I would first like to thank Karen for breathing some controversy into this
list. You don't know what you believe until you are forced to defend it.
Secondly I would like to propose an analogy between the question of whether
mandatory sentencing laws are racist, and gun control legislation.
Everyone remembers the gun control debate. It was the one where Howard and
Fischer took on the bush and the states and won on an issue where people
were losing their lives. This was Howard's finest hour.
The argument against gun control laws was that guns don't kill people,
people kill people. That is, that the gun held no moral responsiblity for
the outcome of its use.
This is similar to the argument that the mandatory sentencing law is not
racist. And I would agree, in a purist sense, that it is not racist. Its
parameters are set to judge actions, not people. I do not buy the argument
that just because more Aborigines are sentenced using it that it is, per se,
racist. Without checking the statistics I would guess that hardly any women
are sentenced using it either, but I am not about to argue that it is
sexist, because I know that my sex is more likely to commit crime, and so
more likely to fall foul of the law, and that the stats will reflect that
fact.
I likewise know that the sorts of crimes that it punishes are more likely to
be committed by people who are young, poor and disadvantaged, and that
Aborigines and Islanders are more likely to fit that profile than the
average citizen.
To return to the gun analogy. While we know that guns do not pull their own
trigger, we also know that there is a statistical relationship between the
availability of guns and their use in homicide. By making it more
difficult to own a gun, we make it less likely that people will be killed by
them. I think that the same applies to the mandatory sentencing
legislation. I don't think that our laws are racist, but I think that some
of those charged with enforcing them are, and that the existence of certain
laws can give them a tool for their racism. Professor Gracelyn Smallwood is
up on a charge of "insulting a police officer". What sort of redundant
charge is this? What other profession (including judges) can actually
charge you for "insulting" them? This is a charge invented to allow police
to be inconsistent so that they can use it as a disciplinary measure if they
choose. It, and allied charges like obscene language, is most often used
against the young, as I know, from personal experience, and others who sit
outside the average parameters, such as Aborigines.
That the laws are applied unevenly should not be a matter for debate. Take
the example of Allan Bond. It would be impossible for someone with tatts
and a degree in lower socioeconomic status earned by being borne into the
wrong family to break and enter enough houses in a thousand lifetimes (make
that a million) to get even close to taking the money that Bond ripped off
his shareholder. Yet for breaking and entering just a few houses, or
stealing money from an armoured van, that person would go away for at least
as long as Bond, and maybe longer. What is the difference? Bond is "one of
us", and by that I mean those of us who run the show. He may be a crook,
but he is presentable (for which read "he fits our class" or "he is
clubbable") and is therefore redeemable. While he is an extreme example,
the whole area of white collar crime provides less confronting, but equally
applicable, examples.
To me, the case against mandatory sentencing does not rest on its being
racist, because it isn't. However, it does partly rest on it being most apt
to be used by people that are racist. In this case, as I ask for guns,
given that it may be used to kill, is there an over-riding utility that
makes it necessary to allow it to be freely available? The answer to that
is "no". Mandatory sentencing violates basic human rights, and appears to
have no effect on the rates of crime. It is therefore not a necessary
remedy in the legal arsenal, and should be abolished. Not, to conclude the
analogy, because the legislation is racist, but because people are.
Graham Y
So, if the law is applied unevenly
----- Original Message -----
From: Trudy and Rod Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: RecOzNet2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Australia not breaching international treaties - PM
> 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/
>
-------------------------------------------------------
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/
