So, you're in a group of nine........

From Crikey.com......

9. Why Judge Bradley was right
Greg Barns writes:



The voice on the other end of the phone yesterday was nervous and furtive. I was talking to an officer at the District Court in Cairns, trying to get a copy of the sentencing remarks of Judge Sarah Bradley in the case involving the s-xual assault of a 10 year old Aboriginal girl. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, but the official was clearly fearful of providing me with any information. I got a copy of the judgement but it was obvious that the impact of the media and political witchunt on Judge Bradley is adversely affecting the hard-working staff at the Cairns District Court.


So was Judge Bradley’s sentence so outrageous as to warrant the fevered reaction of the past few days? The short answer is no.


Firstly, it has to be remembered that six of the nine defendants were under the age of 16 and jail is rightly regarded as undesirably and grossly inappropriate as a punishment for them. Secondly, custodial sentences are not the way to rehabilitate people, particularly Aboriginal Australians. They simply lead to increased recidivism and an exacerbation of existing behavioural difficulties.


Let’s explode one of the great myths of this case. That because in her sentencing remarks Judge Bradley said that the victim "was not forced and that she probably agreed to have s-x with all of you," she was implying that the victim consented to s-x with the defendants. This is not the case at all.

All that Judge Bradley was doing was stating the facts of the matter – that this was not a case where the accused physically struggled. That’s all. Judge Bradley is in no way implying that there was legitimate consent on the part of the victim. In short, to compare Judge Bradley with former South Australian judge Derek Bollen, who a decade ago infamously dismissed a complaint about a marital rape as nothing more than "rougher than usual handling", is grossly unfair and simply wrong.


The aspect of this case that is perhaps the most sickening is the way in which politicians have thrown up their hands in horror and jumped all over Judge Bradley and the Crown prosecutor in the case. These politicians – Liberal, Labor and National, federal and state -- are the very same people who have allowed the rate of Indigenous offenders in prison to remain outrageously high year in and year out.


As at 30 June 2006, Indigenous prisoners represented 24% of the total prisoner population. And in Queensland, Indigenous offenders are 11 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous offenders. Speaking in March 2006, Queensland Judge Michael Forde set out this scandalous picture of how politicians and the community have failed Aboriginal people in the justice system.

"The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander minority form around 3.2% of the Queensland population. Unfortunately, they make up 23.1% the prison population. In fact, some 55% of youths in detention centres were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent."

So where are the screaming headlines, the fulminating editorials, the politicians scrambling over each other to take action about these disgraceful statistics? Nowhere to be seen, heard or found. That’s because there are no votes, or increases in readership, in campaigning to prevent courts from sending Aboriginal offenders to jail in droves.



What those in our community who are stamping their feet in rage at Judge Bradley’s decision are just not getting is this – in some communities, particularly indigenous communities, if you want to ensure that offenders are rehabilitated and therefore the community is safer in the long term, then DON’T USE JAIL.

As Rockhampton Magistrate Annette Hennessy and Queensland Community Corrections officer Carolyn Willie noted in a 2006 paper:


It is only through real rehabilitation that offenders can move from recidivism to worthwhile members of the community. Whilst prisons were created for punishment, they are not efficient or effective rehabilitators. Re-involvement of indigenous offenders in their community through the care and leadership of Elders and responsible members of the community rather than removing them from the community would seem to have countless more beneficial effects for all concerned. The involvement of the indigenous community in the solutions to the tragedy that is domestic and family violence is essential. Culturally appropriate and effective counselling and treatment for offenders whilst they are suitably punished for their wrongs is the only path to reinstating them in society.


Finally, calls for Judge Bradley to stand down, pending an appeal by the State against her decision, are completely misguided. She has carried out her duties honestly and with integrity – some people may not like the decision but that is no reason to persecute this judge.

I know we were a convict settlement and maybe it's hard to shake that attitude but our pissweak sentencing for violent crimes always baffles me.

It's not only about rehabilitation of offenders it's also meant to be about justice for the victims of the crimes.

I am surprised that for once the 'religion of peace' isn't involved.

was a case last week in (sydney i think) where two 16 year old's bashed a kid to death at a train station because they said he looked at them the wrong way.

They got 3 years jail...3 years jail for bashing somebody to death because you're bored and looking for a fight surely that's not justice?

how bad is the leb situation these days ?

is buck lags?

I can become for one night .. if you want ?

please don't yell wrote:is buck lags?

Rob

The rob with about 30k posts back on c4?

He made about as much sense as lags.

Yep ..That one ...

Rehabilitation, rehabilitation, rehabilitation........

What about punishing the little shits? If you want someone to hug them and feed them lollipops, send them a counsellor.......in jail.

Australia's contribution to the world of swimwear.

here

Seems like the only one 'punished' was the girl, you get raped and you get sent away from the only place you call home. Wouldn't you feel at that age that you were the one who'd done something wrong and were being punished for it?

there was a similar case in Australia involving a few brothers.

Seem to operate in packs down there.

Yes , Rob ....

Call me lags.

No , Rob

whatever you want then. I don't mind.

Yes , Rob

*Buckaroo* wrote:there was a similar case in Australia involving a few brothers.

Seem to operate in packs down there.

They were Pakistani immigrants.

The Australian legal system does not have a culture of locking up underage offenders in senior gaol - there is a recognition that juveniles can make mistakes. Most of the 9 were 16 or under from what I can tell. Of course, to all white people, this attack is about as abhorrent as you can get but there would a great deal of doubt that many of the offenders saw it as particularly bad. Moving the poor girl out of that community and that environment is probably the best thing that can happen to her.

It is a truly terrible case with a multitude of issues (not the least being that locking an aboriginal in gaol for an extended period is basically capital punishment) - such cases will inevitably cause outrage from one end of the spectrum or another.

I will be the first to admit that I have no ideas as to what we do about crimes like these in remote aboriginal communities - there may well actually be no solution.

I thoroughly read the article embee quoted.

Whilst interesting, with sage reasoning in places on the defence of rehabilitation of indigenous offenders rather than jailing them, I found it frightening to realize that not once in that long article were the rights of the victim ever discussed or rationalised - bar reference to the author attempting to self-clarify the Judge's meaning with regard to "consensual" s*x.

It seems that at her tender age, she and her rights have been taken for granted, ignored even; with the final ignomy of HER having to be moved away from her home whilst the offenders return to theirs.

I appreciate that FNQld is 'another planet' as some have pointed out, nevertheless, how on earth can the author justify the yawning disparity in the judgement of the respective parties by stating "...calls for Judge Bradley to stand down, pending an appeal by the State against her decision, are completely misguided. She has carried out her duties honestly and with integrity – some people may not like the decision but that is no reason to persecute this judge."

IMHO that's taking Liberalism to the extreme!

But is it all just about the future of the offender and their chances of rehabilitation(that in itself is a tenuous notion in this country when you consider the overwhelming rate of recidivism by offenders who our system said were ready to rejoin society)

What about the victim?

many of those victimized by youthful offenders are underage themselves yet they are all but abandoned by our soft legal system.

JGK wrote:

*Buckaroo* wrote:there was a similar case in Australia involving a few brothers.

Seem to operate in packs down there.

They were Pakistani immigrants.

Touche.

please don't yell wrote:But is it all just about the future of the offender and their chances of rehabilitation(that in itself is a tenuous notion in this country when you consider the overwhelming rate of recidivism by offenders who our system said were ready to rejoin society)

What about the victim?

many of those victimized by youthful offenders are underage themselves yet they are all but abandoned by our soft legal system.

What do you mean abandoned? They could also still be rehabilitated, maybe given better care and rehabilitation. I don't understand why 'justice' should always be a vengeful process - apart from the purpose that serves in preventing a repeat of the crime by the original perpetrator or as a deterrent against such crimes by others. But that said, the assumption that a person that once commits a crime is more likely to repeat it than not I don't think has a sound basis.