8 Year Old Girl Murdered (1 Viewer)

wheredanton

Retired
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
599
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
SMH said:
Most police officers go into their job because they want to protect good people from bad people. But that is way to simple an aim for today's justice system.
Spare a thought for the WA police who arrested the then 18 year old Dante Wyndham Aruthurs three years ago - three years before he alledgedly raped and strangled an 8 year old...
Aruthurs has been charged with murder. But in 2003 the police suspected that he was responsibile for an indecent assault on another 8 year old girl in a park, the Age reported. He was questioned for hours, before alledgedly confessing. But charges were droppedafter the WA's DPP found the interview would be inadmissible in court because the officers had been too aggresive. Aruthurs walked and the police were disciplined.
Whoes morality does that twisted outcome serve? And we wonder why police take sickleave. They're heartsick'
It seems like miranda is proposing a system that would allow police officers to determine someones guilt and then stick them in an interview view and keep them there for as long as it takes and with any methods possible to ensure that that persons view of events (ie he did it) squares with the police's then and there judgement that the person is guilty.

She notes that the WA DPP didnt even both to take it to court because on first signting the videotaped confession deemed 'too aggressive' (earlier in this thread frog said that the admission was deemed inadmissible because the police officers did something that impacted on the accused persons ability to rationally respond to the questioning). If that was the case it must have been pretty bad clearly an involuntary confession. If it was borderline I'm sure the WA DPP would have taken it to court and argued that it wasn't involuntary.
 
Last edited:

frog12986

The Commonwealth
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
641
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
wheredanton said:
She notes that the WA DPP didnt even both to take it to court because on first signting the videotaped confession deemed 'too aggressive' (earlier in this thread frog said that the admission was deemed inadmissible because the police officers did something that impacted on the accused persons ability to rationally respond to the questioning). If that was the case it must have been pretty bad clearly an involuntary confession. If it was borderline I'm sure the WA DPP would have taken it to court and argued that it wasn't involuntary.
In light of that, I should repeal my earlier comments and it would subsequently squarely point the finger at the officers for failing to undertake their tasks effectively. Legislative provisions and the hardships of 'reality' sometimes do create a quandary for officers. Often, it is sheer emotional frustration and basic human error can jeopordise an entire case.

They always say that the two biggest attributes of an effective investigator are open mindedness and emotional control; two characteristics that the investigating officers let slide. Mind you, if these human beings were flawless they would be supernatural..
 

gerhard

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
850
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
vaguely on topic,

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19658468-29277,00.html
ADVOCATES of tougher criminal penalties were just "talking through their hats", New South Wales's top prosecutor said today, insisting that harsher sentences did not reduce crime.

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Nicholas Cowdery also branded politicians' tendency to “bang on” about law and order as a “cheap” tactic.
He said what was needed was more money and effort to prevent crime.

Speaking at today's NSW Teachers' Federation Annual Conference, Mr Cowdery said research showed no link between tougher penalties for criminals and deterrence.

“People who tell you that increasing penalties to deter crime are talking through their hats,” he said.

“There's no straight correlation between the length of a sentence or the size of a penalty and the guarantee that it's going to produce deterrence from further offending, rehabilitation of the offender or indeed a satisfactory level of revenge or retribution by the community.”

Mr Cowdery, facing his fourth state election as the state's top prosecutor, said Australia was spending $7 billion annually on the “aftermath” of crime, but more funding and resources needed to go towards preventative measures.

“If we could transfer some of that expenditure to the front end – into more effective crime prevention – we would all be a lot better off,” he said.

“The direction for such an approach must come from the state and territory governments, acting where appropriate with the federal and local governments.”

Mr Cowdery said increasing police was “just the first step” in fighting crime.

“It's what you do with police that makes the difference,” he said.

“If you make them visible and effective in particular places at particular times it will reduce offending in those places and at those times.”

He said it was “too tempting” for politicians to avoid running campaigns about harsher penalties.

“It's cheap, it strikes a chord with some members of the community, the politicians would hope enough members of the community to make a difference to the vote that comes in, ultimately.”

“But when you pull it apart, when you look at the elements of criminal justice, when you look at the real results that occur, from policies of that kind, you find that they don't work at all.”

He had “no doubt” that NSW politicians would move to capitalise on law and order issues in the leadup to next year's election.

“All we can do, I think, is to keep on giving the message that is based on fact rather than the message that is based on emotion and gut appeal, which is what the politicians go on about,” he said.

He described current premier Morris Iemma's stance against mandatory sentencing as a “very big plus” and said Attorney-General Bob Debus was a “very effective minister”.

Police Association vice president Scott Webber accused Mr Cowdery of being “out of touch with community sentiment” when it came to police numbers.

He said police at the moment were “chasing (their) tails” when it came to numbers and more officers were needed.
 

turtleface

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
932
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Obviously anybody who kills and rapes kids are totally screwed, compared to normal standards. I think everyone who commits these sorts of atrocities is mentally ill.

Having a younger sister myself, who I over protect to prevent this sort of shit happening, I'm aware of the seriousness of the offence, as anyone would be, but:

Yes, by the definitions of an earlier poster, I'm probably a scumbag for this view. But I just feel sympathy for people, even the lowest of the low, who lose their life (that is what life in jail essentially is) as punishment for their crimes. If they pose a danger, there is obviously no choice but to jail them, but I just can't help but feel sad for the additional waste of the life that occurs.

Mind you I say this from an impartial point of view. If this incident had affected me personally, I'd probably go waste the f***wit myself (or at least try to).
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Cowdery neglects to mention that it's generally agreed that the major reason for the decline in crime in the US over the past decade or so is due to the high prison population in the US. Long prison sentences may not effect recidivism rates but it does keep crims out of circulation for longer.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
210
Location
SID-AR-KNEE!
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
banco55 said:
Cowdery neglects to mention that it's generally agreed that the major reason for the decline in crime in the US over the past decade or so is due to the high prison population in the US. Long prison sentences may not effect recidivism rates but it does keep crims out of circulation for longer.
I thought it was because there was a reduction in crack-cocaine supply.
 

Cam@MQ

New Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
16
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Its interesting that when a white male rapes and murders a young ethnic girl we dont discuss ethnicity, culture or religion but just the merit of the crime.

But.

If it had been lets say a middle eastern male raping and mudering a blond blue eyed girl what would be the direction and nature of discussion in this thread?
 

Optophobia

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
696
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
wheredanton said:
You see it’s not your job to consider that the person is clearly guilty. Not your job, not your concern..
As gate keepers of the criminal justice system, we have to have at least an inkling that the person is guilty, otherwise we wouldn't admit them.
 

wheredanton

Retired
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
599
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Optophobia said:
As gate keepers of the criminal justice system, we have to have at least an inkling that the person is guilty, otherwise we wouldn't admit them.
An 'inkling' is not BRD. To that extent, yes, Police officers are allowed to determine whether they have an inkling that the person is guilty, not that the person is actually guilty. Such an inkling would form the basis for a valid arrest on reasonable suspicion.

My point is that it is not the job of the police officer to decide guilt. Yes police officers can decide whether they have an inkling that the person did it or is guilty in order to perform a valid arrest. Any decision as to the persons guilt that is beyond an inkling or 'reasonable suspision' is not the job of the police officer. The rest is up to the prosuction to get 'reasonable suspicion' or an 'inkling' of guilt to guilt BRD.
 

Jonathan A

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Cam@MQ said:
Its interesting that when a white male rapes and murders a young ethnic girl we dont discuss ethnicity, culture or religion but just the merit of the crime.

But.

If it had been lets say a middle eastern male raping and mudering a blond blue eyed girl what would be the direction and nature of discussion in this thread?

Yes but it doesn't stop them going to the Probation and Parole Officer and saying to them that their ethnicity contributes to their out of character actions. That then gets put in the report and used to determine a sentence.

We might think its bad to dwell on ethnicity and certainly it should be, but I can't deny I have seen it raised as a mitigating factor hundreds of times.
 

Jonathan A

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Schoolies_2004 said:
I fail to see how this would be 'very hard' still..... provided the suspect has done his research Im sure there are cases where people have fooled the specialists, and as a result get the evidence they need!



Not really. Its quite possible for a sane person to fake their insanity.



Well it is a lesser sentence isnt it? Do they deserve this just because they didnt know what they were doing? The victim is still as dead as they would be if it were a sane person doing it. And at the end of the day, they are still a danger to society, if not MORE so, than a sane person.... and potentially they are a danger for the rest of their lives because they dont see what they did as wrong!

There shouldnt be any privledges for those who are mentally ill IMO at least.

And what is 'detention'? We dont have loony bins in Australia do we? This detention doesnt involve IN ANY CASE just reporting to a medical professional at regular intervals does it and taking perscribed medication? Because thats hardly protecting society.

EDIT:

Also interesting to see a ninemsn poll, although it isnt worth a grain of salt, but nonetheless relating to capital punishment. A majority, 22,000 compared to 5000 have voted yes to crimes against children being punishable by death
This caught my eye.

I would agree with moonlightsonata here. Proving a disease of the mind is difficult. As shown in the McNaughten Rules (spelling? - even the HOL got it wrong) every defendant is presumed sane. You have to lead evidence that you are insane and then face detention or care at the Governor's Pleasure. Being a Forensic Patient is not a holiday. Fooling specialists is difficult. Must we remind that we have an adversarial system and the other side don't just 'buy' it.

There is a trend that people prefer to bargain or bring evidence to show Substantial Impairment (which reduces from Murder to Manslaughter) so as to avoid the indeterminate care of the State that arises from insanity.

As to your analysis - you raise good points. But its not the job of the criminal law to be a risk management body. I would argue the criminal law is based on breaches of the laws by State and determining someone's culpability as to the alleged offence. Predictions are not only tenuous, they were also held by the High Court as incompatable with the function of the courts (see Kable v DPP) as simply the court cannot apply fact to law.
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
wow what an emotionally charged, bullshit poll.

I am against capital punishment. Everyone has a right to live. I dont care if the person raped and murdered 30 7yr olds and then burnt their bodies, then ran into a police station and shot 20 officers. Capital punishment is not the answer. If we start making distinctions to who has a right to live or not, the line becomes blurred.
So why would it be ok to execute child murderers but not homicidal people? adults are worth more in every way, they produce an income, contribute to the ecconomy and reproduce, a child does none of this.

I just pray that there isnt some sort of political knee jerk reaction that results in interigation laws being relaxed, or even worse: capital punishment reintroduced for "Special" cases.
 

Optophobia

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
696
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Serius said:
wow what an emotionally charged, bullshit poll.

I am against capital punishment. Everyone has a right to live. I dont care if the person raped and murdered 30 7yr olds and then burnt their bodies, then ran into a police station and shot 20 officers. Capital punishment is not the answer. If we start making distinctions to who has a right to live or not, the line becomes blurred.
So the punishment that a man who kills 5 seven year olds gets (life imprisonment) is the same as the man who kill 30 seven years olds and 20 police officers. Does that make sense?

Also, i doubt you would believe this if all of the people who were killed were in your family.

The only reason why Australia is against the death penalty is because we haven't had a case which is really deserving of it, besides port arthur, but one stand alone case isn't enough to warrant changing the whole system. If more of that occured, we would have the death penalty. The death penalty is out of place in Australia, because at the moment we can quell disturbances with imprisonment.
 

gerhard

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
850
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Optophobia said:
So the punishment that a man who kills 5 seven year olds gets (life imprisonment) is the same as the man who kill 30 seven years olds and 20 police officers. Does that make sense?

Also, i doubt you would believe this if all of the people who were killed were in your family.
If you believe the role of prison is to remove people who are unfit to live in our society, then yes, it does make sense. If you believe that one of the roles of the prison system should be used to exact revenge on the perpetrators, then it does not make sense.

Also; I really dislike the argument 'oh if your family were killed you would be thinking differently'. that doesnt mean my new opinions are valid - highly emotional people obviously arent in a position to make sound judgements.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
So the punishment that a man who kills 5 seven year olds gets (life imprisonment) is the same as the man who kill 30 seven years olds and 20 police officers. Does that make sense?
Sigh... bring in capital punishment and you will still have the same problem.

"So the punishment that a man who kills 5 seven year olds gets (death) is the same as the man who kill 30 seven years olds and 20 police officers."

yawn.

Also, i doubt you would believe this if all of the people who were killed were in your family.
Actually there are many people who've had members of their family killed and they prefer a life-imprisonment sentence. Also, who cares if my mind would change after a family member was just killed? Some psychopath just killed my father/mother/brother/sister - you can give me a break and not listen to my advice in this fractured state, at least for a little while, right?
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Life in prison would be punishment enough for any man. Personally i would prefer the death penalty to life in prison and no chance of parole. Many prisoners think the same. Its true that there isnt a need right now for a stronger punishment, but people rarely think in for a dime, in for a dozen.

Punishment or threat of punishment has little effect on crimes of passion, and no effect on manslaughter......and premeditated murders are usually by some fucked up people with a serious greviance anyways, so i dont know how much capital punishment would deter them.
 

Jonathan A

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Optophobia said:
So the punishment that a man who kills 5 seven year olds gets (life imprisonment) is the same as the man who kill 30 seven years olds and 20 police officers. Does that make sense?

Also, i doubt you would believe this if all of the people who were killed were in your family.

The only reason why Australia is against the death penalty is because we haven't had a case which is really deserving of it, besides port arthur, but one stand alone case isn't enough to warrant changing the whole system. If more of that occured, we would have the death penalty. The death penalty is out of place in Australia, because at the moment we can quell disturbances with imprisonment.

Whilst I believe in tough punishment, I am from the old-school penal theory of Kantian punishment - the moral desert system. The fallacy in your argument is: "i doubt you would believe this if all of the people who were killed were in your family." Our laws are built on the foundation of impartiality and independence of the judge. Judges should not be emotionally motivated at all, emotion is merely a factor of consideration as it should be. Punishment is not only about vengeance.
 

Optophobia

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
696
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Jonathan A said:
Whilst I believe in tough punishment, I am from the old-school penal theory of Kantian punishment - the moral desert system. The fallacy in your argument is: "i doubt you would believe this if all of the people who were killed were in your family." Our laws are built on the foundation of impartiality and independence of the judge. Judges should not be emotionally motivated at all, emotion is merely a factor of consideration as it should be. Punishment is not only about vengeance.
I am not talking about if Serius were a judge. I am talking about him now. If the victims were in his family, i highly doubt he would still have the view that they shouldn't be put to death.

The inadequacy comes from the maximum punishment. Martin Briant already has 35 life sentences. What if tomorrow he kills a prison guard. What are you going to do, give him another life sentence?

Concurrency in all things law is utterly ridiculous.

1) Concurrent imprisonment sentences:-
Someone serving 1 year for offence (a) and the same year for offence (b) is just stupid. They don't spend two strains of time in prison and its stupid.
a) Life imprisonment - Any person who is on a life imprisonment term should not be eligable to enter into another one - they should be put to death.

2) good behaviour bonds:-
There are people in this state who are on more than 20 good behaviour bonds. If the legislators had any sense, they would legislate something such as "A person who is on a good behaviour bond is not eligable to enter into another good behaviour bond", "a good behaviour bond is to last for the term of the persons natural life","additionally, in sentencing a person to a good behaviour bond, a magistrate/judge shall also sentence the person to a term of suspended imprisonment, upon which, if ANY offence punishable by imprisonment is committed by the person, at ANY time in their life after the time at which the good behaviour bond is set, they shall serve on top of any other term of imprisonment handed down for the later offence".
 
Last edited:

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Your argument is based on the asumption that i would find a sentence of death to be a worse punishment than life in prison. You also assume that i am an uncaring person fueled by vengance.
Neither are true, and whilst at the time i am sure i would want the perp to suffer as much as possible, i see life in prison as suffering, where as death is a release from guilt. If that wasnt enough, iam sure i could find an unscrupulous horny prisoner that i could pay to ensure aforementioned perp has a "good" time in prison.

Then there is the question of guilt, mistakes happen, and i could never live with myself if i was the reason an innocent man was put to death. Life sentences can be revoked, death cant. Anger, hate, the need for vengance...all fade with time, but their sentence would go on.


solitary confinement is more than sufficient for punishments commited whilst in prison. Prison guards also like to dish out their own form of punishment to any prisoner who has the gall to kill a guard.
 

wheredanton

Retired
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
599
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Optophobia said:
2) good behaviour bonds:-
There are people in this state who are on more than 20 good behaviour bonds. If the legislators had any sense, they would legislate something such as "A person who is on a good behaviour bond is not eligable to enter into another good behaviour bond", "a good behaviour bond is to last for the term of the persons natural life","additionally, in sentencing a person to a good behaviour bond, a magistrate/judge shall also sentence the person to a term of suspended imprisonment, upon which, if ANY offence punishable by imprisonment is committed by the person, at ANY time in their life after the time at which the good behaviour bond is set, they shall serve on top of any other term of imprisonment handed down for the later offence".
So how do we solve that problem? Build more gaols? Seriously you should join the NSW Liberal Party (or maybe the NSW ALP) and start banging on about the need for ten thousand more police, heavier prison sentences and a few more very expensive prisons.

It seems that it is stuck in the minds of NSW folk is that the way to stop crime is to put more police on the beat, and lock more people up. More police and more custodial punishments are only good at curbing crime to an extent. But law and order is substantially more complex than that. There are already an inordinate number of people in NSW prisons. Surely it would be better to prevent crime rather than simply glorify the imprisonment of individuals and never look at to why he or she committed the crime?

You have to look at the motivations of Lornorder reforms. As pointed out by Cowdry the DDP isn't funded well, presumably because funding the DPP to prosecute crimes isnt going to win votes as much as pointing to 10 000 new police to please un named news outlets who like to jump on the populist bandwagon, appeal to the lowest common denominator and fuel the flames.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top