Nebuchanezzar's Signature... (1 Viewer)

[Nebuchanezzar]

Also, I believe that law is largely controlled by the rich and that injustice often results from that, and I love it. The dove should have got a more expensive lawyer if it wanted to be free that bad.

It sounds to me as if you're trying to get people like myself to take the bait with comments like that

It does not say 'public lecture', unlike some other events, so my guess would be no.

Okay, thanks.

I doubt they'd check student cards to make sure, nor would they boot someone out if they weren't a member. It sounds to me as though the invitation was limited to simply keep numbers down from what they would have been had it have been massively advertised.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I doubt they'd check student cards to make sure, nor would they boot someone out if they weren't a member. It sounds to me as though the invitation was limited to simply keep numbers down from what they would have been had it have been massively advertised.

They wouldn't, no. But invitations would indeed be limited to UNSW students (and in fact only advertised to UNSW law students) because if everyone from other universities came there would be no room for those from UNSW. When Kirby came to UNSW in 2004, he was in the Scientia, in a room larger than the CLB7 theatre (where he is scheduled to speak this year), and it was absolutely packed full back then.

I wouldn't worry, hYperTrOphY. Kirby will probably be addressing numerous universities.

 

[Frigid]

awesome site for Nebuchanezzar: Rights and Wrong.

 

[hfis]

awesome site for Nebuchanezzar: Rights and Wrong.

Hahaha, the John Wilson who runs that site wouldn't happen to be the J Wilson who appears before the High Court in this transcript by any chance would it? I couldn't help but notice the Magna Carta reference on the first page, in line with his antics at the special leave hearing.

GUMMOW J: No, that is a law of the Parliament of New South Wales, is it not?
MR WILSON: Yes. The Supreme Court is in New South Wales.
GUMMOW J: Yes. Controlled by the Supreme Court Act of New South Wales too.
MR WILSON: The Supreme Court Act of New South Wales?
GUMMOW J: Yes. Supreme Court Act.

CALLINAN J: Look, you cannot really ask me questions, but, yes, I did see it, Mr Wilson.
MR WILSON: Well, this is a two-way thing, you were asking me questions and I am asking you.
GUMMOW J: No, it is not a two-way thing, actually.
MR WILSON: It is not?
GUMMOW J: No.
MR WILSON: You are a dictator, are you?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The very same nutcase.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

CALLINAN J: Look, you cannot really ask me questions, but, yes, I did see it, Mr Wilson.
MR WILSON: Well, this is a two-way thing, you were asking me questions and I am asking you.
GUMMOW J: No, it is not a two-way thing, actually.
MR WILSON: It is not?
GUMMOW J: No.
MR WILSON: You are a dictator, are you?

What exactly were they talking about?

 

[hfis]

What exactly were they talking about?

Click the link in my post for forbidden internet treasures.

 

[_dhj_]

The very same nutcase.

Wow.. I just realised that he has a web page of court proceedings. All of these are pretty hilarious

http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/menu.html

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Aw, this Gummow character could have at least been a bit nicer to Mr. Wilson. It's clear that he wasn't taking him seriously (dare I say, rightly so), but the least he could do was play along with the whole thing. Alas;

GUMMOW J: Do you think they apply in England to this day?

MR WILSON: Pardon?

GUMMOW J: Do you think they apply in England in this day, in this way?

MR WILSON: I am not concerned what they do in England.

GUMMOW J: I see.

Quite hilarious.

MR WILSON: But they cannot remove the rights of the people. They cannot remove the right to trial by jury. There is nothing in any constitution which gives a Parliament, either State or Federal the power to make laws to take away the rights of the people. This is clearly stated in Quick and Garran. In a full-blown appeal all these things can be gone into detail and if any attempt is made to truncate or stop that you will be denying the normal process of what is fair.

GUMMOW J: No, we will just be applying a section in the Judiciary Act which is a law of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

MR WILSON: It must be fair that I must be allowed a full hearing. This is natural justice. These - - -

GUMMOW J: No. One of the things we are obliged to do is to obey the laws of the Commonwealth - - -

I'm sure Gummow didn't mean anything by that, but it certainly doesn't sounds terribly good when taken out of context.

MR WILSON: Your job is to ensure fairness.

GUMMOW J: No, it is not.

MR WILSON: It is not?

GUMMOW J: It is to apply justice, according to law.

Argh! *see signiture*

 

[Frigid]

MR WILSON: Your job is to ensure fairness.

GUMMOW J: No, it is not.

MR WILSON: It is not?

GUMMOW J: It is to apply justice, according to law.

Argh! *see signiture*

exactly my point, Mr Wilson.

laity like yourself think the law ought to be fuzzy notions of 'justice' and 'fairness', but it cannot be that. for otherwise the law will become purely subjective decisions of the arbiter. what is just to you may not be just to me, may not be just to a third person.

fluffy-bunny justice must be tempered by the rule(s) of law.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Oh indeed, for what I can think of right now (I'm rather tired), I certainly agree that without a set of rules the law would indeed become "purely subjective decisions of the arbiter", although they currently still are to a large extent.

Alas, the whole point of the signiture was to do what that wall of quotes doesn't do, point out that the law is not a be and all and all flawless creation.

 

[hfis]

Wow.. I just realised that he has a web page of court proceedings. All of these are pretty hilarious

http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/menu.html

This thread is now about the valiant crusade of Mr Wilson.

PLAINTIFF: You are as corrupt as all the other judges I have come across.

HIS HONOUR: You are in serious danger of being placed in contempt of court and I would advise you to leave.

PLAINTIFF: I have been fighting the banks and I have been fighting the judges and I have received no justice at all.

HIS HONOUR: You have said your piece. I warn you that if you say any more I will arrange for the security officers to remove you.

PLAINTIFF: Well do it, sir, because I am standing here on what I have said.

HIS HONOUR: You can stand there and I will call the next matter.

(At a latter stage security officers removed the plaintiff from the court.)

 

[Optophobia]

The verdict acquit the raven, but condemns the dove

Actually, now-a-days, it's more likely to read "The verdict acquit the raven, and condemn the cockatoo".

The purpose of the law is not to prevent future offense, but to punish the one actually committed - actually criminal law is intended to do both. sentencing is intended both to deter future conduct and to punish the offender. in no way are sentences supposed to be retributive.

Despite the fact that for crimes like Murder, the offender often only commits one offence? They should be let off scott free simply because they will never offend again? In cases of murder, there is only one thing in mind.. Retribution.

Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law - yes, i agree that members of the legislative should all be, without exception, law-abiding citizens.

Haaah! Politicians.. Obey the law? Haha..

 

[hfis]

Despite the fact that for crimes like Murder, the offender often only commits one offence? They should be let off scott free simply because they will never offend again? In cases of murder, there is only one thing in mind.. Retribution.

What the hell are you smoking? Frigid stated that 'sentencing is intended both to deter future conduct and to punish the offender'. How on earth does this suggest anything in the way of letting people off because they will 'never offend again'?

Also, to state that sentencing for murder is driven purely by retribution is false. You forgot rehabilitation and denouncement, and I'm sure I've missed a few there as well.

 

[hYperTrOphY]

Despite the fact that for crimes like Murder, the offender often only commits one offence? They should be let off scott free simply because they will never offend again? In cases of murder, there is only one thing in mind.. Retribution.

As hfis pointed out, if you are actually responding to Frigid, rather than the member whose signature has been the subject of debate, I think you misinterpreted what he was arguing.

No, offenders should not be let off 'scot free' on the basis they will never comit a crime again. It is unknown whether a person will re-offend, so basing a decision of no punishment on that premise would be fundamentally flawed. I disagree that retribution is the 'only one thing in mind' when punishing criminals for serious offences such as murder. More importantly, as hfis mentioned, is rehabilitation.

Sanctions such as imprisonment may be ineffective in rehabilitating or deterring offenders, but that does not mean retribution is thus the only, or even primary, consideration.

 

[Optophobia]

Also, to state that sentencing for murder is driven purely by retribution is false. You forgot rehabilitation and denouncement, and I'm sure I've missed a few there as well.

In the case of murder, there is often no Rehabilitation to be done. They are one off situational events that people find themselves in (in the large majority of cases). Therefore, the only thing that a judge is concerned with generally in sentencing a murderer (other than serial murderers.. who never get released anyway..) is retribution on behalf of society.

 

[hfis]

Therefore, the only thing that a judge is concerned with generally in sentencing a murderer (other than serial murderers.. who never get released anyway..) is retribution on behalf of society.

Have you some kind of source for this? Perhaps one penned by Professor Charles Xavier?

 

[_dhj_]

In the case of murder, there is often no Rehabilitation to be done. They are one off situational events that people find themselves in (in the large majority of cases). Therefore, the only thing that a judge is concerned with generally in sentencing a murderer (other than serial murderers.. who never get released anyway..) is retribution on behalf of society.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that the law only serves the purpose of retribution for the crime of murder. Prevention is obviously a big part. Society isn't perfect, and people commit murder not only because they believe it is right to do so in particular situations, but also because they believe they're able to get away with it. The fact that murder is treated as a serious crime also makes it more morally wrong. Legality and morality are separate things, but I daresay that for most people, they influence one another.

 

[Frigid]

Therefore, the only thing that a judge is concerned with generally in sentencing a murderer (other than serial murderers.. who never get released anyway..) is retribution on behalf of society.

in the case of murder, the main issue i would think is deterence.

sentencing should never be about retribution.

retribution implies we should have the death penalty or cruel and usual punishments.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Perhaps the main issue is intended to be deterrance, but as a POV from someone on the "outside" of law, I tend to believe it's all to do with revenge. I won't offer a comment as to whether or not I consider that to be a good thing.