I find that it is frightening the way that the law is administered by a well proven justice system and then overruled by weak politicians as a result of pressure from daily papers which have very little cridibility but a largish reader base.
The latest of these ” lynch mob ” type interferences by weak and popular vote catching politicians is the Victor Chan killer release on parole case . I can understand the family of Victor Chan being annoyed by the release of Lim on parole but they are naturally biased, most normal people would be quite prepared to kill someone that had killed their father in cold blood for no reason other than to make money. However, such emotions will, if unchecked, lead to never ending killing where everyone is trying to exact the revenge that they feel entitled to To stop such lawlessness we have a the law of the land which is administered by qualified and, we hope, unbiased and wise legally knowledgeable Judges.
Unfortunately, the laws of the land are formulated by politicians and these seem to have no back-bone and are only looking to get re-elected. As a consequence, the laws of the land are frequently manipulated by rabble rousing daily papers which rouse the mob instinct of the populace and pressurize the politicians into making dangerous laws which eventually will be used in a way that they are not intended.
Lim was sentenced under the law and it is proper that that sentence be enacted in accordance with the judges sentence. We have to presume that the judge, who probably listened to days if not weeks of testomony, will have taken all things into consideration and arrived at a judgement that was as just as could be humanly expected. It is absolutely stupid to allow some elected politician to toss the law out on a whim to aid in his re-election prospects.
It is obvious that we need a new constitution that protects the people not the States, which seems to be the main function of the present Australian constitution. It is possible to argue that we would be better off as a country of Australia with one government and not have all these divided loyalties to various States. We also need a Bill of Rights which sets out clearly what the politicians can do legally. At present, each political party in power in the Commonwealth and States and Terrortaries can enact any law as they see fit, or so it would appear.
An example of this abuse of power is the special laws enacted against the paedophile Ferguson, his crime is one that is most distastful but he is entitled to the protection of, and justice from, the law. Once he has finished his sentence and provided that he complies with the law, then he is entitled to his liberty. If we have a problem with this, we should change the law to take into account the circumstances of various crimes.
I understand that paedophilia is a complaint for which there is no cure. If this is so, then we have to adjust the law to permit the euthanasia of people that have this affliction or adopt the less humane option of shutting them away for life in a, usually, most unfriendly prison. It is certainly not acceptable that we should enact laws that relate to individuals, there is no end to the possiblilties of giving politicians such powers. Also we have to accept that if we allow a paedophile to have his freedom after a prison sentence, then we have to allow him to have the means to support his life style and work etc to feed himself, it is inhumane to expect that he will sit down and starve himself to death to avoid contact with his fellow human beings.
We have to have a system such as a Bill of Rights and a person orientated Constitution, to ensure that the laws that these politicians enact are not just political ploys to appease the, generally ill informed, public.
I have listened to people like John Howard argue that if we have a Bill of Rights the power will rest with the judiciary rather that the elected parliament. This is a valid arguement but we need to set out what the politicians can do and have the judiciary administer those rights, the judges don’t have to present themselves to the people for re-election every three years or so. Having seen the way in which our politicians have behaved with their strutting the stage to show that they are the stronger on crime and punishment, I’d have much more faith in a judgement by a judge even though I know that the judges are appointed by the politicians in the first place.
From past judgements in the High Courts we have seen that judges don’t always go the way that one would expect knowing their political persuasions. By comparison we have the rantings of Rees and O’Farrell both of whom seem to think that the Daily Telegraph has some credibility, a belief that is most difficult to understand.
I still can’t understand why it is that we are supposedly so well educated but we don’t think beyond what we are told and just follow like sheep and allow the dismantling of a legal system that has grown and proven itself over many hundreds of years. We should be looking to improve and widen our liberty and rights rather than trying to persecute those that have fallen foul of the law and suffered the consequences thereof.