Rabid man hating feminists were right behind the idea of removing provocation. I wonder if they will think it is a such a good idea when an abused and frightened woman wants to use the defence.

Eg: Drunken abusive partner, who regularly beats and terrorises the entire family, rapes the daughter and has the c family living in constant fear. One night he is sitting watching TV drinking, again. She can not stand it anymore, and whacks him over the head with a lamp, from behind.

No defence of provocation allowed. The poor man was just watching TV.

Murder.

Well said. Provocation defence being another jerk of the knee (though many on KB could see why it was an over-reaction to remove it). I see it in other jurisdictions to – politicians making laws literally on a case-by-case basis, and then the courts having to find a way to stop the statute buggering up the entire legal system.

Case in point: the WA Police Union didn’t like the criticism its members copped over deaths of innocent third parties due to high-speed chases. So the government rushes head-long into a law to “protect” officers, which essentially says the officer must convince the court he or she was acting in the course of duty and pursuit was justified etc.

The legal fraternity – including a former Vice President of the Liberal Party – is saying “Errr… you’ve just reversed the burden oif proof and made it harder on the officer” but both the Union and the government live by the old maxim “We must do something! Look, this is something! Let’s do that!”

We see way too much of that in this country already, to an appalling degree. There are constant cries for more laws in reply to single one off events or infrequent occurrences. We have really lost the plot in this regard. One only has to look at the idiotic hysteria on KB (from otherwise sensible people) when Wilson was released. The level of concern was in no way related to the level of public risk. The hysteria was entirely due it being a sex crime and how that played on the popular imagination.

Wide ranging word kea
The science body’s to me are far more of an authority on science than blogs and lobby groups.
The authority’s are the political system now not the church They make the laws that justice up holds
science is a separate environment than politics in politics you win by opposing the opposition In science you advance by proving something new. To advance in science you must first know what is known Then advance it. In politics you must have a nice smile a firm handshake And other attributes you can full in yourself

Whoa, we’ve veered off topic in both time and space! I’d have listened to Galileo if he’d presented his findings. Of course I don’t know if I’d have agreed with him in those days but I’ll listen to anyone who uses research to support an argument. That’s why I’ve brought research to the table many, many times on KB to support my opinions on prisons and crime, because I don’t want to be a hypocrite.

It’s also why I don’t mind debating David Garrett, who’s clearly done some reading. In fact he’s often read the same things I have but reached a different conclusion as to how it might be applied or even what it means for practical policy. Unlike his compatriot McVicar who basically says “Look, this distraught, angry victim wants the perpetrator to get a longer sentence!! Are you going to tell them no, you heartless bastard?!?!” which is about as bad a way to make policy as has ever been thought up.

I suggest that you would have excluded Gallileo from debate on such matters, as he did not meet your test of being an expert, or a person worth listening to. The catholic church was the ultimate authority at the time and did dabble in science, sort of.

The majority of ordinary people once held that the sun revolved around the earth

Bad example Rex. They believed that because of what the authorities (and experts) told them. This only changed when those experts views were questioned by non-experts.

Hold on… the Catholic Church told people the Sun revolved round the Earth. Gallileo (building on the work of Copernicus) dissented, and was hauled before the Inquisition for his trouble and in 1633 was put on trial “for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world”. He was imprisoned and his works burned.

Galileo was a scientist who proved things by objective experimentation – an “expert” if you will. The Pope, who preached the doctrine of a geocentrism, was certainly an authority but not an expert. No reputable “experts” supported the Pope – heck, even the Jesuits were able to repeat Galileo’s observations by about 1611.

So the non-experts in this instance were ill-informed, and the experts quickly found the truth. Unless you’re about to mount a rearguard defence of Pope Paul V? (and Aristotle, who I might have to concede was an expert on some things, though clearly not astronomy).

Galileo complained, in a letter to Kepler, that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope. I know just how he felt

Watching you lot get shivved by your own party on climate is going to be fun.

How do you think that is going and are you happy with the results provided by the experts ?

The Church was the ultimate authority and the only experts qualified to decide such matters. Allot of good solid science was done by monks and other theists, as a point of fact. However, most were only qualified to address religious issues, just as most journalists are only qualified in journalism.

My point was to caution Rex in disregarding the thoughts of non-experts as un-informed.

I am sure you don’t need to. You will go on believing whatever you want irrespective of evidence.

The majority of ordinary people once held that the sun revolved around the earth

Bad example Rex. They believed that because of what the authorities (and experts) told them. This only changed when those experts views were questioned by non-experts.

You are calling into question the constructs of the experts, by questioning how the criminal justice system works. I do not dimiss what your saying on the grounds your not “qualified” to have a worthwhile opinion.

For all its worth, I agree with most of what you have said on the law and order issue.