This is not Mully Williams, this is just a tribute

I thought the earlier ‘Dudley’ item in the Canberra Times deserved some sort of ‘award’:

Father crashed car in ‘grief’
BY DAVID STOCKMAN, LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER
23 Jul, 2010 08:34 AM

“March stole the car after drinking a beer on the way from a bottle shop to a friend’s apartment at the Stuart Flats in Griffith.”

An ‘apartment’ at the Stuart Flats!

Without doubt very well appointed.

Violet68 said :

Speaking from a working class background and after having lived a large chunk of my life in govt housing, I am looking for practical solutions to systemic problems

Listen, Precious, here’s a practical solution for you, put a bullet in this peanuts brain and the problem is solved!

Enough’s enough, he’s had his chance(s)!

Violet said:

“Who gets to say who is “genuinely disadvantaged” or deserving? Most people who are genuinely disadvantaged have to play the system and live outside the square in some form in order to manage day to day. They probably don’t have a car at all (or a registered, roadworthy one worth stealing) and are probably too busy trying to conform (or on the other hand avoid arrest or penalities like Centrelink breaches) to prioritise the historical and emotional value of gravestones (I don’t mean to offend anyone with this generalisation).

Yes, there are people who refuse to participate and there are some people who do not have the skills or self esteem or the physical/mental ability to do so. I think there are many who really do want to fit in and contribute. I am not saying let them off or keep re-offending at all but increasing the division and encouraging an “us and them” mentality is only going to add to the problem.

In regards to the having a “choice to stop” one would have to be in rational frame of mind to make a rational choice. I am not blaming anyone but I do believe it is up to the authorities to remain rational and make sensible decisions when citizens do become irrational ie. if you know someone is going to run when you chase them – slow down. A car can be replaced. Lives cannot.”

Taking your last point first, you seem to be saying that it is better to have potential drunk/drug affected drivers given a free pass because chasing them is potentially dangerous. I doubt that the families and friends of people who have been killed and injured by these idiots would share your views. More importantly, what alternative strategy do you propose?

While I get your point that most petty offenders are losers in the lot of life, that doesn’t make it OK for the victims of their crimes. I am by no means as hard line as many on this site about such things, but it is infuriating to hear over and over the litany of bad childhood/drug and alcohol/relationship broke up/friend just died etc. These things happen to many people, including the victims, and they don’t express their angst by harming others – again, and again, and again, and again and again (as The Cure would say).

Most people simply can’t comprehend how someone who has been charged with offences while on bail or on a good behaviour bond or a suspended sentence would be given further bail.

The fact is that a small number of people commit a large proportion of crimes, and taking them out of the community drops the crime rate dramatically – the recent story on our local crime families illustrates that.

Suggesting that victims should suck it up because ‘society’s to blame’ just doesn’t cut it.

Oh Violet – you are a special person. People like March are just antisocial and get their kicks by destroying/taking others property. They are not irrational at the time just out having some ‘fun’ at others expense.

I can understand you attitude towards mental health issues and how they are not addressed by government completely yet I don’t understand how you can say poor you to a recidivist offender with no mental health issues who simply cannot and will not behave to societies standards.

This person has repeatedly demonstrated he will not abide by any rules/orders/laws/behaviour bonds etc. time to lock him up until he can demonstrate he is able to live with the rest of us.

Skidbladnir said :

johnboy said :

The thing which really gets on my tits is the bourgeoise cry of “oh but he’s disadvantaged.
Most genuinely disadvantaged people in our society are law abiding, and more likely to be the victim of crime than the well to do.

Sentencing and rehab should not be about levelling a playing field by compromising standards or even skewing it in favour of any given minority. Standards of conviction and sentencing should be universal, or they’re just lip service.
Giving certain individuals a limited reward of an effective “free pass through the court system” based in large part upon past performance, family background, or childhood experience actually entrenches that bad behaviour, though.

If a major driver of criminal behaviour is social disadvantage (and I’m not saying it is), then make sentencing and rehabilitation based on an individual’s potential and how they may thrive given an appropriate opportunity, and make part of the rehab process finding that appropriate opportunity for people who show the motivation.

Rehab only works if the subject wants it to, so reward those who go through an entire program showing they not only can contribute to society but also are willing to contribute .
Give them every possible opportunity to relapse, but also offer them options on avoiding those scenarios.

Speaking from a working class background and after having lived a large chunk of my life in govt housing, I am looking for practical solutions to systemic problems that begin way before people reach the justice system. Discretion is essential within the justice system. Otherwise, only people who can afford quality legal representation and are considered to be “of good character” will be treated differently and “sail through”.

Who gets to say who is “genuinely disadvantaged” or deserving? Most people who are genuinely disadvantaged have to play the system and live outside the square in some form in order to manage day to day. They probably don’t have a car at all (or a registered, roadworthy one worth stealing) and are probably too busy trying to conform (or on the other hand avoid arrest or penalities like Centrelink breaches) to prioritise the historical and emotional value of gravestones (I don’t mean to offend anyone with this generalisation).

Yes, there are people who refuse to participate and there are some people who do not have the skills or self esteem or the physical/mental ability to do so. I think there are many who really do want to fit in and contribute. I am not saying let them off or keep re-offending at all but increasing the division and encouraging an “us and them” mentality is only going to add to the problem.

In regards to the having a “choice to stop” one would have to be in rational frame of mind to make a rational choice. I am not blaming anyone but I do believe it is up to the authorities to remain rational and make sensible decisions when citizens do become irrational ie. if you know someone is going to run when you chase them – slow down. A car can be replaced. Lives cannot.

The former tyre fitter….

I can understand if you used to play professional sport, or had been in the Army, or something being refered to as the former Wallaby or the former soldier. In this case though, it appears to be a polite was of saying the unemployed man…

johnboy said :

The thing which really gets on my tits is the bourgeoise cry of “oh but he’s disadvantaged.
Most genuinely disadvantaged people in our society are law abiding, and more likely to be the victim of crime than the well to do.

Sentencing and rehab should not be about levelling a playing field by compromising standards or even skewing it in favour of any given minority. Standards of conviction and sentencing should be universal, or they’re just lip service.
Giving certain individuals a limited reward of an effective “free pass through the court system” based in large part upon past performance, family background, or childhood experience actually entrenches that bad behaviour, though.

If a major driver of criminal behaviour is social disadvantage (and I’m not saying it is), then make sentencing and rehabilitation based on an individual’s potential and how they may thrive given an appropriate opportunity, and make part of the rehab process finding that appropriate opportunity for people who show the motivation.

Rehab only works if the subject wants it to, so reward those who go through an entire program showing they not only can contribute to society but also are willing to contribute .
Give them every possible opportunity to relapse, but also offer them options on avoiding those scenarios.

johnboy said :

The thing which really gets on my tits is the bourgeoise cry of “oh but he’s disadvantaged.

Most genuinely disadvantaged people in our society are law abiding, and more likely to be the victim of crime than the well to do.

A great way to make them less disadvantaged would be to lock up these serial predators.

I agree, once they have shown they have no intention of integrating within a lawful society, the buck needs to stop somewhere and citizens need to be protected from them. These double digit chances are a joke. We are talking serial offenders here, that thumb their nose to the law and their fellow citizens.

The thing which really gets on my tits is the bourgeoise cry of “oh but he’s disadvantaged”.

Most genuinely disadvantaged people in our society are law abiding, and more likely to be the victim of crime than the well to do.

A great way to make them less disadvantaged would be to lock up these serial predators.

I think I know this guy, fitted tyres to my car once and was more interested in having a chat than doing the job right.