NationStates Jolt Archive

Some Pakistani-born gang rapists in Australia were recently sentenced for their crimes. Their defense in court was that their Pakistani culture gave them the right to rape "promiscuous" women.
MSK, a married Australian citizen and one of seven brothers who migrated to Australia in 1997, blamed cultural misunderstanding for his actions, claiming his upbringing in a small Muslim village in Pakistan taught him he had the right to rape promiscuous girls. Wagner qualified as promiscuous, he told an earlier hearing, because she did not wear a headscarf and had come to his house unchaperoned.
Personally I think that such a "defense" should have doubled his sentence. If it's not true that Pakistani culture allows such things then he's just slandered an entire culture and probably incresed racism. I hope that Pakistani culture doesn't condone such things, and the fact that one doesn't see Pakistanis constantly charged with rape seems to back that up.

Anyway, do you agree that certain "defenses" in court are actually aggravating factors that should increase one's sentence if found guilty?


http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/the-moment-tegan-stood-up-for-herself-and-became-a-hero/2006/04/08/1143916764292.html

I don't know about increasing the penalty, but if I were the judge, I'd hit someone like that with the maximum allowed by law. Same for people who try to get out of rape charges by slandering the victim. If the jury finds them guilty, then they get the max, and they serve every day of it.

Anyway, do you agree that certain "defenses" in court are actually aggravating factors that should increase one's sentence if found guilty?
Yes/no.

I don't think it should increase the sentence on the grounds of being an aggravating defence, but it should be considered when deciding on the sentence itself. Using that defense shows bad character and criminal energy and should receive a sentence closer to the maximum possible than the minimum.

Well, pleading guilty is meant to reduce your sentence...

All rapists should be given the death period.

That was a ridiculous defense, but I could if they said they were clinically insane, then I could consider giving them lighter sentences.

The title is a faulty arguement. The very idea of punishing someone for raising a defence undermines our proud, Australian, legal traditions.

However, our Courts have always treated the remorseless and likely re-offenders with little mercy and will no doubt be seeking to make an example in this case.

Most emphatically YES.

And you gave such a lovely example.

ANY dickweed who has the gall to appeal to other standards than the law of the land, ought to be given the stiffest sentence available.

While we're at it: lets make the whole court system simpler.

'Do you plead guilty?' is a very simple question, that allows for 3 answers ( including one non-answer ) and no other replies:

Yessir, nosir, and ( silence ). Let's keep things nice and simple. ANY other answer ought to be treated as: guilty as charged - and please proceed to the sentencing stage.

All rapists should be given the death period.

That was a ridiculous defense, but I could if they said they were clinically insane, then I could consider giving them lighter sentences.

The death period; what's that?

Is the death period where they implant racists with wombs and then use hormones to induce massive blood loss?

The death period; what's that?
Sorry, I had a brain fart. I meant to say death penalty.

Giving stupid defenses are what the guilty do. You have to hope that the jury isn't stupid enough to actually let people go when those defenses are made.

Sorry, I had a brain fart. I meant to say death penalty.
Then I refer you to this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476990 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476990)

Please read the whole thing before making comments which have already been made.

Even if such a thing were true, unless the victims were Pakistani, they have no case. :p

I hope it's not true. But maybe you could castrate them and turn em into 'promiscuous women'. :D

Then I refer you to this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476990 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476990)
Been there, done that.

Please read the whole thing before making comments which have already been made.


Based on the, ah... timing.. of your various posts, I'd say you're spamming up this thread.

Please, be fruitful and multiply.
Somewhere else.

All rapists should be given the death period.

That was a ridiculous defense, but I could if they said they were clinically insane, then I could consider giving them lighter sentences.
We don't have the death penalty here. We have this crazy idea it's wrong to kill

We don't have the death penalty here. We have this crazy idea it's wrong to kill
Do you also have this crazy idea that it's wrong to rape?

Do you also have this crazy idea that it's wrong to rape?


Do you have this crazy idea that an infraction of the 10th Commandment warrants an infraction of the 8th Commandment?

Anyway, back on topic.

Should Courts tolerate ANY appeal to 'rules' that are not part of the Code under which said Court function?

Do you have this crazy idea that an infraction of the 10th Commandment warrants an infraction of the 8th Commandment?

Anyway, back on topic.

Should Courts tolerate ANY appeal to 'rules' that are not part of the Code under which said Court function?
I don't know my commandments, so I really don't know where you were going with that one.

Based on the, ah... timing.. of your various posts, I'd say you're spamming up this thread.

Please, be fruitful and multiply.
Somewhere else.

Based on the er... numerous er... full stops, I'd say that you made that point for point making's sake.

Do you have this crazy idea that an infraction of the 10th Commandment warrants an infraction of the 8th Commandment?

Anyway, back on topic.

Should Courts tolerate ANY appeal to 'rules' that are not part of the Code under which said Court function?
No, they don't need to. All State Criminal Codes contain a clause allowing for "Special and Unique Defences". You can use "I have this purple dinosaur and it's pretty" as a defence to murder. The Court will throw it out before trial though

Do you also have this crazy idea that it's wrong to rape?
Yes. That's why we send rapists and murders to prison.

Yes. That's why we send rapists and murders to prison.

Although I'd hardly call it a crazy idea. :p

Yes. That's why we send rapists and murders to prison.
Well, all I can say is save your pity for the victims.

Although I'd hardly call it a crazy idea. :p
It's still common in some parts of the world...

No, they don't need to. All State Criminal Codes contain a clause allowing for "Special and Unique Defences". You can use "I have this purple dinosaur and it's pretty" as a defence to murder. The Court will throw it out before trial though

*nods*

And methinks that claiming: 'I grew up in a big town where they taught us to sacrifice small mamals' ought to count as a purple dinosaur. Mutatis mutandis for a small village where they taught us to torture harlots.

But - the point I was trying to make is as follows:

The idea behind Courts of Law is to enforce a certain Code of behaviour - and no other Code.
The Defendant tries to appeal to another Code.
Regardless of the validity of the other Code, a Court ought to hold any defendant appealing to another Code as being 'in contempt of Court'.

Well, all I can say is save your pity for the victims.Well, all I can say is you don't prove your humanity by being inhumane to the inhumane.

Well, all I can say is save your pity for the victims.
And people who are murdered by the state, are victims too.

Anyway, do you agree that certain "defenses" in court are actually aggravating factors that should increase one's sentence if found guilty?


http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/the-moment-tegan-stood-up-for-herself-and-became-a-hero/2006/04/08/1143916764292.html

I think the law should wait until they're out of prison, then charge them with a new 'cultural slander'/'Scapegoating in court'/both charge and put 'em back away.

Well, all I can say is you don't prove your humanity by being inhumane to the inhumane.
That means almost the same thing as my post, but is more eloquently put :(.

Well, all I can say is save your pity for the victims.
I never said I pity anyone. I just don't believe in sanctioning murder and neither does my government

our proud, Australian, legal traditions.

However, our Courts have always treated the remorseless and likely re-offenders with little mercy and will no doubt be seeking to make an example in this case.
HAHA, thats bullshit, why would a bikie who has been convicted of shooting 2 people get 3 months for having a loaded semi automatic pistol with a silencer (both of which are illegal) in his car? -the Advertiser
unless our proud legal traditions involve corruption?

I never said I pity anyone. I just don't believe in sanctioning murder and neither does my government

Yes I can agree with that as long as the criminals are actually going to prison and their sentences are actually long enough to fit the crime. Rapists should get life in prison.

Yes I can agree with that as long as the criminals are actually going to prison and their sentences are actually long enough to fit the crime. Rapists should get life in prison.


Anyway, do you agree that certain "defenses" in court are actually aggravating factors that should increase one's sentence if found guilty?

*nods*

And methinks that claiming: 'I grew up in a big town where they taught us to sacrifice small mamals' ought to count as a purple dinosaur. Mutatis mutandis for a small village where they taught us to torture harlots.

But - the point I was trying to make is as follows:

The idea behind Courts of Law is to enforce a certain Code of behaviour - and no other Code.
The Defendant tries to appeal to another Code.
Regardless of the validity of the other Code, a Court ought to hold any defendant appealing to another Code as being 'in contempt of Court'.
The Courts excists to enforce justice. This is done through interpreting and applying the law.

The Courts (specifically the High Court) to set aside legislation. This excists as a check and ballance to government and legislative power.

A defendant should have every right to appeal over an unjust law, if that is the case, on the grounds of that law being unjust.

Whilst the cannon of law is the basis for most rulings, it is not the only source of justice and our Courts must remain free to practice justice, and not just the law.

Well, all I can say is you don't prove your humanity by being inhumane to the inhumane.
By murdering another human being, they aren't worthy of humanity.

Unless it's in a war, that's different.

HAHA, thats bullshit, why would a bikie who has been convicted of shooting 2 people get 3 months for having a loaded semi automatic pistol with a silencer (both of which are illegal) in his car? -the Advertiser
unless our proud legal traditions involve corruption?
Improve your mastery of the language you speak before challenging me to a debate, firstly.

Secondly, I do not know the specifics of that case, so commenting would not be appropriate. If I had to guess, I would say he was only convicted of possessing the firearm, in which case, the sentence is unusually high. A Court cannot give three months for murder, a person must serve at least twenty-five years, plus an additional twenty-five years if they are consecutive. On the other hand, if the person was charged with the lessor offence of manslaughter, the sentence still does not seem to conform with the requirements for sentencing. Again, I obviously cannot comment fully without the facts

Anyway, do you agree that certain "defenses" in court are actually aggravating factors that should increase one's sentence if found guilty?

No. Everyone is entitled to make their defense no matter how lame or insulting. You should be happy that their defense is like that, no reasonable jury would ever release somene based on that.

"My culture tells me to rape". Yeah. You can have your culture in prison.

By murdering another human being, they aren't worthy of humanity. Your logical fallacy is thinking that that entitles someone else to act inhumane towards them.

By murdering another human being, they aren't worthy of humanity.

Unless it's in a war, that's different.
And by killing them, neither are we. End the cycle

By murdering another human being, they aren't worthy of humanity.

Unless it's in a war, that's different.

Although I believe that all human beings deserve humanity, there is a difference between the absence of humanity and the presence of inhumanity.

The Courts excists to enforce justice. This is done through interpreting and applying the law.

The Courts (specifically the High Court) to set aside legislation. This excists as a check and ballance to government and legislative power.

A defendant should have every right to appeal over an unjust law, if that is the case, on the grounds of that law being unjust.

Whilst the cannon of law is the basis for most rulings, it is not the only source of justice and our Courts must remain free to practice justice, and not just the law.


I did not say: cannon of law, I said: Code of behaviour ( which may have written and unwritten elements ).
Justice is not a universal value, it is a culture-specific value.

If you live in a country, you have the right to expect to have the code of that Country enforced by law.
This principle, this right, is known as the Rule of Law.

The defendants try to claim innocence - because they were being good little boys who just happened to have another Code to follow.

But I'm suggesting - no, saying - that such a claim, to follow another code, is a crime in itself, and should be dealt with as such.

Your logical fallacy is thinking that that entitles someone else to act inhumane towards them.
I said that they may be treated inhumanely because they're less than human because they killed a human. Much better to just do them in with a lethal injection and not have to waste taxpayer money to keep them in prison.

I said that they may be treated inhumanely because they're less than human because they killed a human. Much better to just do them in with a lethal injection and not have to waste taxpayer money to keep them in prison.And by killing them that person also becomes less than human. And the person that kills them. Rotovia said it right. End the cycle.

I did not say: cannon of law, I said: Code of behaviour ( which may have written and unwritten elements ).
Justice is not a universal value, it is a culture-specific value.

If you live in a country, you have the right to expect to have the code of that Country enforced by law.
This principle, this right, is known as the Rule of Law.

The defendants try to claim innocence - because they were being good little boys who just happened to have another Code to follow.

But I'm suggesting - no, saying - that such a claim, to follow another code, is a crime in itself, and should be dealt with as such.
The idea of our Courts enforcing a 'code of behaviour' would have the legal profession and most of the country cringing. We accept we need laws to protect us from many factors, but to laws to guide our behaviors are expressly prohibited. That said, they may have that result as a side effect. let me explain, we set speed limits not to stop people speeding, but to protect ourselves and others from harm.

Living in a country does not always mean accepting that code of law. The Queensland Police estimate over 50% of adult Australians willfully break laws prohibiting the possession or consumption of marijuana. Rosa Parks disobeyed the rules of the land by refusing to give up her bus seat. Americans defied British law by by refusing to pay taxes to the Crown.

The ideals held by a country and often reflected by it's laws are not always just.

The Defendants never claimed their system of right or wrong was superior, just that because they had been brought up differently, they had different idea of morality, perhaps even a wrong one, in hindsight. This is a factor to be considered, probably more-so in sentencing then at trial.

To follow a different set of beliefs to states being declared a crime is treasonous. Treasonous to our very core beliefs. Christians follow a set of beliefs not always reflected in our laws, should we arrest them?

Improve your mastery of the language you speak before challenging me to a debate, firstly.

This is about when I first broke into laughter. The second time is when you went on to say you know nothing about the case, but you were willing to debate about it.

I used to think you were good at this :rolleyes:

Christians follow a set of beliefs not always reflected in our laws, should we arrest them?
No, we should re-educate them.

The idea of our Courts enforcing a 'code of behaviour' would have the legal profession and most of the country cringing. We accept we need laws to protect us from many factors, but to laws to guide our behaviors are expressly prohibited. That said, they may have that result as a side effect. let me explain, we set speed limits not to stop people speeding, but to protect ourselves and others from harm.

Living in a country does not always mean accepting that code of law. The Queensland Police estimate over 50% of adult Australians willfully break laws prohibiting the possession or consumption of marijuana. Rosa Parks disobeyed the rules of the land by refusing to give up her bus seat. Americans defied British law by by refusing to pay taxes to the Crown.

The ideals held by a country and often reflected by it's laws are not always just.

The Defendants never claimed their system of right or wrong was superior, just that because they had been brought up differently, they had different idea of morality, perhaps even a wrong one, in hindsight. This is a factor to be considered, probably more-so in sentencing then at trial.

A: To follow a different set of beliefs to states being declared a crime is treasonous. Treasonous to our very core beliefs. Christians follow a set of beliefs not always reflected in our laws, should we arrest them?


A: A wonderfully easy question to answer.
Of course, each and every individual who wants leeway from a Court in whose jurisdiction he resides, because he has another value system and therefore claims immunity from said jurisdiction - ought to be subjected to the utmost severity of the Law.
The moment an act is committed that breaks the law of the jurisdiction you're in, prosecute - and don't flinch if anyone yells: persecute.

This is about when I first broke into laughter. The second time is when you went on to say you know nothing about the case, but you were willing to debate about it.

I used to think you were good at this :rolleyes:
I like the way you out and out lie. I said 'commenting wouldn't be appropriate, but if I had to guess...'

I knew nothing of the cases specifics, but enough to raise some key points of interest to general topic. Reading my actual post would reflect this.

Ps. The complete and flagrant disregard for a coherent sentence or apt communication in your first post is what prompted my remark. It is unacceptable to be expected to be taken seriously if your post looks like a pre-puscent teen, on Ritalin, wrote it.

I like the way you out and out lie. I said 'commenting wouldn't be appropriate, but if I had to guess...'

I knew nothing of the cases specifics, but enough to raise some key points of interest to general topic. Reading my actual post would reflect this.

Ps. The complete and flagrant disregard for a coherent sentence or apt communication in your first post is what prompted my remark. It is unacceptable to be expected to be taken seriously if your post looks like a pre-puscent teen, on Ritalin, wrote it.


Erm, pre-pubescent...? And ADHD is a serious problem which should not be mocked.

Erm, pre-pubescent...? And ADHD is a serious problem which should not be mocked.


Is it a noun, surely? :p

A: A wonderfully easy question to answer.
Of course, each and every individual who wants leeway from a Court in whose jurisdiction he resides, because he has another value system and therefore claims immunity from said jurisdiction - ought to be subjected to the utmost severity of the Law.
The moment an act is committed that breaks the law of the jurisdiction you're in, prosecute - and don't flinch if anyone yells: persecute.
I love the way I break down people's argument and address them point-by-point in a set structure, only be disregarded the same courtesy. Not specifically this post, but it is starting to get annoying.

A separate value system has two important and distinct importance's before a court of law.
The first is that the commonly held view by the law may be incorrect and be in need of review. (see: civil rights movement)
The second is that a person who has an alternate morality drilled into them, may have diminished responsibility for their actions.

To punish someone for raising a defence is so absurd and cannot believe it is being raised.

The law does not always exist as a severe punisher, but must always exist as a protector. Keep this principle in mind and western democracy and law makes far more sense.

If a person has any defence, let them raise it and let it be judged. if it be found wanting, then set it aside. If it be found of merit, let it be heard. But, to punish for raising it, no, this undermines our system of justice in a manner that cannot be allowed.

To refer back to the case, the fact the offender(s) posses a modes-operandi that would lead the court to believe they may re-offend, they deserve the maximum sentence. Whilst this is a result of their belief system, it is not a punishment for introducing it as a defence, despite it being their own undoing in their sentencing.

I love the way I break down people's argument and address them point-by-point in a set structure, only be disregarded the same courtesy. Not specifically this post, but it is starting to get annoying.

A separate value system has two important and distinct importance's before a court of law.
The first is that the commonly held view by the law may be incorrect and be in need of review. (see: civil rights movement)
The second is that a person who has an alternate morality drilled into them, may have diminished responsibility for their actions.

To punish someone for raising a defence is so absurd and cannot believe it is being raised.

The law does not always exist as a severe punisher, but must always exist as a protector. Keep this principle in mind and western democracy and law makes far more sense.

If a person has any defence, let them raise it and let it be judged. if it be found wanting, then set it aside. If it be found of merit, let it be heard. But, to punish for raising it, no, this undermines our system of justice in a manner that cannot be allowed.

To refer back to the case, the fact the offender(s) posses a modes-operandi that would lead the court to believe they may re-offend, they deserve the maximum sentence. Whilst this is a result of their belief system, it is not a punishment for introducing it as a defence, despite it being their own undoing in their sentencing.


I bow with pleasure to your superior knowledge of law and to your general cant so to speak, but I take objection to the idea of defence as you use it.

One obeys - or one is a criminal element to be stamped out.
As I said earlier: yessir or nosir.

( And as a general rule, I abstemiously abstain from stating anything on a forum that I can't pronounce and deliver within 30 seconds. )

Erm, pre-pubescent...? And ADHD is a serious problem which should not be mocked.
Congratulations, savour that typo. Perhaps you can bring it up whenever it is you actually get to addressing any of my points, instead of praying no-one notices your only retort falls aside the actual argument?

Furthermore, ADHD is very mock-able and it's very lack of legitimacy lends itself to mockery.

I bow with pleasure to your superior knowledge of law and to your general cant so to speak, but I take objection to the idea of defence as you use it.

One obeys - or one is a criminal element to be stamped out.
As I said earlier: yessir or nosir.

( And as a general rule, I abstemiously abstain from stating anything on a forum that I can't pronounce and deliver within 30 seconds. )
You sir, are a debater a do like. Ending a debate with humour, style and respect is an admirable quality and I both respect and applaud it.

If I dare make such a leap in logical assumption, I shall presume you to be a conservative. Myself, being a liberal cling to the belief that obedience is not always as important as what is right.

But, as it is well past any godly hour and I have an extremely busy day tomorrow. Goodnight to all of NSisngdom.

You sir, are a debater a do like. Ending a debate with humour, style and respect is an admirable quality and I both respect and applaud it.

If I dare make such a leap in logical assumption, I shall presume you to be a conservative. Myself, being a liberal cling to the belief that obedience is not always as important as what is right.

But, as it is well past any godly hour and I have an extremely busy day tomorrow. Goodnight to all of NSisngdom.

*blush*

A Conservative who votes Liberal, which is to say, one who obeys the Laws absolutely, while voting to have Laws that are not just, changed.

Sir, may we meet again - and soon.

Congratulations, savour that typo. Perhaps you can bring it up whenever it is you actually get to addressing any of my points, instead of praying no-one notices your only retort falls aside the actual argument?

How about checking who's actually on your side in an argument before insulting his/her opinions? That would be a good start.