Really? My dog, not my child. If it were my child I would move.

Stuff happens everywhere though.

Sorry I meant move for the child.

Still scary why people think it's ok to grab pets like that.

 

[INVSTOR]

Sorry I meant move for the child.

Still scary why people think it's ok to grab pets like that.

OK, I just wanted to clarify. I don't think it's OK. I just started another thread about it so this wouldn't get too off topic.

I was on facebook earlier and a friend posted that one of her 5 year old twin grandsons was taken from a cafe in Perth (hillary's) two weeks ago. A young man had taken him in a car and dropped him off at a park and he was found one and a half hours later. The mother didn't alert police. Scarey!!!

 

[pully]

abuse of children is unfortunately not just done by strangers as we all know.

in extreme cases like this one we often find the offender has a history of the behaviour. time in prison protects the community, but we all know they do not spend very long actually locked up.

we all need to protect our children but its not easy.
sex offenders are sometimes people in trusted positions.

no place in society once convicted, but how?
expensive to convict and expensive to house. not to mention the damage they do to their victims.

we all have strong opinions on this. mine is zero tolerance.

 

[mary&mat]

An island in the middle of nowhere, no mod cons, no guards required & no escape possible, preferably with feral animals that want to eat them

 

[Belbo]

What perfect world do you live in?

Although clearly meant with a good dollop of sarcasm, that really is a very relevant question, Evand.

The answer, simply, is that whether good or bad, we are all equal in the 'perfect world' of the law.

This is what separates countries like ours from lesser ones today and preceding ones in history. We speak of the 'sanctity of the law' in civilised countries with good reason: It alone is vested with a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence in our society in the interests of protecting our highest ideals. We collectively give the law such awesome power precisely because we no longer dare weild it ourselves as individuals, but demand of it in return an unrelenting pursuit of perfection in the weilding of that power.

I'm not saying it's wrong to feel conflicted about respecting the sanctity of the law on the one hand and harbouring a strong personal desire for revenge on the other. What parents - particularly Daniel's - reasonably wouldn't?

But I am saying it is wrong to publicly approve - or worse, advocate - that extra-legal punishment be meted out in prison upon the perpetrator with or without the complicity of the guards.

Certainly, the reality is that it could well happen: But do you want that to be able to happen on the your streets of your neighborhood, too? And, before any judicial conviction, based upon just regular people's judgements only? Would you actually trust your neighbours with that much freedom to unilaterally exercise force?

Expressing vigilantist sentiments in social media - such as on this forum - might very well work against a conviction too, as some experts have already felt forced to warn -

The worst case scenario, according to legal expert at the Queensland University of Technology Peter Black, is that the judge grants a permanent stay of indictment because pre-trial publicity about the man was too prejudicial.

Ask yourself, Evand, how do you think Paul Keating would reply to your question? (Or John Howard, for that matter, as this is an issue deserving consideration by many others?)