ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#23

[kiwi50]

If I was in the Dickies position I would have no problem with my grandchildren being interviewed, I know it would be done sensitively, and anything that gets to the bottom of what happened has to be good for all concerned.
Everyone deserves the truth.

I can't imagine GBC would have a hope in h--- of getting an insanity plea.
The legal definition is very narrow, most of the time it doesn't matter how barking mad you are, legally you only have a "personality disorder"

 

[plentyofnous]

I think if their testimony would be the ONLY option to secure a conviction, then I would probably agree.

But if they do testify and he is acquitted, I don t think the Dickies would see them again IMO

 

[Nads]

I've been into hostels that people pay to stay in that are filth holes compared with what the jail cells look like in those photos. It is quite unfortunate.

 

[Watsonian Institute]

It is a simple fact that people will do the wrong thing in society, and be punished accordingly, we have to build prisons and act humanely towards accused and convicted persons, so the costs are costs of society, same as hospitals, schools etc

Yes, there is a cost to society, however IMO, convicted criminals do not deserve fancy, modern, facilities! They do not deserve to have TV in their cells, do not deserve to study, etc. They, after all, did not comply with the rules of society in the first place!

With all due respect, their punishment is their incarceration and liberty taken, not what happens to them while they are incarcerated

Good point, plentyofnous. Prisons are not just for incarceration; they're for rehabilitation. In fact, the best outcome a community should hope for is rehabilitation, rather than just someone being punished. Education is one of the best ways to help people change their perspective on the world, and I personally don't believe in medieval-style, draconian prisons because I don't believe that model best serves the community. In my opinion, if prisons are meant to be only for "punishment", this is akin to making a statement that no one is redeemable, and that every individual who makes a mistake in their life (of whatever magnitude) should not be given the chance to change their behaviour or their outlook on life, even if that does mean their liberty is still taken away from them (if that is the sentence handed down by the court). I am a firm believer in the idea that a nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. I would also add "and its most despised" to this.

If the law changes to reflect community standards, so too should the way we treat people who are incarcerated. Don't forget: people were imprisoned in the past for things that are not considered illegal today. I think it's also helpful to remember that not everyone in prison is there because of violent crime. This is a link to statistics of prisoners in Australia, and it contains plenty of interesting information: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4517.0

Cheers

 

[plentyofnous]

If I was in the Dickies position I would have no problem with my grandchildren being interviewed, I know it would be done sensitively, and anything that gets to the bottom of what happened has to be good for all concerned.
Everyone deserves the truth.

I can't imagine GBC would have a hope in h--- of getting an insanity plea.
The legal definition is very narrow, most of the time it doesn't matter how barking mad you are, legally you only have a "personality disorder"

IMO he is not playing insanity card, I think what he is displaying is fairly normal for a guy entering prison on a murder charge

 

[KG1]

Yes, there is a cost to society, however IMO, convicted criminals do not deserve fancy, modern, facilities! They do not deserve to have TV in their cells, do not deserve to study, etc. They, after all, did not comply with the rules of society in the first place!

The punishment for a convicted person who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, whether it be a specified time or life, is the DEPRIVATION OF THEIR LIBERTY. This is what the judge passes as an imprisonment term. There is no direction to deprive them of anything else. Their loss of liberty is managed by the prisons and there are legislative guidelines and rules and rights of incarcerated persons all enshrined in legislation. There is no law in Australia that allows prisoners to be treated inhumanely, and there is no law in Australia to prevent prisoners from having basic human rights. How that is tempered and managed is up to the prisons and corrections authorities, overseen by the various State and Territory governments.

 

[Spotted Reptile]

Can you imagine how torn those children would be thinking they may say something that would be bad for daddy??? Unless they saw/witnessed/heard the event( and how horrific would that be) those girls should be protected from any further trauma. The girls could well believe their daddy ,when he says he is innocent------I don't think they should be put in that position.If the Dickies take this point of view I sooo respect them .Especially if they suspect GBC is guilty. That would take such courage and character. IMO

You are so right, Mothergoose. Those children are old enough to realise the consequences of what they say, but not quite old enough to be able to bear the burden of them. They could be torn apart by the dilemma.

 

[Mothergoose]

How about the dilemma of needing the childrens' testimony to convict versus him going free and then he has custody?

If that was the case I don't think he would be in jail. That a conviction relied on a child's testimony would be an unthinkable scenario based on what I have read about this case so far.And I'm sure the police would not want to involve the children at all. If the child was a witness and it was her wish to say what she had to say I'm sure the weight of what she had to say and it's relevance to a conviction in the case would be weighed up against her future emotional well being.It would be a very complex decision to make. IMO

 

[CaseClosed]

But if they do testify and he is acquitted, I don t think the Dickies would see them again IMO

If you are referring GBC would not allow contact, then the Dickies could apply to the Family Court for visitation. Grandparents do have rights.

 

[kiwi50]

But if they do testify and he is acquitted, I don t think the Dickies would see them again IMO

Wow you believe GBC would be so spiteful as to stop his children seeing their grandparents.?
He certainly wouldn't have his children's welfare at heart to do that.

 

[plentyofnous]

If you are referring GBC would not allow contact, then the Dickies could apply to the Family Court for visitation. Grandparents do have rights.

With all due respect, Grandparents do not have rights, the children hold these rights in Law. Very difficult ,costly and time consuming to secure visitation by grandparents especially if he absconds overseas

 

[CaseClosed]

The punishment for a convicted person who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, whether it be a specified time or life, is the DEPRIVATION OF THEIR LIBERTY. This is what the judge passes as an imprisonment term. There is no direction to deprive them of anything else. Their loss of liberty is managed by the prisons and there are legislative guidelines and rules and rights of incarcerated persons all enshrined in legislation. There is no law in Australia that allows prisoners to be treated inhumanely, and there is no law in Australia to prevent prisoners from having basic human rights. How that is tempered and managed is up to the prisons and corrections authorities, overseen by the various State and Territory governments.

I fully understand what you are saying and that there are Laws that cover this, however I just don't agree with them. There are people in our society (elderly, frail, etc.) that have less than acceptable living conditions compared to what convicted criminals have. I wish the system was different and placed the priorities in the right places. If a murderer has "human rights", the victim no longer has any! It's just my view.

 

[Thinking]

You'd have to ask where the money is coming from if he has money for his high priced lawyers and then if he is offered bail with a high monetary price (it would have to be for murder) and then he is able to pay it!!!

Yes - and if he is able to pull this cash from somewhere, then it begs the question of whether the murder was financially motivated or that the financial situation is as dire as it appears (if he is the perpetrator)?

 

[Mothergoose]

Good point, plentyofnous. Prisons are not just for incarceration; they're for rehabilitation. In fact, the best outcome a community should hope for is rehabilitation, rather than just someone being punished. Education is one of the best ways to help people change their perspective on the world, and I personally don't believe in medieval-style, draconian prisons because I don't believe that model best serves the community. In my opinion, if prisons are meant to be only for "punishment", this is akin to making a statement that no one is redeemable, and that every individual who makes a mistake in their life (of whatever magnitude) should not be given the chance to change their behaviour or their outlook on life, even if that does mean their liberty is still taken away from them (if that is the sentence handed down by the court). I am a firm believer in the idea that a nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. I would also add "and its most despised" to this.

If the law changes to reflect community standards, so too should the way we treat people who are incarcerated. Don't forget: people were imprisoned in the past for things that are not considered illegal today. I think it's also helpful to remember that not everyone in prison is there because of violent crime.

Cheers

Looked for the GOOD POST icon and couldn't find it. BRILLIANT POST :gthanks::gthanks:!!!!!:woohoo:

 

[plentyofnous]

Wow you believe GBC would be so spiteful as to stop his children seeing their grandparents.?
He certainly wouldn't have his children's welfare at heart to do that.

IMO it could very well be at the base of why we are on here

 

[Bayside]

OK I see what you mean. Maybe I'm reading too much into it :dunno:

It did strike me as one of the things that someone in that situation would do, though.

I think given the situation he should have used her name, then again he should have done a lot of things he didnt.

 

[plentyofnous]

I fully understand what you are saying and that there are Laws that cover this, however I just don't agree with them. There are people in our society (elderly, frail, etc.) that have less than acceptable living conditions compared to what convicted criminals have. I wish the system was different and placed the priorities in the right places. If a murderer has "human rights", the victim no longer has any! It's just my view.

I totally understand your view and to an extent agree, however we need to discuss what is currently pertinent, not what should exist

 

[Liadan]

This situation would be the last thing that ABC could possibly imagine happening to her family. BUT Kids are not mushrooms. They have daily opinions and make judgements all the time about their parents and their parents interactions. Its called family life. I know my kids would know exactly how dad felt about mum and mum felt about dad and sorry- but no statement about 'we love each other dearly' from either of us could supplant their own opinions of our relationships ups and downs. There perception of us is their reality . I also know that kids need a voice, they don't need kind assumptions and well meaning words. If they they need to be heard, we need to listen and to have their feelings legitimized. Whatever is those 3 girls need to do to make this current situation bearable and to make it work for them is what needs to be done. If that means they don't speak to DOCS/authorities - then we abide their decision - if they need to speak then we listen. If it is 10years down the track that they can finally assimilate whathas occurred then we listen and see what outcomes we can acheive. This is real LIFE - their REAL LIFE so whatever happens to the children talking or not talking - its all beyond anyones control.

 

[Nads]

You are so right, Mothergoose. Those children are old enough to realise the consequences of what they say, but not quite old enough to be able to bear the burden of them. They could be torn apart by the dilemma.

IMO the truth is the truth, not a dilemma. The truth is what happened.

 

[CaseClosed]

With all due respect, Grandparents do not have rights, the children hold these rights in Law. Very difficult ,costly and time consuming to secure visitation by grandparents especially if he absconds overseas

Yes, of course it would be impossible if he takes off. The Dickies are the maternal grandparents (the kids no longer have their mother) and the Court would see it as beneficial, IMO, if the kids maintained contact with the family of their deceased mother. All just my humble opinion.