this is what happens when i;ve had too much coffee, been working like mad for the last 12 weeks and now am waiting around at work to review the project with nothing to do.
The new legislation all appears, imo, to focus on prevention.
I’m not a criminal lawyer but it seems much of the criminal code and the whole judicial system is about punishment after the fact. Hence the whole burden of proof thing. It is a lot easier to prove guilt once the crime has been committed after all. Prevention is only a secondary concern as it is assumed that fear of punishment is prevention enough- although apparently that doesnt work – unless it is capital punishment – which doesnt work either. And that punishment itself can prevent criminal types from doing stuff again by the simple fact that many of them are locked away, if one is cynical about rehabilitation.
So, we have a legal system being pushed into areas it was never quite designed for.
How do you prosecute people who might do something but hasnt actually done anything?
With AVOs and stuff, an actual threat has been issued or there’s another citizen who actively feels threathened by someone and has to prove it.
With terrorists, well, if they are any good they dont actually threathen anyone. And if they are any good, no individual citizen actually feels threathened enough to put a court order or whatever until the terrorist act is committed. And if they are very determined, they wont actually care about punishment seeing as the ones we’re referring to plan to ascend into heaven as part of the terrorist act.
So the State feels compelled to protect its citizens resulting in these laws on unspecified planning, intent, sedition and imprisonment without trial.
Back again to those original questions.
Which is a more acceptable risk? Being potentially blown up? Or potentially imprisoning a few angry young men who talked too much but never really intended to do anything really?
Back in the old days, people said it’s better to let 10 guilty men free than to risk hanging an innocent man.
Is it then the case that it is better to imprison 10 innocent men without trial (for 14 days) than to risk the death of a innocent one?
Slippery slope argument really.
But the alternative is to wait and hope our legislation at it stands is enough (never mind that our intelligence and law enforcement officers are saying it’ll mean that inevitably, something and some people *will* get blown up)