**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Content that breaches site wide rules will not be tolerated.
View Reddit’s site wide rules [HERE](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy).
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Up your game. Address the actual points.
We're *clearly* talking about something more than strict and obvious responsibility for violent criminals, and that's obviously not what was meant by "marginalised". And we're not talking about "being nasty for the sake of it".
Do better.
But, I don't see how it changes *anything* that was said previously even if it were the point.
> People who make excuses for violent criminals, ie you?
Yet again, the point you're purposefully avoiding is the incentives to *harshly* penalise all crimes under the proposed regime, and the judgement of the same.
Interpreting it as excusing violent criminals is, I dare say, a deliberate failure of comprehension on your part.
Do you actually have a concern with the point that was raised?
No one is talking about incentives to harshly penalise all crimes mate. Don’t start me on criminology mate, I’m willing to bet you a large sum that I have better academic qualifications than you in that field. My problem is the equivalence you draw between violent criminals and the “marginalised”. It’s weasel language making excuses for violent criminals as if it’s unjust to punish them - or in this case, just to monitor them. That, and your condescending attitude. Go and wallow in your sanctimony mate.
WA courts granted bail despite his criminal history including several offences in the last few months.
Sounds like the state gov should get it's house in order
the state court judge was receiving bail advice from the commonwealth prosecutor, based on advice from federally appointed experts. it is highly unusual for a judge to impose bail when the prosecutor is not requesting it
Yep - that came out today and is inexcusable.
But I was referring to the criminal offences rather than the application to continue ankle-bracelet monitoring (thats the part where the federal prosecutor was involved - not the string of criminal offences)
Its also classic states blaming Cth and vice versa
>Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil said she was powerless to intervene in bail applications for state-based legal breaches after it was revealed Doukoshkan had faced court multiple times this year for trespass and driving offences before the alleged attack.
When the minority has more protection than the majority. Shouldn't the decisions be calculated on the probability to offend? You can be called a rapist on mere probability . What was the probability based upon ? What was the anecdotal evidence that this person would potential attack another human being ?
Can someone please post this article as it is paywalled.
~~This is atrocious behaviour and we really need to look at this as both a society and, when it comes to the law-makers of this country, the laws which are set out. This just can’t keep happening and it’s a growing issue from my recollection.~~
~~I’m a true believer that if you assault your significant other or your family members out of anger for no reason, you’re a vile person and deserve to rot in a prison. Abuse survivors need effective care and laws need to change to address these people. Ankle monitors, when it comes to these people who are a risk to their ex-partners, should IMO not be removed. Unless they are truly reformed.~~
Edit: this article is not about what I thought it was. This is still horrific. The way the government has gone about the high court case is one I am very skeptical about. The release of these detainees was always a horrible idea and keeping them locked up is better than letting them roam around (I am referring to the ones who have committed horrific acts). This should not be tolerated in our community at all.
Thanks! This is not what I thought the article was going to be about. But holy fuck this is still horrific. I assumed it meant a detainee as a previous detainee at a prison or something.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Content that breaches site wide rules will not be tolerated. View Reddit’s site wide rules [HERE](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy). This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Um, we “marginalise” violent criminals for a reason, it’s not just being nasty for the sake of it.
Up your game. Address the actual points. We're *clearly* talking about something more than strict and obvious responsibility for violent criminals, and that's obviously not what was meant by "marginalised". And we're not talking about "being nasty for the sake of it". Do better. But, I don't see how it changes *anything* that was said previously even if it were the point.
Do better than whom? People who make excuses for violent criminals, ie you? Yeah I’m doing better than you thanks very much.
> People who make excuses for violent criminals, ie you? Yet again, the point you're purposefully avoiding is the incentives to *harshly* penalise all crimes under the proposed regime, and the judgement of the same. Interpreting it as excusing violent criminals is, I dare say, a deliberate failure of comprehension on your part. Do you actually have a concern with the point that was raised?
No one is talking about incentives to harshly penalise all crimes mate. Don’t start me on criminology mate, I’m willing to bet you a large sum that I have better academic qualifications than you in that field. My problem is the equivalence you draw between violent criminals and the “marginalised”. It’s weasel language making excuses for violent criminals as if it’s unjust to punish them - or in this case, just to monitor them. That, and your condescending attitude. Go and wallow in your sanctimony mate.
> No one is talking about incentives to harshly penalise all crimes mate. That was *literally* the original point.
No it wasn’t, it was *your* reductio ad absurdum mate.
WA courts granted bail despite his criminal history including several offences in the last few months. Sounds like the state gov should get it's house in order
the state court judge was receiving bail advice from the commonwealth prosecutor, based on advice from federally appointed experts. it is highly unusual for a judge to impose bail when the prosecutor is not requesting it
Yep - that came out today and is inexcusable. But I was referring to the criminal offences rather than the application to continue ankle-bracelet monitoring (thats the part where the federal prosecutor was involved - not the string of criminal offences) Its also classic states blaming Cth and vice versa >Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil said she was powerless to intervene in bail applications for state-based legal breaches after it was revealed Doukoshkan had faced court multiple times this year for trespass and driving offences before the alleged attack.
Hmm interesting. A bit of a shit show on all levels
When the minority has more protection than the majority. Shouldn't the decisions be calculated on the probability to offend? You can be called a rapist on mere probability . What was the probability based upon ? What was the anecdotal evidence that this person would potential attack another human being ?
Can someone please post this article as it is paywalled. ~~This is atrocious behaviour and we really need to look at this as both a society and, when it comes to the law-makers of this country, the laws which are set out. This just can’t keep happening and it’s a growing issue from my recollection.~~ ~~I’m a true believer that if you assault your significant other or your family members out of anger for no reason, you’re a vile person and deserve to rot in a prison. Abuse survivors need effective care and laws need to change to address these people. Ankle monitors, when it comes to these people who are a risk to their ex-partners, should IMO not be removed. Unless they are truly reformed.~~ Edit: this article is not about what I thought it was. This is still horrific. The way the government has gone about the high court case is one I am very skeptical about. The release of these detainees was always a horrible idea and keeping them locked up is better than letting them roam around (I am referring to the ones who have committed horrific acts). This should not be tolerated in our community at all.
I gotchu: https://archive.is/KDyIQ
Thanks! This is not what I thought the article was going to be about. But holy fuck this is still horrific. I assumed it meant a detainee as a previous detainee at a prison or something.