General Discussions

[DJC]

I’m not sure that you can blame the courts EB; they have to apply the laws passed by parliaments and, in the High Court’s case, abide by a constitution that was written in the 19th century.

Indefinite detention was always going to found to be unlawful and I can’t believe that the previous government and the incoming government didn’t have a fallback plan.

I know that many asylum seekers destroy their documentation or have fake documentation and it can be difficult to determine whether or not someone is a model citizen or a serial killer.  However, once an asylum seeker’s past criminal record is discovered, why aren’t they just shipped back to where they came from?  I know that we won’t send people back to a death sentence but most of these coves have served their sentences and aren’t in line for execution.

I’m not sure what the answer is for people who will be executed if returned home …. but I’m not paid the big bucks to resolve such matters.

Bail is fraught.  There are benefits from not incarcerating people who haven’t been found guilty but community safety must come first.  If there’s a chance that folk charged with a crime are likely to offend then bail shouldn’t be an option.

Remember Dan Andrews criticising VCAT for being the ultimate planning authority but never having to face the electorate?  I think the same argument is applied to the courts.  If the electorate is unhappy with sentencing, bail, or other decisions, they will take it out on the government.  Governments therefore try to be overly prescriptive with mandatory sentencing, bail, etc or try to use ministerial powers for matters that the various constitutions don’t permit.

It’s a flawed and dated system but I’m not sure there’s a better one.  If there was, there’s Buckley’s chance of amending the Australian constitution.

Edit: I was commenting on EB’s post but it’s gone.  You should get the gist ?