Hi Tim,
tdunlop wrote:
> Thanks, Trudy, for the clarification. Thanks Don, too.
>
> I wonder though whether we should be so dismissive of the gains we have
> made?
Noone is being dismissive of the gains we've made, Tim. It is something to be proud of
that we don't have a
legal death penalty anymore.
> While I accept Trudy's and Don's point about deaths in custody being
> a sort of de-facto 'death penalty' it is still important to distinguish
> between this sort of crime and the actual death penalty.
Yes, it is - up to a point. One can be too pedantic and thereby neglect to see that
what receives a
semi-official blind eye can be, in fact, a substitute death penalty by those who still
believe we should
have a state-imposed death penalty.
> Isn't it? So
> Don's point about prisoners on remand that: "They have not been convicted of
> anything and they either suicide, are murdered (by other inmates or
> officers), or die of neglect and a lack of duty of care (still murder in my
> eyes - but officially sanctioned)" while well-taken, still confuses
> "officially sanctioned" with "state sanctioned". The fact that our state
> does NOT legally sanction the death penalty is the very way we can conclude
> that the crimes Don's mentions are in fact illegal. It is also a tremendous
> gain for our society. Isn't it?
Only if something is done to stop it and so far it doesn't seem that there is any
great will towards that in
state or official circles. In many cases there is little difference between 'State'
and 'official'. For our
society to have a tremendous gain, the deaths should stop in fact as well as in law
otherwise it is a sham.
> The logical outcome of saying that such deaths are more or less the same as
> a legislated death penalty is to say that if we had the death penalty then
> the situation would be no different than what we have today. In other
> words, if what we have today is in practice indistinguishable from a legal
> death penalty, then a state-sanctioned death penalty being introduced would
> make no difference. And I don't really think anyone would suggest that.
> Would they?
No one is suggesting that at all. But do you really think that when the death penalty
was repealed that we
were finished? That we can sit back and rest on our laurels now that
'state-sanctioned' deaths are
abolished? If the deaths go on due to official neglect instead of active participation
by the state then how
is the result different other than being illegal?
> I guess my point is, we should be glad we don't have a death penalty and
> that this can and should be separated from the awful crimes that Don and
> others regularly report on.
How can it be separated other than in legality? Do the families feel differently? Are
the victims any more
guilty?
Yes, we abolished the death penalty and that was a big step forward in our maturity
and civilisation but we
are not finished by a long shot. While we can take pride in the first step, we can
take no pride in what we
still allow to happen daily all over the country. Very little has happened since the
Death in Custody Report
other than a lot of talk by politicians. There are still far too many jails where
nothing has been done.
There is no public outcry about the deaths in custody. There is no public outcry when
someone is murdered in
jail or beaten into a coma for life even when that person was on remand or there for
fine evasion.
There is no public outcry when 12 year old children are proposed to be treated like
adult criminals - only
approval. Our society has a long way to go before it reaches the maturity we all like
to congratulate
ourselves on having.
> My other point about Trudy's original comment had to do with the part that
> said: "except there are no students here to expose the injustices." I'm
> still not sure I understand that part.
I meant there is no systematic attempt by any student body (like the one in in the US
that was described in
the article) to uncover the injustices of innocents in jail even though we don't have
a legal death penalty.
The Woods Royal Commission in NSW only began to uncover the extent of that.
Trudy
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
