Useless legal system

[Novocaine]

But isn't that where it usually starts? Recreation? What happens when the user becomes tolerant to the joint after work and wants more or something stronger? What defines the threshold at where it goes from recreational to something we should consider locking someone up for?

[Drakand]

I should have checked this more frequently so I could respond to my responses.

@Nekosan, I live in Townsville so yes, Nth Qld is where I live and work. The issue with locking young kids up is not just about human rights and also the legal system having very little control or power over children under about the age of 11yrs old but also that putting kids into juvie means they are 24/7 (for duration of imprisonment) around other children which they then learn knew things to do or gain further accomplices/make connections within this community of juvie attendees. This can lead to further criminal experience.

Drugs is something that I don't know a huge amount about but the fact that it is becoming more and more available for younger and younger groups of people is really concerning however there is a lot of programs in place to try and control drugs. I guess the main issue is that the importers of drugs are continually thinking of new ways to bring stuff into Australia and the only way the enforcement groups find out is when they happen to hear about a new method and follow up from there.

The points earlier about parents failing or sometimes losing control, i'm sorry I don't remember who posted that, that is often the case. I know of a case where a mother has a child who abuses her regualarly. Cops won't get involved because child is only 13yrs of age, DV doesn't take it into account because it is a child abusing his mother. Mother can't afford to leave the home and take the two younger siblings with her, can't kick the child out because he breaks back in and child protection won't take him because the child isn't the person in need of protection.. Do you have a suggestion for resolving this situation? If the child was able to be charged and thrown into prison, do you think that would help or do you think that putting the child among other serious offenders would only have a harmful impact?

thoughts?

[Bato]

You can't really compare hard drugs to alcohol like that, when prohibition was enacted it was a given that the majority of the male population were regular drinkers, drug addicts make up a far smaller portion of society and illicit drug use is already "underground".

Hum, yes. Yes we can.

Alcohol is as potent as heroin, as a drug.

[RaTTuS007]

You can't really compare hard drugs to alcohol like that, when prohibition was enacted it was a given that the majority of the male population were regular drinkers, drug addicts make up a far smaller portion of society and illicit drug use is already "underground".

Hum, yes. Yes we can.

Alcohol is as potent as heroin, as a drug.

Agree with that, and can bet there's more alcohol related crime than heroin related crime.

[HandsomeSandwich]

Drug addiction is curable and a broken egg isn't so that doesn't make sense.

Addicts don't just wake up one day cured, much like chronic alcoholics many drug addicts will spend the rest of their life fighting their addiction (even if they aren't using). People can't just "go back" to what they were before becoming an addict.

Everyone who was addicted to a narcotic is living life on the edge one stumble away from re-addiction - Ok so now you are just making stuff up.

Yeah there is no organised crime syndicates and massive narco trafficking in South East Asia, you are correct. Draconian laws have created a drug free Asiaaaaoooh wait a minute...

Of course there is organized crime and drug trafficking still, SEA countries have some of the most corrupt and ineffective police forces/governments in existance. Compared to 20 years ago places like Malaysia have improved dramatically, expecting one change to eliminate all drugs when the entire system is broken is a little silly.

Just like thinking you can eliminate drugs to begin with is a little silly.

Taking the cheaper option and then saying it's better because it's cheaper isn't really a valid argument,

It's better because it produces the same outcome and cost less to do so.

fighting supply is only going to be more effective if the program has the funds and the people in charge have the dedication to do it right, to solve the problem you need to target the supply and doing that properly is going to be MUCH more expensive than the alternative.

However fighting supply is a fantasy that has and will never work so you can either go with viable options or continue with ineffective ones.

If the problem is going to go away we need to put some serious money and effort into it rather than just short term fixes, long term change cannot be enacted by using the cheapest method every time, sooner or later something like this needs to be done right rather than being the usual government circlejerk.

The 'problem' here being that illegal narcotics aren't actually a problem at all.

When they tried to target the supply they had the right idea, they just didn't go as far as is needed for that route to succeed.

When you target the supply you kill 100,000s of people. That doesn't sound like the right idea to me.

Nobody really cares if you want to smoke a blunt after work to relax, using substances like meth, coca derivatives and opiates are dramatically different. I'm talking about hard drugs, not pot or the random substances you drop when you go to a rave.

They really aren't that different at all.

[Nekosan]

You can't really compare hard drugs to alcohol like that, when prohibition was enacted it was a given that the majority of the male population were regular drinkers, drug addicts make up a far smaller portion of society and illicit drug use is already "underground".

Hum, yes. Yes we can.

Alcohol is as potent as heroin, as a drug.

Agree with that, and can bet there's more alcohol related crime than heroin related crime.

I was referring to widespread use and the fact that one is illegal and the other isn't, saying that there's more alcohol related crime actually reinforces my point.

I should have checked this more frequently so I could respond to my responses.

@Nekosan, I live in Townsville so yes, Nth Qld is where I live and work. The issue with locking young kids up is not just about human rights and also the legal system having very little control or power over children under about the age of 11yrs old but also that putting kids into juvie means they are 24/7 (for duration of imprisonment) around other children which they then learn knew things to do or gain further accomplices/make connections within this community of juvie attendees. This can lead to further criminal experience.

I never said put them in juvie, i said lock them up overnight if they're breaching curfew. Done correctly a kid doesn't need to have contact with anyone, you put them in a single cell with a bed and shuttle bus their asses home at 6am or something similar, locking them up for a long period will only have negative affects ( as you mentioned).

Drugs is something that I don't know a huge amount about but the fact that it is becoming more and more available for younger and younger groups of people is really concerning however there is a lot of programs in place to try and control drugs. I guess the main issue is that the importers of drugs are continually thinking of new ways to bring stuff into Australia and the only way the enforcement groups find out is when they happen to hear about a new method and follow up from there.

There are only so many ways to hide 400kg of heroin in a shipping container, these people are VERY resourceful but we live on an island... border security should be pretty damn important to us (it doesnt seem too hard to pick up every refugee boat that comes).

Do you have a suggestion for resolving this situation? If the child was able to be charged and thrown into prison, do you think that would help or do you think that putting the child among other serious offenders would only have a harmful impact?

thoughts?

Programs similar to the bootcamp/outback survival courses you see on tv would be a start, they're very effective and and much cheaper than some alternatives.

It might not be a popular view but i think free condoms for everyone, legalizing abortion and removing things like the baby bonus would be a great start, too many retards have children who don't really want them and aren't socially or financially equipped to support them. Buying that plasma screen tv with your baby bonus check must feel like it was a terrible idea once these people realize what they're stuck with.

Sure there are plenty of parents out there who (through no fault of their own) find themselves in situations where their kids end up running wild but from what i've seen the majority of little monsters have parents who just don't give a **** (although removing the dole payments of parents whose kids don't go to school helped).

There are too many benefits out there for people who are content to do nothing and have the government pay them and too few for battlers who try their hardest and can't make ends meet, hell I had a friend recently attend a TAFE pre-apprenticeship course where more than half the class turned up for one day a week (the day that they had to attend to get paid), the government paid for their course and paid them to not attend it (and half of them were from PNG), how does that make any sense?



I'm not even going to bother responding to HandsomeSandwich, there's no point when someone has a pro drug view and just doesnt read what you write.

[FryzieDelta]

The points earlier about parents failing or sometimes losing control, i'm sorry I don't remember who posted that, that is often the case. I know of a case where a mother has a child who abuses her regualarly. Cops won't get involved because child is only 13yrs of age, DV doesn't take it into account because it is a child abusing his mother. Mother can't afford to leave the home and take the two younger siblings with her, can't kick the child out because he breaks back in and child protection won't take him because the child isn't the person in need of protection.. Do you have a suggestion for resolving this situation? If the child was able to be charged and thrown into prison, do you think that would help or do you think that putting the child among other serious offenders would only have a harmful impact?

thoughts?

Clearly the mother is afraid of her kid. That's an instant loss of control. She needs to make that kid respect her authority as his parent, set an example. A sudden power swing is what is needed in that household.

If I ever have a kid that winds up heading down that path, he/she will be smacked back down into their place very quickly.

The 'problem' here being that illegal narcotics aren't actually a problem at all.

Wat?

[Nekosan]

Clearly the mother is afraid of her kid. That's an instant loss of control. She needs to make that kid respect her authority as his parent, set an example. A sudden power swing is what is needed in that household.

If I ever have a kid that winds up heading down that path, he/she will be smacked back down into their place very quickly.

The problem is that there are situations where that can't work, how exactly does a 5ft tall 40kg single mother deal with a 6ft 80kg violent teenager? Some parents genuinely need and want help but it isn't available with the programs the government currently provides funding for.

[FryzieDelta]

how exactly does a 5ft tall 40kg single mother deal with a 6ft 80kg violent teenager?

And this kid is 13 years old?

[Nekosan]

how exactly does a 5ft tall 40kg single mother deal with a 6ft 80kg violent teenager?

And this kid is 13 years old?

Teenagers can get big these days

[FryzieDelta]

Wait a second, you're not even the person I was replying to!

Or are you the same person

Those measurements can't be right, or did she give birth to Eric Banner?

[Drakand]

Unfortunately the child is 13 but is sizeably bigger than his mother. The other issue is that if the mother does do something more than open-handed slap the child then the child can contact Child Safety and bring that extra kettle of fish into the situation, which an upset child can do when they want to punish mum and know that child safety is more likely to believe a child than a parent.

@Nekosan, sorry about the not reading your post properly, a night in watchhouse could actually be good, definately agreed that juvie is not the best outcome.

Baby bonus payment is now a fortnightly smaller payment, no longer the big cheque that used to get paid out. Around the time all the stories came out about plasma tv purchases being reason for babies being born the govt changed it so there is a slightly larger payment up front (about $600 ish) and then fortnightly payment (between $300-400) from then on.

Not sure which 'government' is paying for the course. International students don't get Centrelink payments. Permanent residents get Centrelink payments and there isn't a particular 'day' that must be attended to get classes. If we are notified by institutions that someone is not attending their classes then Centrelink will review and often cancel student benefits.


There really aren't that many 'bludger' payments. Most payments now required participation to receive the benefit. About the only payment that doesn't require participation is Age, Disability (which is quite hard to get on, getting harder every year, many more disabled people on jobsearch payments with reduced requirements but still having to work or look for work) and parenting payment when children are not at prep or school (because parents are caring for kids FT).

The number of times i hear from someone about a 'friend who has bludgers getting paid for nothing' or 'a friend of a friend of a friend -repeat' who heard this about Centrelink payments that are actually true are very minimal.

[Dean]

Unfortunately the child is 13 but is sizeably bigger than his mother. The other issue is that if the mother does do something more than open-handed slap the child then the child can contact Child Safety and bring that extra kettle of fish into the situation, which an upset child can do when they want to punish mum and know that child safety is more likely to believe a child than a parent.

@Nekosan, sorry about the not reading your post properly, a night in watchhouse could actually be good, definately agreed that juvie is not the best outcome.

I went to a very interesting training session which an adolescent mental health worker discussed children bashing their parents. He advocated the children being locked up (JTC), tho he wasn't so keen on them receiving a custodial stint.

[Drakand]

Unfortunately the child is 13 but is sizeably bigger than his mother. The other issue is that if the mother does do something more than open-handed slap the child then the child can contact Child Safety and bring that extra kettle of fish into the situation, which an upset child can do when they want to punish mum and know that child safety is more likely to believe a child than a parent.

@Nekosan, sorry about the not reading your post properly, a night in watchhouse could actually be good, definately agreed that juvie is not the best outcome.

I went to a very interesting training session which an adolescent mental health worker discussed children bashing their parents. He advocated the children being locked up (JTC), tho he wasn't so keen on them receiving a custodial stint.

Not sure what JTC means, just to cool down perhaps? just a thought, anyway, the idea of a watchhouse night for these kids is something that is being bandied about but there is a fine line between justified imprisonment and the law has very little power when it comes to minors. Don't want to over-react and risk putting the child in danger inappropriately (juvie is not safe or appropriate in a lot of cases) or under-reacting and potentially causing further damage that way.

[Fred Ward]

I know a little about the legal system (but really do not want to).

1.The big end of town get better results because they can afford better lawyers.
2.Judges are not accountable, they let appeals (in criminal cases) sort themselves out. This is at great cost to those badly judged and lets dud judges rule forever.
3.Pilots can't fly if they are colour blind, but judges are OK with serious mental illnesses such as bi-polar is OK (I won't name names). While it might be fair for the judge to have meaningful employment, is it a fair trial appearing before someone with a disorder which effects concentration and decision making?
3.If you take on a bank or an insurance company, it is a civil case and there is no grounds for appeal due to a perverse decision (I know of a few). See Azzopardi v. Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 which is the High Court decision all others must follow.
4.There is no search for the truth.
5.Jobs for judges are not advertised, nor is there an appeal process for those unsuccesful. The current chief justice in NSW was not even a judge when appointed by the Liberal Party. The previous one was a former chief of staff to PM Gough Whitlam. The current State Coroner had little coroners experience before appointed to the top Coroners job, but was a labor party branch president.
6. Evidence is withheld from juries even though it is relevant.


This clip will show how, in NSW, people are literally getting away with murder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHFa30pD3N8