India Australia Relations

**Repatriated Canuck** · 17 Jan 12,, 15:31

Originally Posted by Chunder

And exactly what personal experience or sheet of paper awarded to you tells you that more Jail time in the answer?
Or are you just pissing into the wind here?

I get selected because I keep the peace, and I play the game. You think your making me submissive? Or am I just playing a game? No fights is the goal. The fact you walked away just means at least you have more of a brain than what the others do.

You wouldn't have a clue about what I do or see, bar a roughly educated guess. You wouldn't have a clue about my formulated beliefs based soley on thousands of hours staring at, interacting with & observing the ballet of social intercourse.

Something for you to chew upon - those people have been educated on what it takes to cause serious bodily injury or death mostly by examples in the paper. You pick up a full stubbie and whack it across someones head is like a hammer blow. You break a bottle and carve their face, it's multiple lacerations. Many of them pick up the bottle and throw it without being provoked at all. All within the view of people that know what doing such things does. A friend of mine, (An Indian co-incidently) was hit over the back of the head by a bar stool, unprovoked. He was offered 20G shutup money. Refused, 6 Months Jail - because he wasn't killed. Drunk? Nope? people that perpetuate the bar fight as a harmless bit of biffo are stupid, brain dead individuals that like to fall back on the 'I can't remember anything' line.

The difference between life time injury and Murder is a split second of illogical thought - capable from anyone.

I'll give you another example, Very good friend of mine, Daughter was out clubbing, copped a stiletto through the eye. Lost that eye. You tell me what that is?

At the considered discretion of the magistrate. Prisons are for Punishment & Rehab. You seem to forget the latter.

Your doing a very good job at being a class A Jerk. I see repeatedly violent patrons, and guess what. They don't come into the venue when that's established. You know what I do give them? A handshake, a how are you doing today? What you up to tonight? I've seen them walk away and smash a drivers face into a car bonnet. Most of the time the cops will get told is someone dodgy is out. I don't speak about it because it's not the done thing. There are protocols that need to be followed. It's a shit boring job that I'm getting tired of. But I don't need to be told by someone who obviously likes telling people he doesn't know, what he thinks they have seen, and why it doesn't qualify them.

Your attitude stinks. Your welcome to your almighty soapbox which is obviously pretty tall because of the obnoxious ego which is supporting it.

...and he gets the time. For which we have already established is longer than his conscious memory and will retard him for life.

At the same time you seem to be lumping me in the crowd of hippies seeking leniency against violent offenders. I am not.

I don't care about rehab for violent people. As long as a repeat violent offender is in jail he's not out beating the hell out of people for fun.

As for your last comment, sure as hell doesn't look that way to me. I can almost see your dreadlocks and tie die T-Shirt.

My attitude stinks because I believe that violent people don't deserve the right to be around civilized people? Nice.

I don't particularly like your weak attitude towards violence either.

**Chunder** · 18 Jan 12,, 07:29

Originally Posted by Repatriated Canuck

I don't care about rehab for violent people. As long as a repeat violent offender is in jail he's not out beating the hell out of people for fun.

It's VERY hard to say the least to pin down what you are stipulating.

On one hand your asking the max for a one time offender, a sentence that belongs to a repeat offender. Sentencing is not a proven deterrent - and just like the Death penalty aberrations - sentencing must take into account the capacity for the individual to learn the error of their ways. Otherwise - we return to the Idiot system that exists pre Victorian era Jail - and mass hangings.

As for your last comment, sure as hell doesn't look that way to me. I can almost see your dreadlocks and tie die T-Shirt.

Hey - this one is just for your Repatriate - You need to take a good look at yourself - I don't know shit about you, but you have a rather bad tendency of pre-propensity. I won't be drawn into borderline nefarious issues. You like to talk a lot about your experience - then go about being recalcitrant to reason by playing the man with those issues.

My attitude stinks because I believe that violent people don't deserve the right to be around civilized people? Nice.

Your attitude stinks because of the above mentioned tendency. Violent people go to Prison, Violent people go through the system. Violent people need to be Re-habbed. You also crossed the line in assuming what I do & what I see in my line of work. Further to that, you made unprofessional assumption about an observation that exists because of experience. Not only that - you crossed the line in regards to what amounted to a piss poor personal attack by the nature of that assumption (I'm not going to toot my horn nor unload some ego - I couldn't really care). You gave me no other option than to provide examples of recent - that relate to my personal life - none of which was your business, and first hand personal experiences that, had I had 'military/defence professional' against my name you would have thought twice about. Next time you start talking about bar fights gone wrong or relative disposition because of geography - perhaps you ought to consider whether you know SFA about that area - It's irrelevant what you use when you have the relative potential to cause death.

You wouldn't have a clue about my attitude towards violence. That hasn't been a point of discussion in this thread. All my attitude has done - is to find a very opinionated person that likes to shove a predisposition down someone else's throat.

Potential and Intent flow on a see-saw. If you knock someone out and let them fall on a cement pavement... you might as well swing a hammer. If you Glass someone across the face, you might as well have had a knife. If you shoot someone, your might as well have shot them in the head. If you choke someone for over half a minute, you might has well have lynched them. You kick someone in the head, you might as well have got a sledge hammer out. You threaten someone with a force disposition of 2-1 or higher, you deserve severe sentencing. Make no mistake.

For the Record. I have a shaved head, and I wear a suit to work - Big boy.

**Repatriated Canuck** · 18 Jan 12,, 15:44

Originally Posted by Chunder

It's VERY hard to say the least to pin down what you are stipulating.

On one hand your asking the max for a one time offender, a sentence that belongs to a repeat offender. Sentencing is not a proven deterrent - and just like the Death penalty aberrations - sentencing must take into account the capacity for the individual to learn the error of their ways. Otherwise - we return to the Idiot system that exists pre Victorian era Jail - and mass hangings.

Hey - this one is just for your Repatriate - You need to take a good look at yourself - I don't know shit about you, but you have a rather bad tendency of pre-propensity. I won't be drawn into borderline nefarious issues. You like to talk a lot about your experience - then go about being recalcitrant to reason by playing the man with those issues.
Your attitude stinks because of the above mentioned tendency. Violent people go to Prison, Violent people go through the system. Violent people need to be Re-habbed. You also crossed the line in assuming what I do & what I see in my line of work. Further to that, you made unprofessional assumption about an observation that exists because of experience. Not only that - you crossed the line in regards to what amounted to a piss poor personal attack by the nature of that assumption (I'm not going to toot my horn nor unload some ego - I couldn't really care). You gave me no other option than to provide examples of recent - that relate to my personal life - none of which was your business, and first hand personal experiences that, had I had 'military/defence professional' against my name you would have thought twice about. Next time you start talking about bar fights gone wrong or relative disposition because of geography - perhaps you ought to consider whether you know SFA about that area - It's irrelevant what you use when you have the relative potential to cause death.

You wouldn't have a clue about my attitude towards violence. That hasn't been a point of discussion in this thread. All my attitude has done - is to find a very opinionated person that likes to shove a predisposition down someone else's throat.

Potential and Intent flow on a see-saw. If you knock someone out and let them fall on a cement pavement... you might as well swing a hammer. If you Glass someone across the face, you might as well have had a knife. If you shoot someone, your might as well have shot them in the head. If you choke someone for over half a minute, you might has well have lynched them. You kick someone in the head, you might as well have got a sledge hammer out. You threaten someone with a force disposition of 2-1 or higher, you deserve severe sentencing. Make no mistake.

For the Record. I have a shaved head, and I wear a suit to work - Big boy.

Yes, I got that you are a bouncer a few of your posts previous.

Military/Defense professional doesn't mean much in this topic. They don't like violent jerkoffs in the military anyway and give you psych tests in an attempt to weed you out. I have never seen combat nor have most people with that tag. Only a small portion of the military are combat arms. Of that small percentage not everyone gets deployed to a combat zone. I was in the reserves during a gap of combat missions and no military budget example.

I said clearly in multiple times that the kid left the house armed. I also explained and used your example about how a one off fight is not the same as a person who is in fights all the time. If a person is in constant fights and ends up killing someone it's not the same as a rare occurrence from one bad judgment. For a repeat violent jackass who ends up killing someone a long time in jail until perhaps they are no longer capable of killing with their bare hands for everyone elses benefit is deserved.

Adelaide is not known for violence, it is known as one of the safer spots in Australia and for lots of Churches. Perhaps had you explained yourself with evidence as to why you hold an opinion it would help your case. If you are not willing to don't bother typing. It would be the same as stating facts while refusing to post links as evidence supporting a claim. Last time I checked personal experience and links to support claims go far in this forum. As neither of us know each other all we have to validate opinions is personal evidence and supportive links.

If you want to take what I said about Adelaide being safe and as my reasoning that you would not see the same level of violence as a personal attack, here's a spoonful of concrete. I would still say that you, as a bouncer in Adelaide would still not be seeing the same level of violence as Northbridge in Perth or Kings Cross Sydney or even King Street, Melbourne. That's the deserved reputation Adelaide has built for itself. Had you used your professional opinion to back up what you say there would be less confusion and you would not be having the massive cry you just had above. Hey maybe I'm wrong again and you did shave your head working the door of a strip club on King Street. I wouldn't know of course because you have not told me.

For clarification as you missed my explanation of my stance I'll shorten and simplify. I advocate very long and stiff sentences for a person who leaves home armed and then murders someone. That to me shows intent and premeditation. I also advocate long stiff sentences for a repeat violent offender who ends up killing someone in one of their fun drink and fight nights. As a bouncer I'm sure you know the type. Also as a bouncer you are not as often the target of that jackass as someone who might be foreign, be of colour and be alone or a small group. I know the type because I grew up with them and was the target of them in Australia often because of my accent. I would hazard a guess (given you finally decided to back up your opinions with your professional view) that you know some of these guys by face and name.

A one off king hit causing death is not on the same level as premeditation or repeat violence. These sorts of people have shown they do not deserve to be around the rest of society. I do not care about rehab because as long as a person like that is in jail they are not out robbing and stabbing or beating the hell out of anyone.

Lastly I'll say again, if you are not willing to support your claims with personal experience or credible links but expect me to take you on your word..... Here's me the arrogant one with a huge ego dishing out personal attacks. You are right about one thing though, I am opinionated this is a political forum and we're all opinionated here.

In case you got offended again.

**Chunder** · 15 Feb 12,, 10:45

Repat, I probably owe you an apology for the abrasive responses on my part. However - In regards to sentencing there is too broad a frame work in a Federation with regards to sentencing to tar all with the same brush. If your want something credible. Here is a link from today's online news. You will find it relevant.

Youth who confessed to killing Callington nurse Pirjo Kemppainen jailed for at least 15 years

by: Court Reporter Sean Fewster
From: AdelaideNow
February 15, 2012 10:12AM

THE teenager who confessed to the murder of retired Callington nurse Pirjo Kemppainen will serve at least 15 years' jail.

The Supreme Court this morning ordered the boy, 15, be jailed for life with a 15-year non-parole period.

In sentencing, Justice Margaret Nyland said the boy's crime was disturbing and savage.

"As I place your crime at the highest level of seriousness, it is necessary to fix a substantial non-parole period, notwithstanding the fact you are only 15 years old," she said.

"I should also explain your release on parole will not be automatic... (it) will very much depend on how you behave, and respond to treatment, in custody."

The boy pleaded guilty to murdering Ms Kemppainen, 63, in her home in September 2010.

Details of the murder are suppressed because a co-accused will stand trial next month.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Callington rocked by murder

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Under South Australian law, the crime of murder results in an automatic life sentence and a mandatory minimum non-parole period of 20 years.

Children are, however, exempt from that minimum under the Young Offenders Act.

Judges are required to craft a sentence that provides "such care and guidance as necessary" to help the offender become "a useful member of the community".

That must be balanced with the need to deter the youth from re-offending, to prevent others from copying their actions and the need to protect the community.

In sentencing today, Justice Nyland said Ms Kemppainen was a shy, petite and much-loved woman who had done her killer no harm.

"A particularly disturbing aspect of this crime is that the selection of Ms Kemppainen as a victim was entirely random... she was a complete stranger to you," she said.

"Your sole motivation... was your wish to kill someone (and) you subjected her to what can only be described as a frenzied and relentless attack."

Last month, medical experts told the court the boy had been raised on a "constant diet" of violent entertainment by a father who encouraged retaliation.

They said his problems included mild retardation, a low IQ a lack of empathy and difficulty with problem-solving.

On the day of the murder, he had been suspended from school for fighting with another student who had teased him.

"To put it another way, when you become fixated on an idea the consequences of what you are about to do or the thought of doing anything else go by the wayside," Justice Nyland said.

"(Medical experts) said killing Ms Kemppainen was a callous (act) that was all about the re-empowerment of yourself."

Justice Nyland said it was "always momentous" when a youth confessed to murder, and that it showed "some evidence" of contrition.

"You have begun to realise the enormity of your actions and their devastating effects on people," she said.

However, many years of intense counselling, therapy and education would be needed to ensure the boy could become a responsible member of the community.

Justice Nyland said that help would be provided in youth detention until the boy turned 18, at which time the court would consider whether to leave him there or transfer him to an adult jail.

"I am obliged to assume you have the potential for rehabilitation which can be realised," she said.

"I must also take into account the question of community protection, and that is a matter that causes me considerable concern.

"Achieving an appropriate balance is a difficult task (which) to some extent requires me to gaze into a crystal ball.

"It's not easy, at this stage, to assess your rehabilitative prospects."

She said the non-parole period would have been 25 years, had the boy not pleaded guilty.

Ms Kemppainen's family did not comment outside court.

She said any release on parole would depend on him responding to treatment and dealing with his numerous behavioural problems while in custody.

Though wanting to encourage his rehabilitation, Justice Nyland said Ms Kemppainen's murder was far too severe for anything less than a 15-year minimum term.

Under South Australian law, murder carries a maximum life sentence with a mandatory minimum term of 20 years.

Young offenders, however, are exempt from that minimum under the terms of the Young Offenders Act.

Last month, the court was told the boy had been raised on a "constant diet" of violent entertainment by a father who encouraged retaliation.

Forensic psychologist Dr Luke Broomhall gave evidence that, once the boy fixated on a "single-minded determination" to kill, he lacked the intellectual capacity to change his mind.

"His primary motivation is to become empowered, in any situation in which he feels disempowered, by any means necessary," he said.

"Unfortunately, `any means necessary' includes taking down other people, innocent or guilty."

Dr Broomhall said the boy's drive to kill arose from four factors:

COGNITIVE impairment that left him "mildly retarded", practically illiterate and with an IQ of between 60 and 71.

LIFELONG exposure to domestic violence.

TEASING, bullying and bashing at school that fostered hatred for others and a belief all strangers are enemies.

RELIANCE on his "constant diet" of violent movies and video games.

Dr Broomhall said on the day of the murder the boy was suspended for fighting at school.

"He experienced disempowerment and sanction in one situation and transferred his feelings on to an innocent third party," he said.

"(That) allowed him to express revenge and retribution."

In a victim impact statement, Ms Kemppainen's sister, Liisa Werchon, said she struggled to understand the boy's motive.

"I feel deep anger toward (him) and wonder: What sort of person will he develop into if he can commit an evil act so early in his life?" she said.

For clarification as you missed my explanation of my stance I'll shorten and simplify. I advocate very long and stiff sentences for a person who leaves home armed and then murders someone. That to me shows intent and premeditation. I also advocate long stiff sentences for a repeat violent offender who ends up killing someone in one of their fun drink and fight nights. As a bouncer I'm sure you know the type. Also as a bouncer you are not as often the target of that jackass as someone who might be foreign, be of colour and be alone or a small group. I know the type because I grew up with them and was the target of them in Australia often because of my accent. I would hazard a guess (given you finally decided to back up your opinions with your professional view) that you know some of these guys by face and name.

Agreed.

Look, the issue I find with people is that the backgrounds and make up is simply impossible to determine. Those vagarities are best left to people who have some experience in that respect. My personal observations do not deserve much credit, other than as observations. I could if I tried find audio tapes on ABC radio about prisoner rehab, it would take too much time though. Hence there is this balance of wishing to contribute in common terms, but unwillingness to search for the supporting scripture. In this regard I suppose it got a little bit personal - having to resort to 'i've been, i've seen'. No I wouldn't work in other areas - But I do work alone 95% of the time. I couldn't tell you where I work though as I wish to remain anonymous in large part because it is a very identifiable venue and there are 'politics' involved - as well as a few other things I suppose.

Re your personal experiences - I had a freaking aweful time in Primary and High School. Having a face that looked like it fell out of the Ugly tree and hit the concrete pavement below didn't help. I have NO fond memories of school whatsoever bar one or two things. But I found it has actually helped me in that second job. If someone gets verbal, it doesn't stick, nor affect. I always figured that if I got hit, it might re-adjust my views a little bit.

Regards.