Stop Me If I'm Borun

There is debate raging about the efficacy of incarceration as a deterrent as well as punishment for young offenders and the question is appropriate in light of the current permissiveness of society. Without a meaningful punishment, the true consequences of transgressions cannot be fully appreciated. Without tangible deprivation of rights and privileges bestowed by society, criminals cannot discern the true extent of their deviance nor impact their respective personal existence and comfort and if they can learn or acquire their anti-social and criminal behaviour while young then they certainly need to learn about the consequences at the same time.

The very reason for the existence of laws is to protect and uphold our communal morés--that is our shared norms, virtues and values--that consist of shared understandings about the kinds of behaviour likely to evoke approval, disapproval, toleration or sanction, within particular contexts. In particular, our laws define sanctionable behaviours and actions and the imposeable punishments associated with them. The underlying rationale being the deprivation of some benefits and privileges enjoyed by law-abiding (well behaved) citizens.

We need to understand that imprisonment is the physical act of sequestration and isolation in order to deprive those convicted of the benefits enjoyed by law-abiding citizens. This should entail the suspension of legal rights and privileges beyond those that ensure continued basic existence. Convicted offenders should also be obliged to literally and physically work off their individual debts to society and, in particular, should in no way personally gain from their deviance.

Sanctions and punishments have historically ranged from shunning to death according to the severity of the crime. While vigilantes have appeared sporadically, the role of punisher has been traditionally been delegated to the prevailing governors but, in our secular society, has been relegated to the judiciary to enact on their and our collective behalf.

In Australia, the appointment of prosecutors and judges is political and at best indirectly representative of prevailing standards, at worst unrepresentative. Failing an elective based appointment, there can be no guarantee of harmonisation with electoral expectations. A fact that we experience daily when we see offenders escaping any meaningful consequences for their transgressions for whatever rationale piques the judiciary's conscience and a consequence of the total lack of judicial accountability.

It's about time that our laws were reviewed to better reflect what we as a society need to secure our existence and that of our citizens. We need to eradicate spurious and vexatious laws and regulations to concentrate on abnormal and sociopathic behaviour, as well as to carefully attribute meaningful punishments to their transgression. In particular we need to refocus on criminals and criminal behaviour rather than vilifying, constricting and restraining the actions and activities of law-abiding citizens.

Finally, we need to understand that age, gender, religion and race do not mitigate criminal behaviour and activity. Therefore, they should not affect the judgements of the courts nor should they affect the punishments.

Fundamental issues such as law and order are an attractive target for niche parties. SFP could do worse strategically than focus on them because they are narrow yet resplendent with perceptible ramifications that resonate with the electorate.