Soft on Crime

[Lewkowski]

Didn't you post this back in September when it was first published? This is a woman with a lifelong history of psychiatric illness and trauma. She should've been sentenced to psychiatric care but was at least compelled to go complete a drug-rehab programme. I disagree, but I don't how enough about the case to have a well-founded opinion. She lost the right to have unsupervised visits with her children. She was given a suspended sentence, which means any further criminal offenses of any kind will see her in jail. While what she did was abominable, it was less abominable than many other examples of child abuse, and, so far as the court was able to ascertain, not sustained over time. You had two wife-beaters in prominent positions at your White House--and have elected a man almost certainly guilty of multiple sexual assaults as your president--and you want to talk about Australia being soft on crime? Gimme a break.

The difficulty in a justice system is the problem of people not guilty of things going to prison. However once we realize beyond a shadow of a doubt (like in this case) we should completely separate them from society. This person harmed a child. Lied about. Taunted the father of said child afterwards.

Why do you I feel that you would be singing a different tune if it was a man who attacked the child, got a light sentence and then taunted his ex-spouse?

[Aimless]

Why do you I feel that you would be singing a different tune if it was a man who attacked the child, got a light sentence and then taunted his ex-spouse?

I dunno, because you have a habit of believing stupid things? Most plausible explanation.

[GGT]

The difficulty in a justice system is the problem of people not guilty of things going to prison. However once we realize beyond a shadow of a doubt (like in this case) we should completely separate them from society. This person harmed a child. Lied about. Taunted the father of said child afterwards.

Why do you I feel that you would be singing a different tune if it was a man who attacked the child, got a light sentence and then taunted his ex-spouse?

Because your opinions regarding guilt or innocence aren't reliable or consistent. And your ideas about punishment are arcane.

You're the guy that started a thread bemoaning the lack of 'Due Process' for men accused of sexual impropriety, as if they'd be exonerated or excused for their dalliances outside a court of law because boys will be boys, huh.

You talk about being soft on crime, but you won't consider sensible limitations to the 2nd Amendment?

[Lewkowski]

You're the guy that started a thread bemoaning the lack of 'Due Process' for men accused of sexual impropriety, as if they'd be exonerated or excused for their dalliances outside a court of law because boys will be boys, huh.

What are you even talking about and how is it at all relevant to this topic?

[GGT]

What are you even talking about and how is it at all relevant to this topic?

Hey, you started this thread, posted a link with pictures, and named the title. "Soft on crime". I might have taken you seriously if you'd said the same thing for victims without picture proof, like the minor children victimized by abusive teachers or priests or athletic doctors, but you didn't. No, you just went to the latest, most spurious thing you "heard" from Fox, or other alt-right sources.

Shame on you

[EyeKhan]

The difficulty in a justice system is the problem of people not guilty of things going to prison. However once we realize beyond a shadow of a doubt (like in this case) we should completely separate them from society. This person harmed a child. Lied about. Taunted the father of said child afterwards.

In this case, why should she be completely separated from society?

I ask because of the apparent circumstance. If her crime is rooted in mental illness and having un-supervised access to her child, then the judge's order that she receive psychological treatment and be banned from unsupervised visits with the child seems to address the source of the trouble. As for taunting her ex, that's not really a crime - it just shows that she's fucked up and shouldn't be alone with her child, which was already addressed.

The cost of sending her to prison is very high and I don't believe it should be paid unless it's necessary. And "I hate what she did and want her to suffer" is insufficient to call a necessity. If you really want to spend tax dollars on her, send her to a mental hospital where she could come out a contributing member of society.

[Lewkowski]

In this case, why should she be completely separated from society?

I ask because of the apparent circumstance. If her crime is rooted in mental illness and having un-supervised access to her child, then the judge's order that she receive psychological treatment and be banned from unsupervised visits with the child seems to address the source of the trouble. As for taunting her ex, that's not really a crime - it just shows that she's fucked up and shouldn't be alone with her child, which was already addressed.

The cost of sending her to prison is very high and I don't believe it should be paid unless it's necessary. And "I hate what she did and want her to suffer" is insufficient to call a necessity. If you really want to spend tax dollars on her, send her to a mental hospital where she could come out a contributing member of society.

Multiple reasons.

1. She has shown no remorse.
2. She has shown the capability for violence against those who can't defend themselves.
3. Harsh punishments work as a deterrent.
4. Just because the crime was against a child doesn't mean she wouldn't do other crimes to other people.
5. She lied to the authorities.

All of this paint a picture that she needs to have the book thrown at her for the good of society. Once we have identified the shit stains of society we should be doing everything we can to keep them away from the good law abiding citizens.

[EyeKhan]

Multiple reasons.

1. She has shown no remorse.
2. She has shown the capability for violence against those who can't defend themselves.
3. Harsh punishments work as a deterrent.
4. Just because the crime was against a child doesn't mean she wouldn't do other crimes to other people.
5. She lied to the authorities.

All of this paint a picture that she needs to have the book thrown at her for the good of society. Once we have identified the shit stains of society we should be doing everything we can to keep them away from the good law abiding citizens.

1. Irrelevant and does not justify the cost of imprisonment

2. She hurt her child, probably because she can't deal with the stress of caring for a toddler. She is mentally ill, this is what the treatment is for. This is not a justification for the cost of imprisonment.

3. No they don't. And especially not for this kind of crime - mentally ill parent abusing her child. As a justification for imprisonment, this is literally stupid.

4. Punishing for possible future crime, now? She beat her toddler with a serving spoon because she has some inability to deal with her anger. Imprisonment is not a solution for such a condition. Mental hospital, maybe.

5. What, she denied beating her baby? That's an extra crime, on top of beating the baby, that justifies prison time?

Dude, just admit it. You think what she did was horrible and you don't know any other way to respond other than hurting her. You want the government to hurt her for no other reason than you abhor what she did. Period.