The Law WA Supreme Court imposes first ever 'Life imprisonment Order with the offender never to be released' sentence

[woota]

Probably should just give him the death sentence instead of wasting taxpayer's money to keep him alive in prison for 50 years or whatever. People in the western world commit crimes worse than this on a daily basis and don't spend a day in prison for it.

 

[ep2018]

Was Arthurs the monster that dragged a child into a shopping centre toilet and raped and murdered her? He should never be released either.

Neither should the CSK if he is found guilty.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Same. The prick can rot in jail.

My only issue with the laws imposing 'life without parole' is that they take away any incentive to hand yourself in or mitigate your crimes in any other way (such as age of the offender or anything else of that nature).

There was literally no incentive for this offender to hand himself into police. Ordinarily there is an incentive to do so, as it results in a strong case for a reduced sentence (or lower non-parole period). With the way the law is worded, the Courts are prohibited from taking that into account.

Who really cares? It may make it tougher to get them and cost more for the prosecution but in the end it's going to cost a fortune to care for them for the rest of their natural lives so what's some extra at the beginning?

Think of it as a front loaded footy contract

 

[Malifice]

Was Arthurs the monster that dragged a child into a shopping centre toilet and raped and murdered her? He should never be released either.

Neither should the CSK if he is found guilty.

CSK did his offences before the new life without parole laws were written. They dont apply to him.

That said if the current suspect is convicted it'll be a lengthy non parole period, which given his age means unless he lives to well over 100, wont matter.

 

[Power Raid]

CSK did his offences before the new life without parole laws were written. They dont apply to him.

That said if the current suspect is convicted it'll be a lengthy non parole period, which given his age means unless he lives to well over 100, wont matter.

I just read the legislation and not 100% sure

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=2ahUKEwil5vzv5sTjAhXx8XMBHUrICbEQFjAFegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.wa.gov.au%2Flegislation%2Fstatutes.nsf%2FRedirectURL%3FOpenAgent%26query%3Dmrdoc_7554.doc&usg=AOvVaw0Y3H3fSr5XCx9iFUuFeRHl

The way I read it, is the accused crimes of the CSK were crimes when committed. The only relevant changes in the legislation is the sentencing.

Sure legislation is rarely backdated (Tax a notable exception) but the criminal code being applied is consistent just a change to sentencing powers.

It may be a moot point given the no body no release laws and the existing no release powers. As I understand it, the minister (or his department) has the power to refuse parole after the sentence but a 3 year review process is required (even if it's just going through the motions) as we see with Ms Burnie.

 

[Burton89onegoal]

35 years for this SA case seems so inadequate in comparison:

Young triple killer jailed for 35 years

A young man has been jailed for at least 35 years over his homicidal rage which left three members of a family dead.

mobile.abc.net.au

 

[Gethelred]

This. And place them with general population in prison.

Short-sighted.

Prison is intended to be a) a place to keep criminals apart from the non-criminals in order to protect the latter from the former, and/or b) to rehabilitate those who have committed crimes to re-enter society. Allowing these people to interact with the general prison population risks the very thing you're advocating by implication (the hardening and inuring of lesser offenders to casual violence and vigilante justice) or worse, that these offenders will spread their ideas to other people.

We're a communal species. Isolation is a punishment all of its own. Let them fester in their own company for the remainder of their lives.

 

[Gough]

I can't think of a worse or more fitting punishment, death would be the easy way out. Imagine, every day for the rest of your life living a regime completely of someone else's making, never casually lighting up a cigarette or a spliff or getting a beer from the fridge or even just stepping outside for some sun on a nice day, things that we all just take for granted. I genuinely struggle to get my head around what that must be like and don't know how you would process that both philosophically and psychologically if faced with that prospect. I expect he'll end up in someone's thesis one day.

 

[woota]

I can't think of a worse or more fitting punishment, death would be the easy way out. Imagine, every day for the rest of your life living a regime completely of someone else's making, never casually lighting up a cigarette or a spliff or getting a beer from the fridge or even just stepping outside for some sun on a nice day, things that we all just take for granted. I genuinely struggle to get my head around what that must be like and don't know how you would process that both philosophically and psychologically if faced with that prospect. I expect he'll end up in someone's thesis one day.

Yeah, let's spend our country's tax dollars maintaining such a regime for someone who will never be let out and as such can contribute nothing further to society. Just off him. Negged.

 

[Gough]

Yeah, let's spend our country's tax dollars maintaining such a regime for someone who will never be let out and as such can contribute nothing further to society. Just off him. Negged.

I don't think as a society that our response to a horrific act of violence should be to commit another one.

 

[woota]

I don't think as a society that our response to a horrific act of violence should be to commit another one.

Except that offing him would not be a "horrific act of violence" it would be a measured, calculated response, carried out in a humane manner.

 

[Bunkdar]

Firstly, I support the judgement.

Sentencing remarks can be found here (warning, its a distressing read):

https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/ViewDecision?returnUrl=/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/Filter/SC/RecentDecisions&id=a1edc59b-743f-4cca-bcc5-c76b31379646

Long story, the offender (who I will not name) murdered 5 people, including 3 of his own children sleeping in their beds, his unsuspecting wife, and her elderly mother over the course of a single evening and the following morning. None had any idea it was coming. He had no appreciable mental illness, he pre-meditated and planned the whole thing, and used extreme violence to carry out the act(s).

As a Legal practitioner, I'm ordinarily opposed to 'life withuout parole' orders as a general rule, but I am comfortable with this order in these circustances. This campaigner deserves it.

He joins around 15 other prisoners in Australia with similar 'never to be released' sentences.

What are peoples thoughts on this?

never 2 be released
in the age of trump and crumbling democracy around the globe
never 2 be released

 

[Gough]

Except that offing him would not be a "horrific act of violence" it would be a measured, calculated response, carried out in a humane manner.

It's still killing someone in cold blood whatever way you spin it.

 

[Bunkdar]

It's still killing someone in cold blood whatever way you spin it.

crime: murder
sentence: murder

 

[donkeypunchd]

Was Arthurs the monster that dragged a child into a shopping centre toilet and raped and murdered her? He should never be released either.

Neither should the CSK if he is found guilty.

That’s him. He’s in protection in Casuarina, by all accounts he requires protection not just from general population inmates but also inmates in PC who are guilty themselves for child sex offences- he’s considered the lowest of the low in there.

 

[donkeypunchd]

crime: murder
sentence: murder

We sentence people for murder because, short of war and/or an extremely limited number of circumstances, taking another human’s life is an act that sets the person irretrievably beyond the pale of human society. Once a person is imprisoned they cease to be a threat to society, as such execution is no better than the crime committed by the condemned in the first instance.

To me imprisonment for life is a far harsher punishment, a pointless sensorily deprived existence devoid of any real mitigation. Imagine a scenario where you were unable to go for a walk in the fresh air, have a pint, go to the footy, share a meaningful relationship (platonic or romantic), raise children, travel, or even something as simple as pop out to the local on a Sunday afternoon for lunch. It would be utter hell, especially watching the world pass you by and everyone you’ve known forget about you or cease caring. That’s far harsher than a quick execution after sentencing, living every day with the fact that you’ve destroyed your own life but are compelled nonetheless to exist.

 

[Santana]

I would also support never to be released sentences for serial pedophile offenders, particularly offences committed against very young children eg. under 12 years of age.

What do you think a pedophile is? Offenses over the ages of 12/13 aren't pedophilia

 

[M Malice]

What do you think a pedophile is? Offenses over the ages of 12/13 aren't pedophilia

There age barriers in all walks of life and in law and different levels of offences, I see the sexual penetration of a young child ie. under 12 as per my example as a more abhorrent offence as to say a 15-17 year old which BTW is also abhorrent.

I have 3 young grandchildren and I'd happily inject a lethal dose on anyone that abused them, we don't have the death penalty in Australia so life without parole would be fantastic.

Who knows the powers that be may say that age is under 10.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Short-sighted.

Prison is intended to be a) a place to keep criminals apart from the non-criminals in order to protect the latter from the former, and/or b) to rehabilitate those who have committed crimes to re-enter society. Allowing these people to interact with the general prison population risks the very thing you're advocating by implication (the hardening and inuring of lesser offenders to casual violence and vigilante justice) or worse, that these offenders will spread their ideas to other people.

We're a communal species. Isolation is a punishment all of its own. Let them fester in their own company for the remainder of their lives.

Valid points, but I'd still be content with rockspiders getting stomped by other prisoners, as nature intended. I feel that this would serve as a better deterrent, as "protective custody" sounds like a privilege.

 

[Bunkdar]

We sentence people for murder because, short of war and/or an extremely limited number of circumstances, taking another human’s life is an act that sets the person irretrievably beyond the pale of human society. Once a person is imprisoned they cease to be a threat to society, as such execution is no better than the crime committed by the condemned in the first instance.

To me imprisonment for life is a far harsher punishment, a pointless sensorily deprived existence devoid of any real mitigation. Imagine a scenario where you were unable to go for a walk in the fresh air, have a pint, go to the footy, share a meaningful relationship (platonic or romantic), raise children, travel, or even something as simple as pop out to the local on a Sunday afternoon for lunch. It would be utter hell, especially watching the world pass you by and everyone you’ve known forget about you or cease caring. That’s far harsher than a quick execution after sentencing, living every day with the fact that you’ve destroyed your own life but are compelled nonetheless to exist.

interesting post mate
but dude
u justify murder (war, ect)
forver locked up is contradictory

imagine someone worse then trump for example

 

[donkeypunchd]

interesting post mate
but dude
u justify murder (war, ect)
forver locked up is contradictory

imagine someone worse then trump for example

I don’t mean to justify war, my point is that murder sets you outside the bounds of normal society, soldiers in a war (provided they’ve not committed war crimes) are generally understood to be performing unpleasant tasks on behalf of the nation as a whole and are honoured for it. A whole different topic maybe but certainly one worth exploring.

 

[woota]

I don’t mean to justify war, my point is that murder sets you outside the bounds of normal society, soldiers in a war (provided they’ve not committed war crimes) are generally understood to be performing unpleasant tasks on behalf of the nation as a whole and are honoured for it. A whole different topic maybe but certainly one worth exploring.

It's hard to imagine a more contradictory point of view. So sending people to other countries to kill people in brutally inhumane ways for oil money and other political gain is, according to you, "performing unpleasant tasks on behalf of the nation," but executing a criminal via lethal injection who has committed heinous crimes is "murder". Hilarious.

 

[Gethelred]

It's hard to imagine a more contradictory point of view. So sending people to other countries to kill people in brutally inhumane ways for oil money and other political gain is, according to you, "performing unpleasant tasks on behalf of the nation," but executing a criminal via lethal injection who has committed heinous crimes is "murder". Hilarious.

Because that's what the soldiers we sent were there to do? I thought they were there to maintain the military alliance with the USA, the one which we lean on fairly heavily...



But beyond that, there is a manifest difference between a soldier killing other soldiers and a government executing a criminal. If you want to explore that particular chestnut, though, I'd recommend doing it with someone else. I don't have the time to argue something that humans have been arguing about for millennia.

 

[woota]

Because that's what the soldiers we sent were there to do? I thought they were there to maintain the military alliance with the USA, the one which we lean on fairly heavily...



But beyond that, there is a manifest difference between a soldier killing other soldiers and a government executing a criminal. If you want to explore that particular chestnut, though, I'd recommend doing it with someone else. I don't have the time to argue something that humans have been arguing about for millennia.

Okay so if sending troops overseas to help forge a political alliance with the US (and help them get the oil money) is justification for murdering people, then surely executing a criminal who murdered 3 of his own children is even better justification?

 

[Gethelred]

Okay so if sending troops overseas to help forge a political alliance with the US (and help them get the oil money) is justification for murdering people, then surely executing a criminal who murdered 3 of his own children is even better justification?

If you want to explore that particular chestnut, though, I'd recommend doing it with someone else. I don't have the time to argue something that humans have been arguing about for millennia.