Why not try prison?

So the Queensland government wants to introduce lifetime pub bans following ‘alcohol fuelled violence’.

Violent pub patrons could face lifetime bans under a proposal flagged by Queensland’s Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie.

Mr Bleijie says he “suspects” that measures to crack down on alcohol-fuelled violence will be introduced early next year.

Along with the lifetime bans for patrons who become violent, the Attorney-General is considering identity scans for everyone entering licensed venues.

Yep – so you go out, get tanked, and then beat someone up, and you can’t go back to the pub. Ever. That will show them.

Send violent criminals to jail. For a long time. Dress them in pink suits and leg-irons. Make them pick up garbage on the side of the highway.

This entry was posted in State Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

132 Responses to Why not try prison?

  1. JohnA

    Lifetime pub bans?

    Certainly. There are quite a few pubs I would like to see banned.

  2. Makka

    In addition to having them banned from drinking in public establishments, this too suites just fine;

    “Send violent criminals to jail. For a long time. Dress them in pink suits and leg-irons. Make them pick up garbage on the side of the highway. ”

    No. Sympathy.

  3. steve

    Ah, this causes the next discussion – What is a prison for in the mind of the comrades?

  4. With this we’re halfway to solving the problem.
    Start punishing the wrongdoers. For one, I am sick to death of being blamed for the ill manners & violence of all of society. I’ve been getting the blame for years, and am thoroughly sick of it.

    Doofus O’Farrell in NSW may wish to have a look at something similar, instead of his current stupid, harebrained, idiotic policies.

  5. Gaol the bastards. For a long time. I agree wholeheartedly. Why is Attorney-General Bliejie being so soft all of a sudden?

  6. Noddy

    Nah… bring back the stocks… some public humiliation, piss on them and empty the garbage under their noses with a few cuts of the rattan the second line of defence… they will not be back!

  7. Michel Lasouris

    I like the idea of REAL civic duties for offenders. Especially cleaning up the environment. The garbage you see along roadsides is a bloody disgrace. Sweet justice if the litterers are condemned to the clean-up squads.

  8. Gab

    Dress them in pink suits and leg-irons.

    And force them listen to Celine Dion 23 hours a day.

  9. The ‘victims’ aren’t forced to drink in pubs with a history of violence, they can choose to drink elsewhere.

    If you don’t want to be king hit, don’t drink in Kings Cross where the local council, publicans and police tolerate the presence of the criminally insane, released on parole, doped up to the eyeballs on impure drugs.

    The left exploit these events by organising ‘awareness raising’ stunts, where the proper response is to take your custom elsewhere.

  10. If you don’t want to be king hit, don’t drink in Kings Cross where the local council, publicans state government and police tolerate the presence of the criminally insane, released on parole, doped up to the eyeballs on impure drugs.

    By the number of brawny goons sentinel on the doorway of licenced premises in the Cross, I’m going to suggest the publicans there do not tolerate any rot.
    They have little control however, over what Doofus O’Farrell allows on the streets.
    I’m calling bullshit on your suggestion, Forester, that someone deserves to be king hit simply for being in the wrong suburb.

  11. Infidel Tiger

    People that give alcohol a bad name should be summarily executed. Drinking is the finest thing a man can do and to besmirch its good name is a capital crime.

  12. Sinclair Davidson

    And force them listen to Celine Dion 23 hours a day.

    or Billy Ray Cyrus.

  13. And force them listen to Celine Dion 23 hours a day.
    or Billy Ray Cyrus.

    Philistines! Those are music.
    Punishment would be to force them to listen to ACDC, or Micheal Jackson, or something.

  14. Gab

    Or both. Oh my Achy Breaky Heart.

  15. Tiny Dancer

    I don’t think he was suggesting that anyone deserved to be king hit. That’s a complete misrepresentation of what he said. Grow up.

  16. Fitter of East Melbourne

    Violent criminals should be flown at taxpayer expense, equipped with a survival kit, a parachute and an MP3 player with the soundtrack to South Pacific – but without passport – and dropped into some exotic locale where they will live out their lives unsupervised, free to beat up and be beat up.
    “There are a million islands in or near Oceania and you are going to one of them,” said the enlightened judge.

  17. srr


    QUEENSLAND is missing out on dirty cash seized from crooks because the Attorney-General does not trust police to decide who they charge.

    The “blue tape” around state money laundering charges means most hidden criminal profits are pursued under federal laws requiring money be split with the Commonwealth.

    Jarrod Bleijie last year flagged scrapping a state law that demands his written approval before detectives can swoop on suspected money launderers – but then decided it was “an appropriate safeguard”.

    It is understood police, who lobbied against the provision because it lumbered detectives with weeks of extra paperwork and months of delays, were given no reason for the backflip.

  18. stackja

    Send violent criminals to jail. For a long time. Dress them in pink suits and leg-irons. Make them pick up garbage on the side of the highway.

    NSW before Walker it was safe in the streets. I do not know about pubs at the time.

    You probably know him as “America’s Toughest Sheriff,”

  19. The Liberals are desperately in need of reform. This article shows that the Newman Liberal state government is as useless as all of the other Liberal state governments. Just look at the O’Farrell government’s response to bashing deaths on Sydney streets. It proposed to introduce a new ‘one punch’ law with a maximum sentence of 10 years, while the maximum for manslaughter is already 25 years.

    Like everything the leftist NSW government does, it was a Jim Hacker like attempt to hose down public outrage, while actually avoiding doing anything the slightest bit difficult. How about dealing with public drunkenness? How about reforming the justice system? How about minimum sentences? How about compounded sentences for repeat offenders?

    Take a good look at the record of Liberal state governments when it comes to renewable energy, anti-free-speech laws and star chamber tribunals, law and order, judicial reform, onerous land-use laws, and so on, and ask yourself whether kicking Labor out and putting the Liberals in has made the slightest difference to anything that matters.

  20. Andrew

    Let’s extend this fine concept to armed bank robbers – forget about prison, it’s no more branch banking for you, it’s phone and internet banking henceforth. That’ll surely make them suffer! ;-)

  21. Tel

    They have little control however, over what Doofus O’Farrell allows on the streets.

    The Streets of King’s Cross have been a rough place for more than a generation. Some of the violence has been on the streets but there are often fights inside pubs as well and indeed if you look at the case of Steven Dickson some of the deaths have been at the hands of the bouncers.

  22. srr

    Sorry, phone seems to have developed some sort of Stasiesque, Shut Up!, mind of it’s own. Here’s the link to the article my last post quoted from:

    http://m.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/attorneygeneral-jarrod-bleijie-flips-on-money-laundering-law-change/story-fnihsrf2-1226791600109

  23. Tel

    This article shows that the Newman Liberal state government is as useless as all of the other Liberal state governments.

    I think if you check the details, there is no Liberal Party in QLD.

  24. Riverina Matt

    Excessive consumption of alcohol should be treated as a aggravating factor when sentencing for any crime of violence. Use of drugs and/or alcohol should not be treated as a mitigating factor at all.

    We don’t need puritanical laws about drinking – the progressive removal of regulation of alcohol consumption from the 1950s onward (until Nanny Roxon) has been a significant gain for the cause of individual liberty – but there needs to be a change in the mindset of Australians regarding actions taken when drunk.

    The effects of alcohol are well known (even to teenagers) and knowingly getting yourself to a state where you are no longer in rational control of your own actions is an active choice – a choice for which you should be held accountable. Drinkers should be forced to take responsibility for their actions while drunk.

    If you are unable to control your violent urges, then you deserve all you have coming to you – and then some. Breaking a man’s jaw should get you 18 months minimum in prison – more if you are too drunk to control yourself. If you are responsible for a motor vehicle accident while drunk, the penalties increase – the same should apply to assault.

    Sob stories about ruining some young person’s life for something they did while drunk should be ignored. The rest of us deserve to be protected from drunken violence.

  25. jumpnmcar

    All the nightclubs in Mackay joined together with a id scanner at each door.
    If your on the list, fuck off.
    Don’t know who compiled the list, probably Judges after being given the punishment option by the club owners.
    No legislation required, just a mature solution formed by people with skin in the game.
    Win, Win.

  26. Thugs give beer a bad name. If you can’t handle your grog, then go to where there is no alcohol. Send them to prison and force them to watch others having a good time with beer. It would be the alcohol equivalent of this.

  27. Matt

    Excessive consumption of alcohol should be treated as a aggravating factor when sentencing for any crime of violence. Use of drugs and/or alcohol should not be treated as a mitigating factor at all.

    Here, here! The best comment I have read on this blog thus far.

    Treating alcoholic violence as a mitigating factor as far as the law is concerned is in effect a legal subsidy for that kind of behavior. If you subsidize something, you get more of it.

  28. Talleyrand

    Try ratan caning like Singapore, as a mandatory punishment on conviction of violent behaviour. Only a few strokes of flesh tearing intensity is required to permanently remind offenders.

  29. srr

    Bikies hey…never mind the politicians and unionists…

    On 2GB now, Michael Smith playing the interview with the unionist who GILLARD’S BOYFRIEND, BRUCE WILSON, SUPPLIED 25KG of EXPLOSIVES to, to use in Industrial TERRORISM.

    (reposted from the how to kill wasps thread)

  30. Johno

    Violent pub patrons could face lifetime bans under a proposal flagged by Queensland’s Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie.

    So a government that says it believes in property rights and freedom of association will be denying publicans the right to determine who they serve and who they will not serve.

    Maybe our new Freedom Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission should be investigating this breach of human freedom.

  31. A Lurker

    Send violent criminals to jail. For a long time. Dress them in pink suits and leg-irons. Make them pick up garbage on the side of the highway.

    Yup, totally agree. There would be no need for politicians to be heavy handed with laws if the judiciary actually did their jobs properly and put criminals away for real terms that were seen as being actual consequences, and dissuaded those* in society from breaking the laws in the first place.

    * Society will still be vulnerable from those in society so off their heads on drugs/booze or mentally deficient or deranged or simply born evil who will never ever consider consequences or fear the law. Run ins with those people comes simply down to the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, although consciously putting yourself in unsafe or precarious situations doesn’t help…

  32. jumpnmcar

    . Australian research indicates that over 40 percent of all assaults occur in or around licensed premises (McIlwain & Homel 2009).

    Sooo, just under %60 doesn’t.

  33. jumpnmcar

    Despite the attention that is often given to licensed premises, not all alcohol-related violence occurs within a public area. In fact, a significant proportion of alcohol-related assaults occurred within a private setting (Chikritzhs et al 2007). According to an analysis of NSW recorded crime data, more than one-third of assault incidents (38%) that were flagged as being alcohol related took place in residential locations

    Sooo, are bans for life going to apply to homes too ? Very similar percentages.

  34. gabrianga

    What utter tosh. The publican bars a rowdy customer.The rowdy customer turns up with a few mates a couple of weeks later and the publican tells him he is barred .”Barred” customer and mates then rip into publican and his pub. Publican, if able calls police who can’t find the assailant or his mates.

    Jail the drunks who refuse to obey the rules of the house and refuse to quit.

  35. JC

    I’ve never understood the leniency of courts towards violent crims. Violent crime ought to be treated with spiked gloves. No leniency and hard labor.

  36. Rabz

    And force them listen to Celine Dion 23 hours a day.

    And the highlights of the collected speeches of Julia Gillard for the other hour.

  37. Rabz

    People that give alcohol a bad name should be summarily executed. Drinking is the finest thing a man can do and to besmirch its good name is a capital crime.

    This.

  38. Paul

    Punishment would be to force them to listen to ACDC,

    They already do. It’s the favoured thing on the video-jukeboxes.

  39. cohenite

    Drunken violence and the inefficacy of the various legal systems to deal with it is a perfect demonstration of how left progressiveness has emasculated the legal recognition of personal consequence and responsibility.

    Things done when drunk should have at least the same legal effect as when done sober.

    After McNaughton a raft of organic based diseases, including drunkenness, which caused a disease of the mind, were recognised as producing sufficient diminished responsibility so as to vitiate the capacity to be held accountable for otherwise triable acts.

    However just being pissed was in itself not sufficient to escape culpability for an offence. In fact there is long precedent, starting with Aristotle, that intoxication should be regarded as an aggravating factor with commensurate increase in penalty.

    A distinction should be made however, between just being pissed and do something criminal when pissed. It will be a sorry day when just being in a turps induced state of mind is a criminal act.

  40. JohnA

    Matt #1128109, posted on December 30, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    Excessive consumption of alcohol should be treated as a aggravating factor when sentencing for any crime of violence. Use of drugs and/or alcohol should not be treated as a mitigating factor at all.

    Here, here! The best comment I have read on this blog thus far.

    Treating alcoholic violence as a mitigating factor as far as the law is concerned is in effect a legal subsidy for that kind of behavior. If you subsidize something, you get more of it.

    Plus 5 this OP, and Plus 2 for Matt. It is one of the many examples of “mitigating circumstances” and “impaired reasoning” defences which act to excuse and thus to encourage the wrong kind of behaviour.

    I agree that the legal principle should be that any alcohol or drug which affects a person’s mental state or behaviour, should NOT be allowed as a defence but as a contribution to the action which gave rise to the relevant charge/s.

  41. Baldrick

    Send them back to the Mission … oops!

  42. mareeS

    Pubs, police and local council authorities had to deal with this in Newcastle a few years ago, because the situation was so bad with king hits and drunken/drugged out assaults, young people (and some older people) were being killed or forever brain-damaged.

    It was the first “liquor accord” developed in Australia, similar to what has been suggested for Kings Cross. Includes ID scanners, lock-in/lock-out times from 1am, tougher private and camera security, more night police patrols, and to a great extent it has worked. Violent street assaults are down by nearly half.

    However, Steve from the Pub will possibly agree with a mate of ours who owns a city pub subject to these rules, the real problem isn’t specifically alcohol, it’s what people mix with it. Cops and hospital staff say the same. The ice and meth heads are the true out-of-control loonies, the angry and violent ones with wild eyes and inexplicable rage against anyone or anything.

  43. Zatara

    “….the Attorney-General is considering identity scans for everyone entering licensed venues.

    To me, the casual presumption that such big brotherism is legal, acceptable or desirable is the most frightening aspect of all.

  44. .

    Maree,

    Long hours
    Stressful jobs
    Summer heat
    Alcohol
    Testosterone (not enough women plus steroids)
    GHB
    Overcrowding

    That is a truly explosive mix.

    If you’re a big guy wearing a G-Unit shirt with bulging muscles and call people bro…you are less likely to get in anywhere.

  45. mareeS

    “identity scans for everyone entering licensed venues” already happens, as I mentioned above.

    It also happens at Australia’s international airports and all seaports (except, of course, at Christmas Island, where it very much should).

    It’s not big brotherism particularly, more a matter of where one person’s freedom crosses that of another person’s, or where the state takes a step too far. But that’s always been the conundrum. Buggered if I know, one way or the other.

  46. mareeS

    Dot, our son works in the environment of the first three, but fortunately he’s on a dry boat, so no alcohol during his swing, and while off swing he has a young lady to relieve one of the other stresses. No drugs because of mandatory testing. This is the reality of modern OH&S in the top end. He’s safer there than on the streets of his home town.

  47. jumpnmcar

    Send them back to the Mission … oops!

    Oops is correct.

    Alcohol-related violence in Indigenous communities;

    While the proportion of Indigenous people who consume alcohol is lower than the rest of the population, those who do consume alcohol do so at far more harmful levels (NDRI 2007).

  48. Jannie

    Governments that think of new things to Ban are just like frustrated socialists. They make up laws to target specific groups of people, kind of like the national socialists. I dont like them. There are plenty of friggin laws they can use to address violence. Maybe they just want to think up one that the judges like, and are prepared to enforce.

  49. The Pugilist

    Excessive consumption of alcohol should be treated as a aggravating factor when sentencing for any crime of violence. Use of drugs and/or alcohol should not be treated as a mitigating factor at all.

    Agreed. Contrast the treatment of someone who is affected by drink/drugs who hits another person with their fist breakers their car. In one case it is a mitigating factor, in the other it is an aggravating factor. Why?

  50. The Pugilist

    Damn phone…versus not breakers…

  51. jack

    simply put a leg bracelet on violent drunks.each month,the gps memory on the unit is checked against licenced premises.fined each offence.

    next step is to have a sweat/skin alcohol monitor on the leg bracelet.register positive for alcohol,get fined.

    finally,have a implant that trickles medication into the bloodstream that causes nausea when combined with alcohol.cure drunks without hassling normal people.

  52. 2dogs

    Why not try prison?

    It’s really expensive to keep people in prison. Any effective alternative should be welcomed.

  53. Rabz

    Things done when drunk should have at least the same legal effect as when done sober.

    Even more so. In most instances people wouldn’t behave like violent dangerous idiots if they didn’t drink and/or consume certain other intoxicants in the first place.

    The punishment should magnify the consequences of the decision, if the criminal act was carried out as a consequence of a decision to become intoxicated.

  54. Riverina Matt

    It’s really expensive to keep people in prison. Any effective alternative should be welcomed.

    If prison is of any use at all, surely it is to house people who have committed violent crimes. It may be expensive and of little value in rehabilitating the offender or deterring others, but at least one particular thug won’t be assaulting others while behind bars.

  55. H B Bear

    When did rubbish become garbage?

  56. The Pugilist

    If prison is of any use at all, surely it is to house people who have committed violent crimes. It may be expensive and of little value in rehabilitating the offender or deterring others, but at least one particular thug won’t be assaulting others while behind bars.

    Exactly right. Community safety seems to have fallen by the wayside. There was a great article in the Oz today about how the justice system focuses too much on the victim’s feelings. It isn’t about making victims feel better, rather the justice system should try to prevent reoffending by taking perpetrators of violent crimes off the streets…

  57. Chris M

    I’ve never understood the leniency of courts towards violent crims. Violent crime ought to be treated with spiked gloves.

    It’s all about the cost. In Australia prisons are very expensive to run so the the courts are pressured to levy fines as much as possible and only sentence when it is unavoidable.

    In general the courts in this country do not take violent crime very seriously unless it is extreme. Property crime is regarded by both the police and the courts as a non-event. Very different approach in the USA, one of the good things there. Housebreakers and home invaders often leave in a body bag generally with no legal problems for the home owner.

  58. Chris M

    It’s really expensive to keep people in prison. Any effective alternative should be welcomed.

    Yes. The effective alternative is to make the prison cheaper to build and run. I previously proposed a large tent-city low security prison out the back of Woomera rather like Joe Arpaio does it in Arizona (prisoners erect their own tents etc). This could be a good earner for the SA government, take all the trash from other states for an nice annual fee.

  59. incitatus

    Give their love of violence full self expression by drafting them into the next gladiatorial games. Sandals and tridents provided free of charge. A big prize for the winner (if the crowd gives the thumbs up). Online betting. A magistrate will absolutely relish a big pub brawl, as he can fill up next Saturday’s card.

  60. 2dogs

    The effective alternative is to make the prison cheaper to build and run.

    It’s certainly the case that our prisons are not efficiently sized. 500 prisoners per prison is typical, but economies of scale would have 5000 prisoners per prison.

  61. Tintarella di Luna

    Even more so. In most instances people wouldn’t behave like violent dangerous idiots if they didn’t drink and/or consume certain other intoxicants in the first place.

    The punishment should magnify the consequences of the decision, if the criminal act was carried out as a consequence of a decision to become intoxicated.

    Some of the worst and most violent crimes are committed by people who are drunk. It is the single distinguishing feature of so many serious offenders. Some of the crimes are horrific, senseless and brutal.

  62. Rob MW

    Sinc – and here I was thinking the whole point of the post revolved around the concept of the slippery-slope participating in this type of legislation, that being that it was already a criminal activity to be violent, when, after reading the comments apparently the post was really all about special State intervention to deal with special State violent drunks as opposed to any other sort of violent activity.

    No doubt it, when it comes to violence, the existing laws are most certainly inadequate, better bring some more special ones in and, why stop there /sarc

    Yep………I definitely missed the point !!!

  63. Rabz

    Thanks Tints – as a resident of inner Sydney, you’d get the message – as opposed to silly idealists existing in hippie hellholes elsewhere on this Continent.

  64. squawkbox

    I’m not convinced by the arguments about how expensive prison is. Sure, the barbed wire and warders cost money, but consider the opportunity costs. Joe Scumbag may cost the government $60k or more a year as a guest of the state, but Joe Scumbag on the current catch and release system favoured by our judiciary may well cost far more in terms of police and court time, to say nothing of his victims’ damages claims.

    Of course, that is the real reason for the current laxity in sentencing. A criminal safely locked up will not generate legal aid fees, while one on parole or on the loose will, and judges stick up for the fellow members of the legal profession. Any other profession behaving this way would be subject to a serious public enquiry.

  65. Riverina Matt

    after reading the comments apparently the post was really all about special State intervention to deal with special State violent drunks as opposed to any other sort of violent activity

    Holding people responsible for their actions while intoxicated is “special State intervention”? There should not be a new crime of “assault while drunk” merely a direction that drunkeness should not be considered a defence or a mitigating factor.

    ” I was drunk” being accepted as an excuse for thuggery is already seeing the state re-regulate liquor laws. I would rather see individual violent drunks held accountable rather than a return to 6 o’clock closing.

  66. dd

    ” I was drunk” being accepted as an excuse for thuggery is already seeing the state re-regulate liquor laws.

    It’s not an excuse for killing someone by drink driving.
    In that situation, alcohol isn’t a mitigating factor it’s an exacerbating factor.
    The logic we apply to drink driving should be applied to assault also. Drunks who assault people should be treated with the same contempt and suffer the same under the law as drink drivers who crash into people.

  67. jupes

    The logic we apply to drink driving should be applied to assault also.

    As it should to crimes caused while on drugs. Especially if it an illegal drug.

  68. rafiki

    Matt – Drunkenness was never a defence or excuse, but was sometimes used to successfully argue that the drunk did not have the intent to commit the crime. I think it true that in most, perhaps all, Australian jurisdictions this line of argument has been negated by statute. It is also most unlikely that being drunk is accepted as a mitigating factor in sentencing, but I’m not sure. Statutes commonly make the circumstances in which a crime is committed an aggravating factor (such as assaulting the police). There is no reason in principle why assaults in pubs might not be so treated. A problem (in terms of justice) arises where the accused is reasonably unaware of the aggravating circumstance (such as where they were unaware that it was a cop). Here endeth the lesson.

  69. .

    jupes
    #1128673, posted on December 30, 2013 at 11:32 pm

    The logic we apply to drink driving should be applied to assault also.

    As it should to crimes caused while on drugs. Especially if it an illegal drug.

    What you are agitating for is a hate crime law based on your personal preferences.

  70. rafiki

    Well yes, Dot, but is this not true of all changes to the criminal law? It is always a question of whose preferences are to prevail. (So long as the process for change is democratic, and that certain basic principles – such as the prosecution should prove intent and awareness – are observed).

  71. Luke

    “why not try prison”? Oh aren’t you smart. You’ve clearly been living under a rock for 30 years or never heard of the judiciary.

    Beat someone to death in QLD while drunk and you’ll get anywhere from nothing (or parole) to 8 years. Oh yes, I’m well aware of the actual maximum sentences for manslaughter and murder but they have little correlation to the sentences actually handed down by the judiciary. The attitude is that ‘what’s done is done. You can’t bring back the victim to life, so let’s focus on helping the offender then’.

  72. squawkbox

    You can’t bring back the victim to life, so let’s focus on helping the offender then’.

    Exactly, Luke, and if the offender is locked up for the term of his natural life, how will he generate more legal aid fees? Think of the poor suffering lawyers.

  73. jumpnmcar

    Exactly, Luke, and if the offender is locked up for the term of his natural life, how will he generate more legal aid fees?

    Appeal and appeal and appeal …………………………

  74. jupes

    What you are agitating for is a hate crime law based on your personal preferences.

    No dot, please concentrate. Assaulting people is illegal. Taking crack is illegal.

    Therefore if both crimes have been committed, the penalty should be greater than if only one of them has.

  75. I’m willing to bet good money that Jupes doesn’t have a fucking clue about drugs other than what he saw on A current affair.

  76. Blogstrop

    So far it’s all about treating the symptoms of societal breakdown, not the causes. Libertarians need to realise that freedoms should have limits, and I include all-night trading as something not conducive to a well-ordered society.
    The anything goes mentality has gone from freeing up sex in the 60s and 70s to freeing up family structures to near beagle levels, paying people to be unproductive via various social security and sit down monies extorted from the taxpayers, and letting too many people into the country who are unworthy and unwilling to be decent citizens.
    To fix things, it would be a long march back.
    You,re all tinkering around the edges.

  77. Libertarians need to realise that freedoms should have limits

    No, you need to realise that what other people do with their lives is none of your goddamn business.

  78. JC

    and I include all-night trading as something not conducive to a well-ordered society.

    Why? Have you even considered the fact that people these days have varied working hours and what may appear to you to be sleep time is actually work time for lots of folks.

    Furthermore, we don;t want to be a well ordered society. That’s fascism.

    I don’t, because I don’t like it, but if I want to get drunk and not in a position to harm others, it’s my fucking business.

  79. struth

    Blaming alcohol and not the person is particularly the problem here.
    The term “alcohol fueled violence” is a cop out.
    Live with this stupid leftism again in the northern territory where everytime you buy alcohol you must show I D. It is recorded as to what you bought and how often.
    You can’t buy certain types of alcohol at certain times of day, and you can’t get it in certain types of containers.
    The alcohol is to blame for all the violence with aboriginals around Alice.
    This is bullshit.
    Aboriginals have no future or hope and live under a corrupt aparthied left wing controlled system.
    So the society breaks down, and THEN they turn to alcohol.
    Looking at the real cause of the problem, would expose the failure of leftism.
    The left are busy blaming everything else, in effect blaming the results, not the cause.
    We need to look at why our young men and increasingly girls are so angry with society. We need to have a good look at why these young’ns that have been emotionally wrapped in cotton wool all their lives, can’t handle the real world and chuck drunk tantrums.
    It all goes back to leftism and the breakdown of society.
    Please believe that banning people from pubs, or bringing in alcohol restrictions will not work.
    Many people are banned from pubs in Alice Springs, it only takes the drinking out on the streets and the violence continues.

  80. Irrelephant

    Funny. In my morning blurryness I thought the headline was “why not try poison”.

    Come to think of it, why not?

  81. blogstrop

    what other people do with their lives is none of your goddamn business
    AS long as it doesn’t impinge on my life, but that’s not the case with the subject of this thread.
    As usual, Yobbo is all about Yobbo in a bubble of his own.

  82. .

    jupes
    #1128754, posted on December 31, 2013 at 12:46 am

    What you are agitating for is a hate crime law based on your personal preferences.

    No dot, please concentrate. Assaulting people is illegal. Taking crack is illegal.

    Therefore if both crimes have been committed, the penalty should be greater than if only one of them has.

    One of those is not properly considered a crime but a victimless crime.

    rafiki
    #1128725, posted on December 31, 2013 at 12:12 am

    Well yes, Dot, but is this not true of all changes to the criminal law?

    Indeed. The sooner we get back to a simple, well written, updated version of the crimes act in their original forms, the better.

    Libertarians need to realise that freedoms should have limits

    No. Not in a free society.

    and I include all-night trading as something not conducive to a well-ordered society.

    Rightly you could rpactice that in your own well-ordered shop.

    You are also talking nonsense. Sorry, but you are. The idea that kicking everyone out of the pub at 2-3am stops violence is absurd. It concentrates violent behaviour.

    If the pub closes when the most serious of drinkers are nearly passed out, there is an orderly exit through the night of people as they tap out.

    The anything goes mentality has gone from freeing up sex in the 60s and 70s to freeing up family structures to near beagle levels, paying people to be unproductive via various social security and sit down monies extorted from the taxpayers, and letting too many people into the country who are unworthy and unwilling to be decent citizens.

    To conclude that the IPA, CIS, LDP etc are full spectrum supporters of Whitlam and Greer is wholly offensive and stupid.

    struth speaks wisdom to well intentioned social engineering.

  83. .

    AS long as it doesn’t impinge on my life, but that’s not the case with the subject of this thread.
    As usual, Yobbo is all about Yobbo in a bubble of his own.

    If you decide to buy a flat near a pub that trades to 5 am, that shit is on you.

  84. Riverina Matt

    If you decide to buy a flat near a pub that trades to 5 am, that shit is on you.

    Horseshit. Owning a flat near a pub shouldn’t mean I should tolerate being beaten up by drunks. Drunk people don’t have some special licence to create a public nuisance. Drunk people vomiting, fighting, copulating etc. in the streets doesn’t have to be accepted as the natural way of things. Why do you think it should?

  85. Rob MW

    Riverina Matt @ #1128651

    With all due respect amigo, the ‘State’ already abrogated “Intent” at 0.05% of blood alcohol. This is to say that anything “Under” 0.05% can be considered with “Intent” but over 0.05% intent can be removed.

    Now here’s the thing………………the “State” already did that, they intervened by defining “Drunkenness” in the first instance. Without the use of intent, for example, murder can simply become manslaughter, so forth and so on. In other words, the “State” already fucked-up when it comes to alcohol fueled violence so now, in Qld, they are proposing yet more fucked-up laws that attempt to fix up other fucked-up laws. Do you get the drift ?

    All you need to do is to find out why “Intent” or ‘mens rea’ (actus reus) is so important in a criminal prosecution.

  86. Riverina Matt

    With all due respect amigo, the ‘State’ already abrogated “Intent” at 0.05% of blood alcohol. This is to say that anything “Under” 0.05% can be considered with “Intent” but over 0.05% intent can be removed.

    Read that twice and I am not clear on your meaning. Then again I am not a lawyer. Are you saying that the law says that a BAC of over 0.05% means that you can’t have a “criminal intent” in your actions? If so that seems to contradict Rafiki above at 11.46. Happy to be corrected.

    My proposal was that if you have knowingly consumed alcohol to a state where (you claim) you are no longer able to control your own actions, then you can’t hide behind your drunken state – this would include a defence on the basis of no criminal intent. Hope that is clearer.

    In other words, the “State” already fucked-up when it comes to alcohol fueled violence so now, in Qld, they are proposing yet more fucked-up laws that attempt to fix up other fucked-up laws. Do you get the drift ?

    I agree, the Queensland laws are stupid and counterproductive. Better to hold individual people responsible for their actions while drunk. Not sure we disagree at all.

  87. jupes

    I’m willing to bet good money that Jupes doesn’t have a fucking clue about drugs other than what he saw on A current affair.

    LOL

    Of course you are Yobbo.

  88. Steve at the pub,

    Yes, O’Farrell does have a lot to answer for and I defer to your better knowledge about pubs. I only frequent on-site-craft pubs.

    Lots of good suggestions here; picking up cane toads, cutting lantana, blackberry and Bitoo bush come to mind.

    We shouldn’t discount the cultural angle, I understand there are plenty of drunks safely wandering the streets of Tokyo and afternoon parties in Spain are quite safe compared to here.

  89. jupes

    One of those is not properly considered a crime but a victimless crime.

    So no one has ever committed a violent crime because they were on crack? Who knew?

  90. .

    Horseshit. Owning a flat near a pub shouldn’t mean I should tolerate being beaten up by drunks.

    Except, I never argued that, did I?

    If you buy a pub with extended trading hours, think it a bargain then are upset that it is noisy in the small hours – then that is on you.

    Quite frankly extended trading hours may be less disruptive then the “3 am floodgate” approach.

  91. Robert Blair

    This is a good example of a general trend – by not treating the criminal as a criminal (jail, leg iron), we wind up treating everyone like a criminal (everyone must be scanned to get into a pub).

    By not “profiling” at airports on the lookout for terrorists, everyone must be treated as a potential terrorist.

    The list of examples in endless – but the end result is that we all must be treated treated like mental incompetents, to avoid being mean to mental incompetents.

  92. .

    So no one has ever committed a violent crime because they were on crack? Who knew?

    If you accept this you accept the Twinkie Defence. You are also conflating the loss of inhibition with the costs of feeding an addiction to a drug whose price is inflated 10000% by prohibition.

    If someone committs a crime because of intoxication they voluntarily engaged in – their guilt is at least equal to a sober person doing it. Maybe it should be aggravated, but I’m not convinced.

    The idea you need to criminalise something because a small proportion of people knowingly lose their inhibitions whilst taking it is backwards.

  93. Riverina Matt

    If you buy a pub with extended trading hours, think it a bargain then are upset that it is noisy in the small hours – then that is on you.

    And who has complained about that? The discussion has been about drunken violence.

  94. Tiny Dancer

    There is no law or even a rule of thumb that greater than 0.05% BAC rules out intent. Dumbest thing I’ve read here in years, other than mOron or SfB. It’s a jury question.

    Secondly, intoxication can only be a defence to an element of intent within a charge and is not an excuse for an assault and doesn’t mitigate the sentence.

    Thirdly, banning people from entertainment precincts is unenforceable in most situations. It only works when they get caught.

    Fourthly, most violence takes place outside the pub not inside it. Sending people to jail for one crappy offence won’t stop them next time they get drunk. If it worked there would be no crime.

    Fifthly, it seems people get smashed at home, cheaply, before coming into these precincts. What are you going to do, barricade the joint? That’s why it’s unenforceable.

  95. .

    read what blogstrop wrote. He thinks libertarians live in a bubble. We don’t.

  96. Rob MW

    Riverina Matt – “Read that twice and I am not clear on your meaning.”

    Short of drawing pictures, under the current law one is “Drunk” at over 0.05% and “Not Drunk” at under 0.05% because the “State” said so. If one is defined by law as being “Drunk” after 3 Beers (or whatever) then “Intent” can be removed by consuming 4 Beers and simply by using the “State’s” very own statute definition to abrogate one’s actions.

    That’s what happens when the ‘Common Law’ is fucked around with, or as it is in the State of Qld, completely and absolutely removed thru statute.

  97. jupes

    You are also conflating the loss of inhibition with the costs of feeding an addiction to a drug whose price is inflated 10000% by prohibition.

    After you beclowned yourself with your only a “couple of hundred” Muslim terrorists in the world comment, my advice is to you is to stay away from stats. Your credibility is shot.

    People on crack suffer violent psychotic episodes that has nothing to do with stealing money to feed their addiction. Lowering the price by “10000%” would probably increase the number of crack heads and therefore crack induced violence.

  98. .

    No, my credibility is fine.

    There are not millions of Muslim terrorists. You refused to quantify this and then so only offered umbrage.

    Heroin is 100 times more expensive on the black market then the equivalent drug in a hospital.

    That is a fact.

    No statistics were mentioned.

    People on crack suffer violent psychotic episodes that has nothing to do with stealing money to feed their addiction.

    Which has very little to do with the overall drug related crime rate.

    Lowering the price by “10000%” would probably increase the number of crack heads

    By a small amount.

    and therefore crack induced violence.

    No, the net result would be less violence.

    Here is a primer for you:

    http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/thinking-about-drug-legalization

  99. jupes

    There are not millions of Muslim terrorists.

    Yes there are. Unless of course you claim members of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Taliban, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiah etc are just misunderstood freedom fighters.

    Regardless whether you care to believe that or not, your statement that there is only a couple of hundred Muslim terrorists in the world is probably the stupidest quote on this blog this year.

    Which has very little to do with the overall drug related crime rate.

    Lucky that the price is so high otherwise it would be.

    No, the net result would be less violence.

    Yeah right. Having more crack heads taking more crack will result in less crack induced psychotic violence. To paraphrase Frasier again: Tell me dot, what colour is the sky on the planet you live on?

  100. Peter56

    I disagree with the pink suits, especially if the prisoner is not of the homo, wrist flapping bent. If they are, pink suits it is. That would be a violation of the non homo, wrist flapper’s human rights, and we all know that in this day and age, human rights trumps everything else, even when some toerag has just blown up a crèche and killed 25 children.
    Treat prisoners with the basics of decency, food and decent, but not extravagant, living conditions (and yes, a tent with bunk beds and clean linens will suffice, and accommodations to be kept spick and span), one phone call a week, one visit a week (no touching at all), no computers, no modern technology (maybe a communal TV in a large room, any violence perpetrators are banned for a month), and a huge library full of many books, 1000s of them, of all genres, with full library accounting, meaning a library card, and that is it.
    Leg irons when out picking up litter, or reforesting or draining swamps, whatever work they must do to atone for their sins, and solitary confinement for transgressors of any of the rules of the establishment.
    But definitely no pink suits for non homo types. Think of all the paperwork the civil liberties parasites would hand in. Keep the prison staff relaxed and stress free, which excessive paperwork would not allow.

  101. rafiki

    What I posted above is generally correct (if I may say so). While at common law being drunk might raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused formed the intent to commit the crime charged, statutory reform has changed the situation considerably. The result is very complex; there is a good if a bit outdated overview in
    http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/73743ad740a21924ca2574f00018c766/$FILE/E-Brief%20Intoxication%20and%20the%20Criminal%20Law.pdf

    Being drunk at the time might, in some cases, be a mitigating factor regarding sentencing. The High Court said recently” “The circumstance that an offender has been raised in a community surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may mitigate the sentence because his or her moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way’. (Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 at [40]. This approach will most likely be applied in favour of Aborigines, but is of general application. (Interesting question: would this work if the offender was raised in a teetotal environment and was unaware of the effects of alcohol? I can’t see why not, but I suspect that the approach is a disguised and dishonest way or privileging Aborigines.)

    This qualifies some of what Tiny Dancer says, but I agree with his comments about Rob MW’s post.

  102. People on crack suffer violent psychotic episodes that has nothing to do with stealing money to feed their addiction.

    No, they do not. Like I said, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to drugs. And crack is extremely rare in Australia to the point where it’s ridiculous to discuss it. I’m betting you don’t even know what crack is.

    Cocaine can cause a form of psychosis, which usually manifests as paranoia. It doesn’t turn people into raging berserkers. You really have no idea.

    Caffeine can have the same effect, btw.

  103. .

    Lucky that the price is so high otherwise it would be.

    No, the net result would be less violence.

    Yeah right. Having more crack heads taking more crack will result in less crack induced psychotic violence. To paraphrase Frasier again: Tell me dot, what colour is the sky on the planet you live on?

    You just don’t understand this. This is not my fault. This does not make me delusional. This is because you are being a lazy thinker.

    The high price creates more crime. If the excise on tobacco wasn’t so high, there wouldn’t be chop chop.

    I am firmly on planet earth. You are severely ill informed.

    PS

    There are not millions of Muslim terrorists. Quantify or shut up.

  104. There is a commonly available drug that does make people violent aggressive on a regular basis though: Alcohol.

  105. FWIW, Australia has one of the lowest rates of cocaine use in the western world, because of the price. The street price of a gram of cocaine in Australia is $300-$400 a gram, as opposed to $50-$80 in the UK and even lower in the US.

    Despite this, we have one of the highest rates of drunken assaults.

    The recreational drug of choice in Australia is methamphetamine, because it can be manufactured locally and is much cheaper. It is far more dangerous than Cocaine. So, thanks to our laws and our efficient customs keeping cocaine off our island, Australian kids are taking a much more dangerous and psychoactive drug instead.

    Tell me again how this is a good thing?

  106. Rob MW

    Tiny Dancer: – “There is no law or even a rule of thumb that greater than 0.05% BAC rules out intent. Dumbest thing I’ve read here in years, other than mOron or SfB. It’s a jury question.”

    Total crap amigo. The drink driving laws statutorily define across all alcohol related offences what is and is not alcohol impairment which is and has been held by do-gooder experts. There’s your law and rule of thumb you fool. Either the bar is set too high or too low depending on your take, however, the common law would have no bar.

    Once this requirement has been met, acts and omissions only apply to the second part, the drunk part, and not the first part where one walked into the pub in the first instance. The question becomes, even for a jury; “When statutorily drunk, what is it that one could have done but failed to do so ?” – the answer is…. Nothing…… because one was, for the purposes of the law………. legally drunk and by extension, legally impaired and “mens rea” is now averted, which is one of the most important elements for a criminal conviction. Once that is gone even a jury has no choice. Maybe the same thing could apply to fools as well !!!

    The alternative being, and where acts and omissions apply, when one walked into the pub in the first instance he/she/they could have not consumed alcohol or simply turned around and walked out.

    The rest of your bullshit is just gibberish.

  107. Rob MW

    rafiki: – “This qualifies some of what Tiny Dancer says, but I agree with his comments about Rob MW’s post.”

    Bullshit. You have ‘Qualified’ nothing other than that in fact fools do flock together.

    Assuming as you have done with your ‘Qualified’ support that, and under the current emasculated laws, murder cannot in fact become downgraded to manslaughter, and manslaughter cannot in fact be downgraded to assault causing bodily harm, and assault causing bodily harm cannot be downgraded to drunk and disorderly resulting in nothing more than a good behaviour bond with a $50.00 fine is as about as ill-informed and stupid as one can get.

    It’s not a matter of what any judgement of the Court is, it is in fact what was put to the Court in the first instance………you know it’s called a charge sheet and any judgement only reflects what the charges were (are) and not not what they should be or should have been. Read all the judgements you like, idiots usually do, they are only specific to that specific charge(s) and case along with specific evidence.

  108. jupes

    Like I said, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to drugs.

    No of course not. But look what I learnt from A Current Affair:

    Violence has been associated with cocaine use. Cocaine-induced psychiatric symptoms undoubtedly contribute to the emergence of violence. In a study of 31 patients with cocaine-induced psychiatric symptoms, 55% had cocaine-related violent behaviors.7 In a telephone survey of 452 cocaine users, the following symptoms were reported: anger (42%), violence (32%), and suspiciousness or paranoia (84%).6 Violent crimes were committed by 46% of users, usually to get crack.6 In this same report, the authors discuss an additional study, which found that 26% of 200 crack users admitted to committing a crime while on crack; 95% of these crimes were violent.6 The authors of this report hypothesized that violent behavior associated with cocaine use is predictable based on the effects cocaine has on neurotransmitter dysfunction. Besides an increase in levels of neurotransmitters in the brain’s pleasure centers, dramatic change in levels of norepinephrine and serotonin in other parts of the brain might provoke aggression, hyperactivity, impaired judgment, and paranoia.

    Inhalation of crack cocaine has been found to produce a greater amount of anger and violence than intranasal use of cocaine.14 Similarly, daily use of crack cocaine has been associated with a greater number of illicit activities.15

    Homicide.

    Homicide also has been associated with cocaine use. In New York City, 31% of 2824 homicide deaths were found to test positive for cocaine or its metabolite, benzoylecgonine.16 A marked number of residents of New York City (27%) who had fatal injuries also tested positive for cocaine use. Fatal injuries secondary to homicide accounted for 29% of these victims.17 Concurrent drug use, including alcohol and marijuana, was cited as an additional factor in this report. Other cities have reported similar disturbing findings. One study found that 18% of homicide victims in New Orleans tested positive for cocaine.18 In Los Angeles, violent death occurred in 61% of individuals who died and tested positive for cocaine at autopsy

    Looks like your cheap and legal drug paradise is going to be a barrel of fun.

  109. jupes

    You just don’t understand this. This is not my fault.

    Well yes it is. I have made an argument which have failed to counter.

    There are not millions of Muslim terrorists. Quantify or shut up.

    Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Taliban, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiah etc

    Millions of the fuckers.

  110. Rabz

    Tell me again how this is a good thing?

    Tell me again why you’ve drawn some weird unrelated connection between alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamine?

    And before you start firing your cavernous gob off, I’ve lots of experience of the use of all three drugs identified above.

    I fail to see how cocaine being more freely available would benefit anyone in this country – or meth for that matter.

    Booze is a given. I know Gordian Fulde and he’s had some very interesting things to say about the availability of particular drugs at particular times in Sydney’s recent history.

    Making any currently illicit drug more freely available is a fool’s remedy to a non existent problem.

  111. It’s pretty simple Rabz. Methamphetamine and cocaine are substitute goods (although most would agree that Cocaine is superior). The higher the price of Cocaine, the more people will buy meth instead.

    Making any currently illicit drug more freely available is a fool’s remedy to a non existent problem.

    Only if you can manage to ignore 100 years of study of the negative impacts of prohibition with a straight face.

    Fool is indeed a very good word to describe someone who refuses to learn the lessons of the “noble experiment” (which was a spectacular failure, just like the current drug war).

  112. .

    Making any currently illicit drug more freely available is a fool’s remedy to a non existent problem.

    rabz I’m pretty surprised that someone with your analytical skills would come to that conclusion. Put simply, it is wrong.

    Now jupes you are telling us there is correlation. Very well.

    You are forgetting the mentally ill self medicate. Crack cocaine…I’ve never heard of anyone using that in Australia. Why would you use it if you could get cocaine anyway?

    Victims have it in their system…this should be a hint that illegality creates more crime than it prevents.

    The most important thing is, the murder rate in the US doubled when booze was outlawed. Your conclusion is wrong.

    PS

    You never quantified your claim. “Millions of the fuckers” doesn’t count.

    Looks like your cheap and legal drug paradise is going to be a barrel of fun.

    For the small proportion of people who will use drugs in addition to now. I’m surprised you don’t understand how the high price is the putative factor for crime.

    Not much more fun, but society will be a lot safer. There would be less violent crime – murders, robberies assaults and property crime.

    If you understand that the high rate of tax on tobacco creates the market for chop chop and the associated mafia violence we have here in Australia, then the there should be no justificaiton for the drug war.

  113. Empire Strikes Back

    You are forgetting the mentally ill self medicate. Crack cocaine…I’ve never heard of anyone using that in Australia. Why would you use it if you could get cocaine anyway?

    Freebasing cocaine was mildly popular here 10-15 years back.

    At USD300+ pg in Australia, cocaine is strictly a drug of the well heeled. The purpose of crack/freebase (there is a difference, but let’s keep it simple) is to “amplify and conserve” cocaine. It transforms a rich man’s drug into a poor man’s drug. Roll your own freebase is never going to be attractive in Australia when the primary ingredient is relatively expensive and there is an relatively affordable substitute in meth (locally mass produced from accessible precursors) .

    If there is a “market” for crack in Australia is currently satisfied by meth. Yobbo is right.

  114. I also find Rabz assertion of a “non-existent problem” a bit strange.

    You don’t think billions of dollars spent on law enforcement, providing a reliable income source to violent criminal organisations, and the imprisonment and hangings/shootings of Australian citizens for non-violent crime to be any kind of problem worth worrying about?

  115. jupes

    You never quantified your claim. “Millions of the fuckers” doesn’t count.

    Oh right. So unless I add up the members of every single Muslim terrorist group in the world, I’m wrong and you are right that there only a couple of hundred terrorists in the world. Oh wait, the Indons killed six terrorists yesterday so there are only 194 left. Hooray!

  116. Tel

    I would much prefer my neighbour gets high on cocaine and starts thinking he is God, rather than getting high on meth and thinking I’m the Devil.

  117. jupes

    Not much more fun, but society will be a lot safer. There would be less violent crime – murders, robberies assaults and property crime.

    In which case, Amsterdam would be a lot safer than Singapore. But it’s not.

  118. Theodore Dalrymple, “Sense and Sentimentality”:

    [A woman who had served a sentence of ten years in prison] used another argument that is rhetorically very effective but of very doubtful intellectual validity, to put it mildly. She said that, until you had lived experiences such as abuse and imprisonment you could not know or understand their effects. This is an argument often used by addicts in their grand effort to excuse themselves to themselves and to others.
    It is a banal truth that one cannot know the experience of others from the inside, as it were. You cannot know the sensation of skiing in this sense without having skied. But what is true of everyone cannot be made the grounds of a scepticism that is used only to excuse wrongdoing. Moreover, it cannot be true that, just because you have not had precisely the same experiences as someone else, you can form no estimate whatever of what those experiences are like. I cannot say that, because I have never been punched on the nose, I have absolutely no idea what it is like to be punched on the nose, whether it is pleasant or unpleasant, frightening or reassuring, likely or not to break my nose or make my nose bleed. Much less can I use the fact that I have not been punched on the nose, and therefore of not knowing what it is like to be so punched, as an excuse for punching someone else on the nose. In any case extenuation is not exculpation. We should make allowances, but not to the extent of denying altogether the difference between good and evil.
    Finally, the woman on the panel [on whether prisons work] said something that initially sounded well to the audience but on reflection was brutal, if unintentionally so. She said that everyone deserved a second chance, and there was much sage nodding in agreement. How pleasant it is to be so universally forgiving, especially of what has been done to others!
    But a moment’s reflection is all that is necessary to show that there are some people who should not be given a second chance. Had Himmler and Goebbels not committed suicide, would anyone have said they should be given a second chance? To take an example on a less world-historical scale, there was a jealous violent man in England not long ago who drugged his girlfriend and, while she was drugged, gouged out her eyes and rendered her permanently blind. Why should such a man be given a second chance, a scintilla of a chance? If you cannot imagine (after a recent century of such horrors as the Holocaust, Pol Pot and the Rwandan genocide) a crime so terrible that people who commit it forfeit their right to live as free persons in society, then your imagination has been brutalised to an astonishing degree – or you are ignorant to an equally astonishing degree.
    But if I had denied in public that everyone deserved a second chance I would most probably have been taken to mean that the woman on the platform should not have been released and should still have languished in gaol. And since she was there before us, a reformed and in many ways a sympathetic character, I would have seemed like a nasty, censorious, punitive sadist: and everything else I said could therefore have been dismissed on this ground.

  119. In which case, Amsterdam would be a lot safer than Singapore. But it’s not.

    Amsterdam is safer than Perth or Sydney though.

  120. jupes

    Amsterdam is safer than Perth or Sydney though.

    LOL. Except that it’s not.

    Amsterdam belongs to the European capitals with the highest per capita number of murders and other unnatural deaths.

    Amsterdam’s murder rate is 3.65 per 100,000 while Sydney’s is 1 per 100,000.

    Perhap’s you should watch A Current Affair more often. You might learn something.

  121. wreckage

    http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

    Decriminalisation of use and possession for personal use did not increase usage rates, but did decrease all the negatives of the “war on drugs”. Note that manufacture and sale remained illegal.

  122. .

    jupes, I suggest that you look further into those stats.

    The figures also include manslaughter, euthenasia and abortions.

    You are incorrect.

    Drug law repeal makes Amsterdam a safe city. The Singaporean Government is a threat to your liberties and mortality.

  123. jupes

    You are incorrect.

    Well one of us is. From the article I linked to:

    “Homicide is a type of violent crime, and is defined as the intentional killing of a person, including murder, manslaughter, euthanasia and infanticide. It excludes death by dangerous driving, abortion and help with suicide.”

    As a libertarian zealot the problem you have Dot is that like global warming, the reality spoils the theory. In theory legalising drugs should reduce crime but the reality in Amsterdam is that it doesn’t.

    Prohibition gives a false example. Alcohol has a different position in our society to drugs. Banning it was stupid because everybody drinks and our society can handle the bad side effects of drinking. Not so drugs. Legalising them will be to the detriment of society – more violence, more mental health problems, more addicts, more drugs in schools to name but a few.

    The Singaporean Government is a threat to your liberties and mortality.

    And here reality smashes the theory again. The Singapore Government is no threat to me at all. Quite the opposite in fact, Singapore is probably the safest city to visit in Asia.

  124. .

    Sorry. It includes euthenasia. I made transcription error.

    (Abortion would have made their figures absolutely skyrocket).

    I was wrong on the details. You cannot honestly say I’m wrong about the putative point when you know the euthenasia figure (compiled by Eurostat for Amsterdam) completely skews the figures.

    You are wrong overall. Euthenasia is not homicide and cannot be credibly linked to drug related homicide.

    Alcohol has a different position in our society to drugs. Banning it was stupid because everybody drinks and our society can handle the bad side effects of drinking. Not so drugs.

    Explain why. You are sounding like an anti drug, pro alcohol ‘zealot’. (What is a conservative zealot? Someone who refuses to believe empirical data? Someone who thinks every single last Muslim wants to kill them?)

    Alcohol is linked to many more deaths than all other drugs put together.

    In theory legalising drugs should reduce crime but the reality in Amsterdam is that it doesn’t.

    Yes it is.

    The Singapore Government is no threat to me at all.

    Only because you don’t live there and you support the regime and what they approve as a lifestyle anyway.

    You are simply wrong.

  125. jupes

    You cannot honestly say I’m wrong about the putative point when you know the euthenasia figure (compiled by Eurostat for Amsterdam) completely skews the figures.

    Yes I can. Are you saying that 2.65 of the 3.65 ‘intentional killings’ per 100,000 people are by euthenasia?

    You are wrong overall.

    No. My position is that drug free Amsterdam is a more dangerous place than Singapore or Sydney.

    You are sounding like an anti drug, pro alcohol ‘zealot’. (What is a conservative zealot? Someone who refuses to believe empirical data? Someone who thinks every single last Muslim wants to kill them?)

    LOL. Hit a nerve did I Dot?

    Alcohol is linked to many more deaths than all other drugs put together.

    Only because drugs are banned. Legalising drugs will result in more overall deaths.

    Only because you don’t live there and you support the regime and what they approve as a lifestyle anyway.

    Libertarians must really really hate Singapore.

    You are simply wrong.

    In theory. Not in practice.

  126. .

    That’s not that many to skew the figures.

    4000 people died from euthenasia in 2010 in all of Holland and normally at least 90% are euthenasia, not assisted suicide. Their population is 16.7 million.

    No. My position is that drug free Amsterdam is a more dangerous place than Singapore or Sydney.

    Only if you include euthenasia. Otherwise we don’t know.

    You didn’t hit a nerve at all. There is no zealotry in desiring strong civil liberties, maximising prosperity and relying solid theory and empirics.

    Only because drugs are banned. Legalising drugs will result in more overall deaths.

    No.

    Alcohol prohibition saw the US murder rate double. Ostrowski of the Cato Institue showed the drug laws are 30-40 times counterproductive. Portugal has had a small rise in users but a fall in crimes and poor health outcomes.

    I am correct in theory and in practice. Singapore is an authoritarian hamlet run by a mafia like family.

  127. jupes

    Singapore is an authoritarian hamlet run by a mafia like family.

    A safe, clean and prosperous authoritarian hamlet at any rate … As I said, libertarians must really really hate Singapore.

  128. .

    They could be safe, clean, prosperous and have no drug prohibition – or authoritarianism, much like pre WWI Australia – the richest per capita nation in the world.

  129. jupes

    They could be safe, clean, prosperous and have no drug prohibition …

    Yeah that’s what I thought last time I was in Singapore. This place really lacks junkies and stoners.

  130. .

    People who use drugs create bad waste management and are the putative cause for crime?

    The first claim is strange. The second is not backed up by evidence and in fact the reverse is true.

Comments are closed.