From: D Walford on 30 Jul 2010 03:59
On 30/07/2010 3:26 PM, John_H wrote:
> D Walford wrote:
>> On 30/07/2010 12:05 AM, Clocky wrote:
>>> You reap what you sow, rich or poor.
>> True but the punishment should fit the crime, if someone assaults or
>> robs someone their punishment is very likely to be less than the
>> punishment someone gets for spinning their tyres which doesn't make a
>> lot of sense.
>> The public have been calling for increased punishment for crims for
>> years but Govt isn't interested but they have no problem handing severe
>> punishment to car drivers.
>> You could beat up your wife and get a less severe punishment than a "hoon".
> The law courts punish crims, and may well take the perp's
> circumstances into account. In most cases police impose mandatory
> penalties prescribed by GovCo on car drivers.
> Are you calling for more police powers or less? :)
Penalties should be decided by a court and police should never be
allowed to be judge jury and executioner.
From: John_H on 30 Jul 2010 21:00
>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:13:34 +1000, John_H posited in:
>> The legal system isn't nearly as fucked as the politicians who make
>> the laws it has to work with!
>> Knives being the flavour of the day. Gillard's going to ban their
>> import. Abbott will give us harsher penalties and tougher policing.
>It's about self preservation.
>Notice how the 'prime targets' for any sort of attack in out society are
>very definitely the most vocal about gun and generally weapons 'control'?
>that included politicians of all flavours, the presstitites, academics who
>come up with absolute bullshit research merely to justify funding from
>fuckwits seeling to build an agenda etc etc...
The worrying part is that the sheeple believe half the politicians and
all of the rest!
In case you missed the inference... unless they're planning a knife
buyback and unform knife laws there's very little either Abbott or
Gillard can do about knife crime (or any other sort of crime that
involves the safety of the flock) since they're state issues.
Oh, and they can always blame the legal system when they're the sprung
(separation of powers and all that). Ever notice how the sheeple fall
for that one as well! ;-)
From: hippo on 30 Jul 2010 21:37
> D Walford wrote:
> >On 29/07/2010 7:58 PM, John_H wrote:
> >> Doug Jewell wrote:
> >>> John_H wrote:
> >>>> Doug Jewell wrote:
> >>>>> If they really want to seize motor vehicles from hoons, then
> >>>>> crushing is a stupid waste. If the vehicle is roadworthy
> >>>>> or very close to it, why not donate it to a charity, or sell
> >>>>> it and donate the proceeds?
> >>>> Highway robbery takes on a new meaning!
> >>>> How can you possibly condone theft by the state, especially over a
> >>>> relatively trivial traffic offence, when the same lot hardly ever
> >>>> manage to recover or confiscate the proceeds of real crime (fraud,
> >>>> theft, crooked share deals, bogus financial schemes, etc)?
> >>> I don't condone it at all. As I said in my post, but which
> >>> you trimmed in your reply, real crims often get smaller
> >>> sentences.
> >> I'm fully aware of what you said, but selling the car (in effect
> >> stealing it and using it or the sale proceeds) is an entirely seperate
> >> issue to sentencing the offender. Plenty of crims are sentenced for
> >> their crimes while the proceeds of their crimes are seldom
> >> confiscated, either because the state doesn't have the will or the
> >> legal powers.
> >>> But, if siezing motor vehicles is going to happen, then far
> >>> better that they actually put it to a decent use rather than
> >>> just wasting it.
> >> What you still seem to be saying is that stealing the offending item
> >> (dangerous car, deadly weapon, instrument of crime, or however you
> >> might see it) is preferable to destroying it. A rough analogy might
> >> be a savage dog that bites some innocent kid. Destroying it is
> >> usually seen as justifiable but selling it on and pocketing the
> >> proceeds, or even handing it over for medical research, certainly
> >> wouldn't be.
> >> A better analogy might be Israel bulldozing terrorists' houses, which
> >> gets them plenty of flak but surely it would be vastly more immoral if
> >> they were to evict the terrorists and sell their houses. There's an
> >> underlying moral issue here, you and others seem to be missing, and it
> >> probably harks back to the days when convicted felons forfeited their
> >> property to the king who ruled over 'em.
> >> Or is it just me? :)
> >Seems that way, I don't understand your argument.
> >I agree taking someone's property is a very harsh punishment and doesn't
> >fit the crime but if that is to happen it makes no sense to me to
> >destroy that property.
> >In either case the owner looses their property so how its disposed of
> >shouldn't make any difference to them.
> There's a huge difference if you care to think about it!
> Confiscating and/or destroying a crim's tools of trade is a long
> established practice. Graffitists (is that a word?) loose their spray
> cans, druggies have their bongs taken away, illegal fisherman and
> smugglers have their boats burned, etc, etc. Most people would have
> no problem with the principle, except crushing someone's car for a
> minor traffic offense seems pretty harsh IMHO, but at least it's not
> without precedent.
> OTOH the state's powers to seize property for its own gain were
> severely curtailed by the Magna Carta... even if it did only stop the
> state from robbing the barons. IIRC it didn't prevent the barons from
> robbing the serfs (that came much later) but it still has to seen a
> quantum leap forward. :)
> No modern democratic state has the powers to seize property for it's
> own gain, at least not to any extent, and nor should it. Even the
> power to recover the proceeds of crime is limited... it'd be a
> minefield if it weren't.
> IMHO the principle of GovCo seizing someone's car and selling it for a
> traffic offence is no different to seizing a house and selling it
> because someone smoked dope within its walls!
> Where's all the legal minds when you need 'em most? :)
Is Magna Carta the tow truck that takes them away to the crusher? :)
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: Mr.T on 31 Jul 2010 02:06
"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
> > Since when have politicians made any sense?
> Since never but they are making even less sense in this case.
Is that possible? Just making none at all as usual it seems.
From: PHATRS on 1 Aug 2010 22:08
On 29/07/10 17:40, George W Frost wrote:
> "Atheist Chaplain"<abused(a)cia.gov> wrote in message
>> "PHATRS"<stoptryingtosp(a)m.me> wrote in message
>>> VicPol have been crowing about the crushing of the first "hoon's" car in
>>> Victoria, and even have a video of it :
>>> Seems like a terribly irresponsible waste of resources to me, and a very
>>> childish punishment too.
>>> They could have at least given it to TopGear to be destroyed by the army,
>>> or at least dropped it on a caravan from a great great great height.
>> you do realise that the car was first given to the Vic rescue service to
>> practice on, so it was effectively put to good use IMHO
> The SES used it for practice and cut the door pillars so that it couldn't
> have been used again anyway
What else did they damage?
Nothing? Still could have sold it to a wrecker.