Thread: Oz Crime Show last nite

Originally Posted by mudmouse

You got me John The rosie spectacles are a favourite but that was also before the summary offences legislation was largely repealed - you used to get locked up for being intoxicated in public, now it's just tolerated . It's pretty hard to get a full time gaol term these days and when they do, they really deserve it. I'm surprised to read the per capita rate of incarceration is higher now than in the '70's. Maybe if the summary offences act and size 10 legislation were still about and effective, the problems would stop there rather than letting the punters keep pushing the boundaries.

There are a lot of people locked up for relatively short periods, I think mainly related to offences related to drugs, typically possession or burglary. These short termers are the vast majority in prison - problem is, they keep coming back! And the gradual change in the last ten or fifteen years to "truth in sentencing" has meant that they are on average in longer, even if the sentences are lighter. (one of my neighbours ten kilometres away nearly lost his house in the January fire - it is unoccupied while he is a guest of Her Majesty - he got about three years for some illegal crops largely for his own use, and it wasn't the first time)

Major crimes like murder are pretty stable from what I've heard (with short term fluctuations), although one of the problems is that the rate of reporting of some crimes has little to do with their frequency, so that an apparent increase in a crime might simply mean there is better reporting (and vice versa). Murder is probably one of those crimes which is reported pretty fully - a body or some one missing always needs explaining (same for serious assault), whereas a lot of property crime is not reported for various reasons, including that the victim doesn't expect anything to be done same applies to rape, where some suggest the reporting may be as low as 10%, and of those reported the conviction rate is pretty low too. Which may be for several reasons - the obvious one is that a lot of the reported rapes (and the ones not reported) are not really rape, but another possible reason is that both the victims and juries view the potential sentences as excessive, and are reluctant to report or convict - this is a drawback of harsh sentences!

I don't know what the answer is, but I suspect that a good start would be to crack down on juvenile offenders by making parents in some way responsible.

One interesting point I heard recently, which probably applies in any other part of the law as well - according to the police minister a couple of weeks ago, 75% of drivers in NSW have never had a point deducted - in other words, 100% of offenders come from 25% of drivers - and I would guess that of that 25%, probably 75% of offenders come from 5%!

I know that locally a single arrest has been known to reduce the burglary rate by 90% for six months!

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

While I share your views on lawyers in politics - I suspect that your view of the past is a bit rose coloured. Current prison numbers, in NSW at least, is the highest it has ever been as a proportion of population. This is one of the reasons why judges are reluctant to impose long sentences - the parole boards, faced with space shortages in prisons, will just let them out again.

John

I bet the figures for 1788 to 1840 would disagree

In NSW the government has just announced that Police will issue on the spot fines for "minor" offences such as wait for it shoplifting.
I wonder how many of those fines will be paid.
DOH!
They cannot even keep up with unpaid traffic tickets.
Regards Philip A

Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus

Maybe not...
High proportion of the population were convicts
But how many were actually in prison?

Number of convicted felons to population would be high

I think you are absolutely correct - very few convicts were in prison, basically only the ones who re-offended once in NSW. Most of them were "ticket-of-leave" men (and as today, overwhelmingly men!).

John

I saw the show and it sickens me to know that good tax dollars are used keeping these mongrels alive. He should have been dragged out into the street and given some of his own treatment.

Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus

Hmmm....the trouble with that is that it puts you on the same level as the perpetrator of the crime

But Gee, you would feel better afterwards!

sorry but i think that they should bring back the death penalty.....especially for these types of offences. in this day and age and with the technology available to ensure the identity of the perpetrators they can't get it wrong like they sometimes used to.positive dna id should be enough to ensure they never see the light of day again............!

I'm not keen on the death penalty, as NM says it brings us down to their level.

Having said that I've given it some thought and I reckon they should bring in lobotomies for repeat offenders of serious crimes and then use them as labour to clean up the roads or other menial tasks.

They're not dead so we aren't lowered to their level, they're doing something useful for society and they are unlikely to repeat offend again