amyc said:
It is by the very virtue of his status that places Judge Dive in the best position to comment on the implications of the Drug Court Program.
Applying the same logic, it is John Howard who is best able to comment on the implications of government policy (or the policy writers whatever, you understand the point). This argument is great. It's going to save a lot of time.
I contend that, as a judge, he is able to apply the best possible balance of impartiality, human understanding of the changing needs of society & fairness, and by that, his view is not one of bias, as such, but of informed judgment.
Firstly, simple the status of being a judge does not necessarily mean that he possesses these characteristics, it is only through his actions alone that we can determine his capability in said areas. Rather than go into a complex point of why Judge Dive has inherant bias, I will offer the empirical counterevidence:
If so, why, during his entire address, did I not hear one negative aspect of the Drug Court other than 'it sometimes fails BUT the main system is worse'? Do none exist? Or is it that none were mentioned?
Furthermore, no where during his speech did he explicitly state that drugs are SOLELY responsible for crime. Rather, he addressed other issues of reintegrating the offender back into the community, etc, which to me, indicated his understanding that an offender's "criminal tendencies" may be attributed partially to their social upbringing.
Hey!
Amy!
Hi. I'm Rorix.
Yes, I get that a lot.
No, I won't go out with you.
Shut up for a second and let me talk
.
You're looking at the tree.
Look through the tree, man. Look through the tree.
I believe the claim of my post was obvious - that Judge Dive believes lifestyle factors are the cause of the crime, there is no individual culpability. To quote, the offenders are 'pathetic souls' and it was 'inevitable' that they would commit crime. Obviously, if something was inevitable, there is no individual culpability.
You will need to clarify this point.
I disagree, the point is quite obvious. You just wanted to deliberatly misinterperate it so as to provide a technical rebuttal.
Do you mean to say that drug use would lead to other forms of crime? Technically speaking, the use of drugs is prohibited under the NSW Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, and thus, users of illicit substances are deemed to have already committed at least the crime of possessing an illicit substance.
It is quite obvious from the context of the discussion that I am referring to crime linked to drug use, not offences for illegal possession etc. themselves, as you should know.
In relations to your cannibus comment, only in South Australia, Western Australia, the Northern territory and the ACT have the Australian jurisdiction decriminalised the possession and cultivation of small quantities of cannibus.
There is a difference between decriminalisation and legalisation.
