Karen wrote:
> Nobody remembers that this young man had stolen goods and was only in there
> for 28 days. He was not facing a life sentence. It is supposed to teach them
> some discipline and understanding of the laws we have in society to prevent
> people from becoming repeat offenders.
>
There are much better ways of doing that than detention. The results
speak for
themselves. Property crimes are up, not down in the NT. The victims of
these
crimes are no better off by children being put in detention. It is
costing the NT
a fortune to pursue mandatory sentencing without having the desired
result.
> His next stop would have been jail if he had not been punished for his
> crimes.
>
His next stop would have been jail BECAUSE he was sent to detention.
Most studies show that these places are training grounds for crime. At
least
you are honest enough to say he should have been punished for his
'crime'
and not hide behind the 'rehabilitation' claim. Revenge is the only
motive.
Once upon a time, we would have called what he and others did as
teenage skylarking but since property became god we offer up
the lives of our young.
> Not everyoen who goes to a detention centre kills themselves. Jail
> is there for a reason no matter what culture you come from.
>
Yes, but jail should be a last resort not a first resort. There is still
a chance of
steering young people away from crime at that age but, of course, that
option
has been taken away by mandatory sentencing.
A person convicted of assault who, say blinds someone, may be sentenced
to 6 months because the judge can take the mitigating circumstances into
account but a young man who took some biscuits because he was hungry has
to
serve a year because the judge has no discretion.
> There seems to be one law for Aboriginals and one law for everybody else.
>
That is true. The 'crimes' that Aboriginal people get arrested for are
often not
used against others. In NSW for instance, there is the 'trifecta' -
indecent
language, resisting arrest, and assaulting a police officer - which is
predominantly enforced against Aboriginal people. It is worth
remembering
that 'assaulting an officer' can be breathing garlic breath on him/her!
In the NT, the mandatory sentencing laws are enforced predominantly
against Aboriginal people as they are in WA.
> Why is it that we can't all live togteher under the same laws? Laws are not
> be about who is black or white but about what is right and wrong!
>
So do you agree that the law should be just and enforced against
everyone?
But the law is not just, is not enforced justly and not evenly.
A Vietnamese person who is charged with a crime is provided with
an interpreter because to hold a trial and jail him/her without s/he
being aware of what is going on would be unjust.
Yet, this happens to Aboriginal people in the NT all the time.
Wouldn't you call this racist?
Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Where does the punishment fit
the crime when you are jailed for a year because you ate some biscuits
because you were hungry? In the NT the judge is not allowed to make
the punishment fit the crime. The judge is not allowed to take into
consideration that the accused could not read, is mentally ill, or
anything
else that mitigates the 'crime'.
Just think, a mentally ill child who has no understanding of 'property'
has to go to jail under NT law. And no matter what you think should
happen, the chances of that child being white are next to nil.
Trudy
--
*********************************
Make the Hunger Site your homepage!
http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html
*********************************
-------------------------------------------------------
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/
