-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
PhantomZone
Member
Because drugs are the scourge of society, a harsh lesson needs to be taught and demonstrated to others that using drugs and trafficking drugs is not on.
The harshest penalty should be used in 99.9% cases - it would put a stop to the scenario of someone being let out and offending again.
Because it's the Indonesian way to give the harshest penalty possible ?
You can't alter the past and you can't dictate to a foreign government how to apply the law in their country. Just because a bunch of idiot Australians did the wrong thing, they made the stupid decision to do it and they paid the price.
In a perfect world maybe... but the amount of miscarriages of justice this would produce is... well, worrying.
I'm speaking as an overall philosophical concept, not just in this case, of course.
Elaugaufein
Member
The harshest penalties for a crime ,even in our justice system, are usually vastly disproportionate to the average criminal act of that type because they are there for particularly heinous incidents. Heck, there's a fair few instances where the mandatory minimum is vastly disproportionate to the average act let alone the most minor. But even that's still vastly superior to a mandatory death penalty for loitering.
Rehabilitation is far more effective than punishment.
Elaugaufein
Member
That's because being tough is seen as a greater benefit than being effective/efficient when toughness is valued. Talking about reform to make the justice system fair and to reduce recidivism will basically lose you an election against anyone running on being tough on crime.
Its the same way people complain about the money spent on social safety nets ( "dole bludgers", pension, etc) and ignore that the lack of such systems tend to correspond to terrible living conditions and high crime and corruption rates.
The "satisfaction" of people getting what they "deserve" is more important than minimizing the real cost.
I'm not sure if that's a tautology.
Elaugaufein
Member
Hmmm. I think it is if we count recidivism as the filing of further charges but its probably possible to devise a scenario where a dead person could still be validly charged with a crime of the same type despite having been deceased at the time the necessary condition happened (conspiracy comes to mind as a good candidate).
The government is set to collect a whopping 140 million in student loans from people working overseas over the next ten years.
Could someone more versed in the accounting side of things tell me how this is going to work? Does this mean people will have to complete two sets of taxes like expat Americans?
Could someone more versed in the accounting side of things tell me how this is going to work? Does this mean people will have to complete two sets of taxes like expat Americans?
Maybe.
That will quickly get people removing their Australian citizenship if everyone will have to do two sets of taxes.
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
White Force was out in force at my work on Friday due to the protests. Couldn't hear more victim blaming and pathetic justifications for indigenous community closures if you tried.
Disappointed to say the least.
Disappointed to say the least.
Elaugaufein
Member
Just checking if you mean 24 April or 1st May episode. 24 April looks more relevant from description but May 1 is most recent.
Candescence
Member
The Daily Telegraph thinks Tony might be planning an early election right after this month's budget.
Basically, the implication is that the government might be trying the Howard tactic of presenting sweeteners to the public to try and make them forget about the previous budget. Of course, considering the 'debt and deficit disaster' rhetoric is still fresh within everyone's minds, such a ploy would probably come off as blatant desperation.
Basically, the implication is that the government might be trying the Howard tactic of presenting sweeteners to the public to try and make them forget about the previous budget. Of course, considering the 'debt and deficit disaster' rhetoric is still fresh within everyone's minds, such a ploy would probably come off as blatant desperation.
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
Oh god, please do it.
Elaugaufein
Member
Seems implausible. They've still got over a year left and the senate has fixed terms, so it won't overcome the senate problem unless its a DD. Basically I see no reason at all why they wouldn't leave it until next years budget to do that even if they think its a plan.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-02/australians-working-abroad-to-repay-student-loans/6439888
Better than charging dead people!
Better than charging dead people!
Constitutionally, if the budget doesn't pass then the government immediately resigns and a DD election is held.
Elaugaufein
Member
As I understand it though that's a mere formality since after the Whitlam thing there's been something of an agreement where the non-controversial issues are put into one bill (which is "the budget") and passed by the major parties together (if there's a need for it) and other issues are handled separately. So its almost impossible for that clause to be triggered.
Good, no idea why this isn't done already.
Probably someone in Abbott's office leaked something to Laurie Oakes about a DD.
I suspect they are just throwing darts and seeing what will hit.
John Quiggan has blog post saying why this is a bad idea (if that wasn't obvious enough already)
I think the key takeaway from his post is that governments of any popularity tend to be punished when they go to the polls early and Abbott could not survive the kind of punishment he would be dealt in that circumstance.
I suspect they are just throwing darts and seeing what will hit.
John Quiggan has blog post saying why this is a bad idea (if that wasn't obvious enough already)
I think the key takeaway from his post is that governments of any popularity tend to be punished when they go to the polls early and Abbott could not survive the kind of punishment he would be dealt in that circumstance.
If they can turn a profit on it they might as well do it. I do worry a little about a government that doesn't like a large public service adding duties to the public service that ideally would require extra staff for comparatively little monetary gain.
At least someone near the government understands how to manage human capital properly. Pity the current government doesn't know how to listen to public servants.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...t-defence-advice-on-subs-20150503-1mxxjp.html
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...t-defence-advice-on-subs-20150503-1mxxjp.html
So Facebook has been banned in Nauru....possibly at the request of the Australian Government.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-...auru-facebook-ban-requested-australia/6444506
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-...auru-facebook-ban-requested-australia/6444506
ABC Facebook said:
Evidence?
Probably a national secret if they did so no Australian reporter is going to give a firm report on it if it's true.
In this case though I doubt it, blocking FB wouldn't have much effect on the state of the refugees so I dunno, maybe it's just a political thing in Nauru.
Good idea, just hold off until all those investigative journalists with full and unfettered access to the detention facilities and with full government co operation get to the bottom of this. It will be any day now, surely.
She should have resigned after the election TBH.
bobnowhere
Member
Hoping for Ludlum, will probably get Hanson-Young or Bandt. The vote is at 11.30am.
Elaugaufein
Member
Nah, its always risky to resign after an election that's swung for another party since your successor tends to lose the incumbent advantage and cop a bit of backlash for you not serving your term.
Can't see it being Bandt, just due to organisational issues (having the leader in the Reps and most of the party in the Senate would be awkward and as long as he stays in the Reps he's basically guaranteed Deputy) . Otherwise agree with you.
eh, I dunno, she handled the transition after Brown retiring pretty well and they have been able to take their own time to sort things out.
bobnowhere
Member
I absolutely agree when you have 10+ senators compared to 1 from the reps the leadership and the party's focus should be the senate. Naming Bandt as leader might be a push to expand their presence in the reps. The Greens have been pretty successful in Victoria and NSW recently so imagine they will go hard in central Melbourne and the Inner West of Sydney at the the next ferderal election.
Di Natale has declared. Decent choice.
They lost a around a third of their vote in the last election and only gained senators in 3 states (though they did win WA in a by-election).
That's really bad and because of that they will see their numbers drop next election cycle unless they can repeat their 2010 showing (which is getting a senator in every state).
I really don't think she has much of an advantage being an incumbent, she isn't exactly Bob Brown and she has as pretty low profile.
Also Ludlam obviously.
Elaugaufein
Member
Did I miss something in the news letter ? Because I didn't see anything about being anti-family (or is he one of those that thinks letting homosexuals get married will destroy the family ?). And not much about community destroying either , though I can see how it could be spun that way for very specific values of community and destroy.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
But I love freedom, families and communities! Those bastards! They probably hate all our favourite TV shows as well!
Supporting LGBT rights is anti-family. Parks and Rec explained it best; when you support marriage for gays, you ruin it for everybody else.
Detaining innocent Indian doctors and keeping them from their families for extended periods though, that's just the sort of pro-family platform Kevin Andrews is all about.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked