Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

20 murders in 6 weeks in NSW alone

Jump to new
H

Happy

Joined
11 July 2005
Posts
2,633
Reactions
3
From ABC:
“Twenty murders have been reported in the first six weeks of the year, almost a third of the yearly average.
But Police Minister Carl Scully says that does not reflect a long-term trend.
He says the state's murder rate has halved in the last 15 years, and the Homicide Squad is well resourced.
"The Productivity Commission itself has said New South Wales leads Australia in terms of resolving homicide investigations," he said.
"In fact the vast majority are resolved within a 30-day period."


I should not write this as I have strong view with simple solution.

If certain: life for life
If not sure life for life but this time in prison, and if new evidence comes to confirm murderer, execution if negative freedom.

At the moment one can commit 3 to 4 murders during natural life, get caught in a meantime, and serve jail sentences.

Very unfair, unless this is how government silently allows for population control (random RU-487 for born ones), which I doubt.
 
Hi Happy

well done....another appropriate thought provoking thread..:)

Happy said:
From ABC:
“Twenty murders have been reported in the first six weeks of the year, almost a third of the yearly average.
But Police Minister Carl Scully says that does not reflect a long-term trend.
He says the state's murder rate has halved in the last 15 years, and the Homicide Squad is well resourced.
"The Productivity Commission itself has said New South Wales leads Australia in terms of resolving homicide investigations," he said.
"In fact the vast majority are resolved within a 30-day period."


I should not write this as I have strong view with simple solution.

If certain: life for life
If not sure life for life but this time in prison, and if new evidence comes to confirm murderer, execution if negative freedom.

At the moment one can commit 3 to 4 murders during natural life, get caught in a meantime, and serve jail sentences.

Very unfair, unless this is how government silently allows for population control (random RU-487 for born ones), which I doubt.
Click to expand...

I'm against capital punishment and I am a bit concerned about you saying you would put someone in jail for life even if it was not certain if they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt (or have I misunderstood you?). As far as I am aware when a jury hands down a verdict they do not mention to what extent they are certain they have made the right decision, although verdicts have to be unanimous.

Given that it has been established that innocent people around the world have been executed in the past for crimes they did not commit, then even with the apparent certainty of DNA test results nowadays I cannot support capital punishment as I do not believe anyone has the right to decide who lives or dies, except in the case of where one's own life is being threatened for whatever reason.

I'm sure many will argue an eye for an eye and all the rest of it, and that is fine but I simply don't agree with that concept and imo it is one of the root causes behind all the hate in the world atm :(

What I would like to see is that offenders found guilty of crimes that now might carry a penalty of capital punsihment are actually locked up for the term of their natural life...none of this life really meaning 20 or whatever years.

Who knows, maybe one day down the track (10,20 or whatever years) someone might even discover flaws in the current DNA testing procedures which will show that innocent people might also have been executed due to faulty DNA or other forensic testing. To then say....oooopss...sorry, we stuffed up....would be totally unacceptable imo.

Also, whilst an offender is in prison there is always a possibility that they might be rehabilitated and see the errors of their previous ways. Obviously there will always be hardened criiminals who have no hope or desire to be rehabilitated but if just 1 person that otherwise might have been executed is rehabilitated, even say after 30 years in prison then not having capital punishment would be justified imo. Now how you determine with certainty if a person is truly rehabilitated I don't know off the top of my head and that would be the tricky bit and is probably another whole issue.

cheers

bullmarket :)
 
I'm opposed to capital punishment partly because it is simply barbaric, and partly because, as bullmarket has pointed out, even with DNA it is possible that the future could show the wrong person has been executed.
Just don't see that perpetuating killing is the solution.

Bullmarket: you have said above that you don't think anyone has the right to say who lives and who dies, but how does that comment gel with your expressed views on the RU486 thread, where - if you were in a position to enact legislation - you would insist on an unwanted foetus being carried to full term. That is deciding on who should live imo.

Julia
 
Barbaric or not barbaric, but why somebody has the choice to kill.

If this is the case, maybe we should conduct the snapping test before child is born, so we can terminate the pregnancy of person who is likely to kill in the future.

My right to live should not be taken away by an individual, who is not authorised to do so, but is just barbarian.

If barbarism is not desired, should be culled, genes identified and isolated, so we can live happily ever after.
 
Hi Julia

Julia said:
..................Bullmarket: you have said above that you don't think anyone has the right to say who lives and who dies, but how does that comment gel with your expressed views on the RU486 thread, where - if you were in a position to enact legislation - you would insist on an unwanted foetus being carried to full term. That is deciding on who should live imo.

Julia
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are getting at and your question comes across to me as showing you have a problem with us having different views in another thread. It seems to me you are trying to twist what I said or take only a portion of my sentence out of context.

But to answer your comment "That is deciding on who should live imo.", then that is fine if that is the way you see my comment. If you see that I or anyone else who believes that an embryo, foetus, unborn child, call him/her what you will, has as much right to continue living as you or I and everyone as us deciding they should be allowed to continue to live then I don't see any problem with that.

I think you know what I meant with my earlier post and you're just being picky now.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that you keep asking me questions all of which I have replied to but you haven't attempted to answer the questions I posed in the other thread.

You also made a comment in the RU486 thread saying that it was not reasonable to compare a foetus to a 5 year old child. That is one crucial area where we disagree and hence our differing views on the relative importance and significance to one's right to life at various stages of our lives and physical development.

cheers :)
 
bullmarket said:
Hi Julia



I'm not sure what you are getting at and your question comes across to me as showing you have a problem with us having different views in another thread. It seems to me you are trying to twist what I said or take only a portion of my sentence out of context.

But to answer your comment "That is deciding on who should live imo.", then that is fine if that is the way you see my comment. If you see that I or anyone else who believes that an embryo, foetus, unborn child, call him/her what you will, has as much right to continue living as you or I and everyone as us deciding they should be allowed to continue to live then I don't see any problem with that.

I think you know what I meant with my earlier post and you're just being picky now.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that you keep asking me questions all of which I have replied to but you haven't attempted to answer the questions I posed in the other thread.

You also made a comment in the RU486 thread saying that it was not reasonable to compare a foetus to a 5 year old child. That is one crucial area where we disagree and hence our differing views on the relative importance and significance to one's right to life at various stages of our lives and physical development.

cheers :)
Click to expand...

Hullo Bull M,
I can't understand your answer to Julia's question, can you simplify it please ?.
Another question: Were you a bureaucrat before retirement ?. :D

Bob.
 
Bobby said:
Hullo Bull M,
I can't understand your answer to Julia's question, can you simplify it please ?.
Another question: Were you a bureaucrat before retirement ?. :D

Bob.
Click to expand...

Bullmarket:

I don't mean to be picky but as Bob has pointed out above, it is sometimes a little difficult to really get an understanding of the essence of your answer because you use so many words. Sorry if I'm being stupid.

Re my not having answered you previously, someone - I think it was Prospector - provided the answer in terms of the number of weeks at which a foetus can survive on its own. Then, yes, I do think it becomes a viable life and a potential person with the right to live.

Julia
 
hi Bobby, Julia

Julia said:
Bullmarket:

I don't mean to be picky but as Bob has pointed out above, it is sometimes a little difficult to really get an understanding of the essence of your answer because you use so many words. Sorry if I'm being stupid.

Re my not having answered you previously, someone - I think it was Prospector - provided the answer in terms of the number of weeks at which a foetus can survive on its own. Then, yes, I do think it becomes a viable life and a potential person with the right to live.

Julia
Click to expand...

I don't want to hijack this thread and so make it an offshoot of the RU486 thread. My reply to Prospector's post is in the RU486 thread.

Bobby: No, I wasn't a bureacrat before retiring :D

I spent the major part of my time in the work force in various data management roles in the oil and gas exploration industry.

I'll try to rein in my two typing fingers in the future and make my posts less verbose, but unfortunately my fingers get a little carried away when they are on a roll, like now... :eek: .....sorry

cheers

bullmarket

ps...I'll check in again on Wed or Thurs :)
 
Happy you certainly seem to have no empathy for other people. This is a significant symptom of a psychopath.
 
Only problem I see, if you lock someone up for life is who do you get to guard them?
These people have nothing to lose so what is one or more murders. There is currently in Queensland Prisons one bloke who has killed two or three other prisoners,what is to stop him from killing more or a guard?
Just my thoughts on it.
Peter
 
I seem to like Japanese way of thinking –

You are good to people who are good to you
And you are bad to people who are bad too you

Not exact words but close.

Murderer is barbarian, so you treat that person as that person treats others.
People who love you, you love them back.
And inappropriate genes will fade away.

And just a thought, this is not my idea, I came across statement that fleas and other parasitic organisms have right to live too including cockroaches mice rats and mozzies and flies of course.
Some monks even walk naked, so they do not kill small insects in folds of their wardrobe.

What the heck, lets go for life and all its forms, how about bacteria and viruses including our recent favourite flu which can became pandemic if another 2 mutations take place.

LONG LIVE LIFE AND ALL ITS FORMS
 
Top