Presumption Of Innocence

[Waldo]

If we run our legal system on suspicion then we approach the 1984 scenario.(bleeding hearts liberal, believes in truth, not mob rule)

G'day Sebastian,

And what would the outcry be if a terrorist got through the net and succeeded?

AFP, "Sorry Australia, we knew about him and his plot, but the Civil Libs won out, we had evidence but we had to release him" Frak that!

I'm only referring to alledged or suspected persons involved in terrorism, nothing beyond that.

[Gra]

how could you take out of context my original post ? pretty black and white to me... lol!!!

alright monkeyboy... you get thrown into jail just because

[silentC]

I think this is an example of utilitarianism versus human rights. Utilitarianism strives for the best result on the whole for society, so under that philosophy locking up a potentially innocent person based on suspicion alone is acceptable because the end result might be that you save many people from death and suffering. This argument also applies to the bombing of Hiroshima. On the other hand, the human rights movement insists that the basic rights of humans take precedence over everything else.

I think that people sway towards one viewpoint or the other based on their level of empathy. Governments pretty much have to focus on the common good, and while individual members might have varying levels of empathy, I think they generally lean towards the utilitarian approach.

This type of philosophical question keeps some people in a job for life. Is there a right or wrong answer? There are probably answers that are patently wrong (locking up everyone who 'looks like a terrorist' - preventing anyone from a middle eastern background from entering Australia etc). But are some answers more right than others? Should we sacrifice the freedoms of some individuals for the sake of the common good, or should we protect their rights at the risk of them going on to wreak havoc?

Glad I don't have to decide.

[Zed]

what do you bleeding heart liberals want ? do you want a couple of hundered people at circular quay to be blown up before the govt gets tough ???? dont u realise that the terrorist/crims alway has the impetus and the law enforcement alwyas has to play catch up ? Thats why all these laws are created after the fact. even then i betcha they dont help stop things happening coz lets face it some bastard will always work out how to build a bomb, but the law may help clean up the mess afterwards!!!

sure the govt get it wrong - at least they have the right intention... fark!!!! get a grip!

[Gra]

what do you bleeding heart liberals want ? do you want a couple of hundered people at circular quay to be blown up before the govt gets tough ???? dont u realise that the terrorist/crims alway has the impetus and the law enforcement alwyas has to play catch up ? Thats why all these laws are created after the fact. even then i betcha they dont help stop things happening coz lets face it some bastard will always work out how to build a bomb, but the law may help clean up the mess afterwards!!!

sure the govt get it wrong - at least they have the right intention... fark!!!! get a grip!

Zed, not sure if you are posting in relation to my post this morning, but I dont like the idea as it bypasses the checks and balances. yes the law has to perform its task, but it also requires checks and balances in place to stop it going to far.

[dazzler]

A court of law threw it out.

The DPP withdrew the charges - only court appearance was a bail hearing

Lies half truth and spin.

Yep, there all around us

Sebastiaan

[echnidna]

and by making the legal processes public
terrorists are better advised about their own planning needs.

[Gra]

and by making the legal processes public
terrorists are better advised about their own planning needs.

By making them private allows for those in charge to abuse the process to their ends, remember we have no legal freedom of speech in this country (Yeah alright they already do)

[zenwood]

Apparently the number of Americans killed by the flu in 2001 was 12 times the number killed by terrorists. In most years, peanut allergies have caused about the same number of deaths as terrorists.

I take it from such statistics as these that the various new laws, powers, fears, etc., that have arisen are non-rational responses to minuscule risks. Presumably this is just what the terrorists want: to trigger jihad with the west based on---what?---emotional knee-jerks.

[TEEJAY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEEJAY
(Man was born to hunt and kill)

I'm wondering if I'll have any of you to talk to tomorrow after this conversation's been intercepted??

P

Haven't killed anything more than a redgum and a couple of feral pigs in the past 48 hours too - twitch twitch

[Zed]

not a valid point Zen, we have pharamcutical companies, medicine, health plans and hospitals etc.. to cope with medical issues.. or do you propose it would be a kneejerk to remove them too ?

how miniscule will it be when your kid gets blown to smithereens or dies of a peanut allergy ?

[Sebastiaan56]

I'm only referring to alledged or suspected persons involved in terrorism, nothing beyond that.

Understand that Waldo, what happens when they get it wrong? Further, now that the government has a "dob in a terrorist" hot line, anyone can allege anything about anyone. Seems a bit too free for all for me, particularly as the minister has power to act on his whim. Also supposes that the Govt has its citizens interest as its priority. You may have noticed that our mob has an election to election timeframe, little people dont matter in the getting re elected game. Goes for both sides, Im not letting either "L" party off. See how well they treat the disabled, the elderly, students, minor voting blocks.

I do not advocate letting terrorists off, no one wants to see the country blown up and suicide bombing is a crime against humanity, full stop. Just test the evidence, dont lock people up on a whim. The current behaviour reminds me very strongly of the stuff my Russian friends tell me about life before glasnost. Not as extreme yet but the rhetoric and the legal structure are being installed and I dont trust our pollies to act on our behalf.

And Zed, how many people die of cigarette related disease every year? Sanctioned by the government because it raises so much tax. I think Zen is right. The response is not proportional, if they were fair dinkum what would they do to the mob that kills thousands each year by smoking? Ever been there and watched a smoker die of lung cancer? Ever had an alcoholic friend ruin their life? Ever seen someone gamble away their kids food money? All good tax revenue and no proportional response in sight.

I dont know where the balance is, I know that our freedoms are being actively eroded and I dont like it. The response needs to be more intelligent and balanced and not based on populist politics. A centuries old principle of law is being chucked out to help an "L" party get elected,

Im with "C"....... glad I dont have to decide.

Sebastiaan

[dazzler]

and by making the legal processes public
terrorists are better advised about their own planning needs.

A gold star to our spiny friend.....

[Gra]

A gold star to our spiny friend.....

further to my comments earlier. Justice not only needs to be done, it needs to be SEEN to be done......

Secrecy harms the process

[Gingermick]

how miniscule will it be when your kid gets blown to smithereens or dies of a peanut allergy ?

We can't make laws based on emotive responses.
And I think religion is the root of all evil.