Woketoria Again

[enf]

Kim Jong Dan, apart from trying it on as an authoritarian for another year, has allowed this to happen....

What the f*ck is wrong with the world?

[wotnot]

Same for Tassie apparently ; don't feel so alone =)

[lsemmens]

That absolutely STINKS!!! Anyone who is convicted of any crime should be given NO chance of anonymity. All victims of ANY crime should be permitted to identify themselves if they so desire. They should also be permitted to identify the perp, ONLY after the perp is found guilty.

[wotnot]

...bombastic (sic) ..."but haven't you heard? It's a medical condition, a mental disorder (just like any other) and treatable by administration of meds to treat the condition, cure the patient, and reintegrate them back into society" ..."if a man truly confesses and repents of all his sins, he will be forgiven"... there's another one, but can't recall the exact words, but it was something simplistic like "as long away from society as the crime demands ; anything short of murder you get away with" ... this, is a systemic failure, uh-huh?

Worth a look up, is a quick glance at how other cultures, dispense law upon those found guilty of this crime ; it's also worth looking at historically, how human societies handled this sort of crime. By a lot of other 'standards', our punishment system has turned into a bunch of soft-cocks, looking to 'rehabilitate' such individuals...excuse the pun there.

Then, right, even if you do lock these rock spiders up for the rest of their life, because the victims of their crime get to live with it for just as long, who ends up paying for their lifetime of tenure at her majesty's pleasure? You, me, and the victim(s)...and IMHO, I don't think as a victim there is any way to forgive them - they don't deserve it... and for mine, society shouldn't have to pay more than the cost of a lethal injection, full ####ing stop.

Yet, there's always 'not wholly responsible for their actions due to being under the influence of an illegal psychotropic drug'... seen that one?

We are all animals, mammals -- I've killed animals guilty of much lesser 'crimes' than this, really. You get a mob of cattle/cows and like them all to behave themselves as you muster them from paddock to paddock, and there's always one dickhead that always does the wrong thing, leads or spooks the others, and the solution is shoot the fukka and call it dinner.

Society's lost it's way when it comes to exercising swift summary judgement for crimes of such moral disregard -- if I were the powers-that-be and did decree that from now on any such crime, if proven, carried a mandatory death sentence, who would complain?

Think about it before you answer =)

[Al Bundy]

What a f#@king joke.
“The changes to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act – which were quietly introduced in February – silence all sexual assault victims whose offenders have been found guilty, by banning them from ever speaking out under their real identities.“

So, what is stopping somebody else from telling the tale and revealing the perpetrators, and what has happened to the Sexual Offenders Register?

Talk about the law being arse about face....

[george65]

How can something as Fked up as this possibly be Justified? The poor hard done-by crims win again and the Victims are Fked over and made out to be the ones at fault.

One day a Vigilante or group thereof will start making things right and the media and Do-good bed wetters will be screaming about it but the general Public will be looking for where to send donations and messages of thanks for putting things back the way they ought to be.

[Al Bundy]

.....and the media and Do-good bed wetters will be screaming about it...

They go first!

[Uncle Fester]

But you can still name and shame the perp, while keeping yourself covered under a fake name or am I understanding this wrong?

This a two sided sword.
If I were a victim I would feel more protected if I can use a fake name to tell my story, while naming the criminal with his real name.
Of course I agree this should still be a matter of choice.

[george65]

The way I read the article, I interpreted it as not being able to use your own name so others can't trace back who the POS was that attacked you through court records / media etc.
Could well be wrong and If I am would like to know what the bullshit restriction is for? Got to be protecting the low life's some way, always is!

[george65]

Nope, I was wrong again.

You CAN identify CONVICTED peados, rapists and general pieces of shit, it's the VICTIMS whom aren't allowed to identify THEMSELVES!
If they do they can go to Jail or be fined $8K. I'd like to see that put to the test! They would get a Mil over night to fight in and the public outcry would be huge.
Not the point though, why should self Identifying as a victim of crime be a crime and What in the living Fk is that about??

Why in hell could people whom want to admit the hell they have been though be suppressed from doing so and caused any more stress?
This is pure and utter insanity.

I thought the idea was to help people that have been through these unimaginable nightmares not put any more shit on them.

As to why they would want to come out and admit it, I would imagine the reasons are wide and Varied. A big one may be like a mate of mine that was kiddy fiddled when he was young. Coming out in the open with it was a big part of getting over it and getting on with his life without feeling shamed.

If they want to write a book and make a Million bux out of it, Just as good a reason. Small compensation for the pain and suffering they have endured.

[Mr 672A]

But you can still name and shame the perp, while keeping yourself covered under a fake name or am I understanding this wrong?

This a two sided sword.
If I were a victim I would feel more protected if I can use a fake name to tell my story, while naming the criminal with his real name.
Of course I agree this should still be a matter of choice.

Dont understand this? If I was them I would mask there real name not advertise it. I think something is going on here.

[Mr 672A]

Why in hell could people whom want to admit the hell they have been though be suppressed from doing so and caused any more stress?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Money and more Money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Mr 672A]

All I know is that in QLD and possible this happens in other state anything with the word SEX and found guilty and Jail for these people the cases alone has the largest amount of supreme or even High Court appeal compared to any other indictable offense and since a few get off like In Cardinal Pell did (he does not want Compensation) case they sue the state big time but if only a few releases that's only a few million but what happens if you have plenty of them winning their appeal the State will go bankrupt paying compensation to all of them. The Media Like running these cases but the Media does not follow up when they are let out after 5 years in jail being wrongfully convicted. Also been told this by a Solicitor + the Govenment like fudging the Figures when a Convicted person get released. Again who know why these people want to advertise there real name maybe it like a Movie as you have a actor that using the real name of the person that was raped for the Movie.

[george65]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Money and more Money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Not sure where you are thinking there is money in it?
If the victims are making money somehow, good on them! I can't Imagine a harder way of doing it and if it makes their life easier or more comfortable, they damn well deserve some comfort to offset the hell they have been through.

If you think it's someone else making money, how would that be?


I guess those of us that haven't been through it might think they want to suppress their names etc but I know first hand from my friend that coming out about what happened to him was a BIG part of getting over it. He told only me and 2 other people, one being his eventual wife about it and it did eat at him. When he no longer hid it and told people he was having counselling and why, it was a help to him.

I think there are others whom want to let people know they are not alone and help them through their pain as well. Bit hard when you can't even tell people your name or have to live more of a lie. If they want to remain anon, they can. If they want to identify themselves, then WTF should they not be allowed to?
Their choice and they should be free to make it, certainly these people of all.

I can see why there may be do gooders wanting to hide the Piece of shit low life's that are responsible as there is always some bleeding heart somewhere making excuses to protect the guilty, but to not be able to tell about ones own experience's is just plain ridiculous!

It made some sense when I thought it was to protect the low life scum but as that isn't the case, it just makes no sense at all to me!
All I can see it doing is making victims feel more frustrated, more like victims and putting potential barriers to their recovery.

That on it's own should have made this bullshit dismissed out of hand at the mere suggestion of this law.
More faceless idiot Bureaucrats out of touch with reality and living in alternate universes Fking things up for those they propose to protect.

I'll bet my arse they didn't ask one single victim how they felt about this and just thought they knew what was best for people and did it without a Fking clue.

[lsemmens]

If a third party (i.e. the media) were to release the name of a victim without their authority then, yes, there should be a law against that! But that is about it.

[Mr 672A]

If you think it's someone else making money, how would that be?

There is Money in everything my friend, Ask Google and Youtube.

[alpha0ne]

The changes to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act – which were quietly introduced in February – silence all sexual assault victims whose offenders have been found guilty, by banning them from ever speaking out under their real identities.

Who/what body introduced said bill ??

[enf]

Who/what body introduced said bill ??

The Woketorian government. I read something yesterday about the attorney general of Vic defending the act that was snuck in during early covid I believe....

Danwokeistan strikes again....

[trash]

I'm not quite sure how this plays out in terms of trials being open and public.
If you're accused of a crime you want the trial to be public, that is how we maintain transparency of the legal system.
When you have closed trials, then you have problems.
Obviously sensitive evidence involving national security needs to be censored and we also afford anonymity to children and deny the accused the right to face their accuser for a very specific reason. Though I've seen a child witness appear on video in court and then after the video conference return to the public gallery in clear view of everybody.
(The jury wasn't impressed).

But I will remind you all that our court system also relies on a presumption of innocence and the media can often poison the well just by reporting that a person is facing trial.
Imagine you're innocent and accused of one of these crimes. That is how everybody should be treated regardless. No matter how horrible the crime and accusations presumption of innocence comes first. If you cannot convict a person with a fair trail then they shouldn't be in court.

And if you have every witnessed our criminal court system you'll understand that we have an inquisitional system. We don't accuse anybody. We question everybody and the crown prosecutors try and prove the defendant innocent. They look for all the excuses and when there are none and the evidence speaks for itself, then the legal system has done it's job properly. (Or so we hope). It is not like we have known the police in Australia to forget a presumption of innocence and literally work to set up an accused person.


Some of these decisions do seem very Orwellian and you have to wonder if the lefturds are behind it with some kind of agenda (that reeks of conspiracy to me and probably incorrect).
What is more likely is somebody is just plain stupid and has thought up some stupid shit to make themselves feel clever and important.

The shooters and fishers party is staring a campaign because the government is trying to introduce some vague gun laws which sound a lot like our clusterfvck radcom act.

Poorly written laws are usually written by lazy and ignorant politicians and their staff. Malice is not usually part of it. Politicians just aren't that smart.