Punishment or Wrist Slapping?

I was sitting at my desk doing some reading for criminal law of a rather interesting case, when this article dawned on me. It affects everyone in society, in some small way, and we all have a right to the ownership of a solution, or an answer at the very least, to the question of criminal sentencing: is mercy, leniency, the best way to ensure our safety?

First, I’ll dish out all the legal waffle on this topic. Ideally, the principal aims of the criminal justice system – sentencing a part of that – are retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation (there are more but I’ll leave it at this). Now, retribution, in the large scheme of things, should be seen as the weakest of these goals, vengeance in the long run, benefits the greater good or wider community not in the slightest. Rather, incarceration and financial sanctions are geared to deter potential criminals from criminal acts. However, incarceration is often seen as counterproductive to the aim of rehabilitation as sentencing otherwise ‘decent’ people to jail with ‘hardened criminals’ will be detrimental to their mental stability.

Now that that is out of the way, the real deal is whether or not two young men, who in a drunken state stumbled across what they believed to be a victim of rape, and then acting as vigilante law enforcers, accosting two harmless and innocent individuals, beating one of them to death with bare hands, should be jailed for only six years – out in four for being good boys, having already served 6 months. These are the facts of the case I was reading. The two young men were convicted of manslaughter, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in the lockup. What would one have to do to get 20?

Legal issues aside, as I believe the real focus of, and answer to, the sentencing question must be found somewhere away from the law: is it right that a man causing the death of another, essentially willfully and in full knowledge of the implications and consequences, gets three and half years because he was until know of good character? Similarly, is it right in cases such as Mokbel, to grant lenient bail to someone who is obviously in a position to leave the country, or indeed commit further criminal acts? Lastly, another case I have searched around for in recent time is one of a teacher who was sexually involved with her 16-year- old student. Youthful masculine innuendo aside, consent to the relationship has no place in this ‘arena’ and it teachers actions effectively amount to rape – the result in this case was four months in prison with four months suspended. Let’s bear in mind she probably already served four months in remand; possibly out straight away (note, this sentence is believed to be in the process of appeal by the prosecution).

What do you think? Drop a line on any of the issues raised (either the legal stuff, or just good hard crunching of the moral issues) and we’ll see what comes up. Im keeping my opinion reserved a bit on this one until later.

VSU

Unionism and VSU in a nutshell

It’s getting closer to that time of year now, and no, its not Christmas, but rather VSU as of the first of July. For those who have been developing real estate beneath a rock for the last year or so, Voluntary Student Unionism removes the ability of Universities and Higher Education Providers to require students to pay, as a condition of entry, a Services and Amenities fee for the provision of services not of an ‘academic’ nature.

Now, the most important thing to acknowledge at the start of any Student Unionism debate is the fact that currently, Unionism in most universities is in fact already voluntary. “What’s that?” I hear you say. You heard, or read, it correctly – voluntary. There is a compulsory payment, yes, but as far as funding groups, organisations, activities, there you can instead ‘opt-out’ and have your prized $300 odd go towards charity, student loans fund, or something of the sort. Should you have a quick glance at most university support services sites, the union and its services are in fact quite separate. Now, I had no idea about this little insight, and am slightly reserved about its accuracy, however it does seem well supported by a lot of groups (the vast majority of which are anti-VSU I will point out, make of it what you will).

I will also point out that any reference I may make to ‘left/right’ sides of politics is purely for the sake of simplifying the arguments of VSU, so no offence is intended, and I would be most grateful if no one hunted me down because of it.


The Good

Well, VSU appears to hold some appeal for sections of the student and political community. It has long been held that Universities have been something of a breeding ground for the left side of politics; Labour, Socialist etc. Indeed, a cursory examination of the political (not activist) clubs at Melbourne University yields four left-sided organisations compared to 1 more right group. Now, I am aware that many more right and left sided groups exist at Melbourne, and also at other universities, so this is not an exhaustive list but certainly a reasonable indication of the kind of balance we amongst politically active tertiary students.

So what’s the deal with VSU? To be cynical, this balance of political groups is quite likely the major target of Voluntary Unionism in its current form. VSU prohibits the Services and Amenities fee from being put to use funding these political organisations. Now, this is, in part perhaps, a small good to come from student Unionism. While exact figures are unavailable (they are somewhat unlikely to be published by anti-VSU groups, and pro-VSU groups are scarce), I have witness obviously larger amounts of money being poured into political campaigning, all year round, across a variety of media.

Now maybe this is a good to come from VSU, maybe it isn’t. I guess it depends on how you sit in the fancy political spectrum. Being truthful, I’m not exactly convinced that this argument is a good reason to support any sort of VSU. But in the end, there can be no doubt that there is a large amount of money from such fees that would be going unaccounted for as far as clubs and support services fair, going into political movements, rallies and the like.

The second argument supporting VSU (the one put forward by pro-VSU lobbyists) is the same ol’ line to do with ‘freedom of choice’. This idea is not without some merit. Take Joe for example, he comes to Uni, goes to class, goes home. He never participates in any competitions, never goes to social events, and doesn’t play sport at University. While without doubt possessing a riveting lifestyle, Joe receives very minor benefit from his compulsory fee at the start of the year. So, we have to ask, should he pay? Tough question – it adds up over a 5-year double degree to about $1500; on top of University tuition fees, this can put a significant dent in piggy bank. Then we have Joan, who is a social animal, runs this, runs that, does this, does that, and never sleeps. She derives huge benefit from the student union, and pays just her $300 – a good deal. So is the current system fair? Maybe not, the user pays principle behind VSU addresses exactly this problem.


The Bad

There are over 15 different types of services provided by the student union and support groups – academic support, health, counseling, financial assistance, legal advise, recreation, campus services/stores, clubs and societies, and many more.

Approximately 43,000 students attend Melbourne University (thanks to the stats people at Melbourne), with similar amounts at many other major institutions around Australia. Now, if we assume that each student pays $300 in S&A each year, we’re looking at approximately $13 million out of the support system…That’s plenty of $$.

University of New England, for instance, employs up to 175 casual staff (160 of which are current students). Now, this employment service for students is funded through the compulsory fee system. Similarly, a major service that will find itself short on dollars is childcare. This is a very contentious issue, strongly argued by most student groups and also the Democrats, with wide spread ramifications. Let us consider in depth. If childcare at universities goes under, that means parents must be required to look after the children another way. Two ways present themselves: bring the kids to class (not allowed in most universities); or go to the private sector for childcare services. The cost of such services has been highly publicised in recent times, and a single mother or father, working part-time and studying has very little chance of being able to afford childcare, resulting in that person withdrawing from study – not good for the parent, not good for the child, not good for the economy (perhaps worth thinking about for pro-VSU economists?).

Sport suffers from VSU also. Universities are common training grounds for professional athletes who will lose a whopping $2.6 million in sport scholarships across Australia (thanks to Sydney University Sport for that one). There will also be similar withdrawals in funding for facilities, resulting in higher pricing. I should think that this clashes with the Governments healthy life initiative, promoting sport and recreation across all levels of education to reduce the growing rate of obesity in Australia.

There are also housing services, clubs and societies, and so on and so forth. The basic argument of those opposing VSU is that user-paying will fail in principle - the services at tertiary education campuses are not sufficiently profitable to entice private enterprise to provide them.


My Opinion

I come from the position of being a big facilities user, and engaged in a variety of clubs. Similarly, $300 per year from my bank account will not drive me into poverty. At the moment, I see little to entice me towards VSU. At the end of the day though, this is a selfish position, because by supporting compulsory payments, I am taking $300 away from someone who perhaps can’t afford it, or doesn’t use the facilities. In my opionion however, this latter class number few. The greater good, the benefit of the Student Union, has a large effect on the lives of hundreds of thousands of students and university employees across Australia, and I don’t think those benefits and livelihoods should be stripped away for $300 per year.

England - The Real Deal?

World Cup fever is about the ravage Germany in the European summer, and so are the English soccer hooligans/fans. In order for the German people to be safe at night, the Poms must put up a solid performance, quaters or semis a must.


KEEPER: Robinson

Pretty much solid stuff and most likely the #1 for England. General sound of hand and mind, not particularly partial to brain explosions. Not one of England's worry areas.


BACKS: Campbell, Cole, Mills, Woodgate, Ferdinand, Terry, Carragher, King

Should be safe as houses given the name in this row (not to mention the next) are some of the best you will come by. Most likely a combination of Terry, Carragher, Cole and possibly Woodgate, England back 4 are a solid group who should only need to prove that they can play together, as opposed to alongside their normal team.


MIDFIELD: Beckham, Lampard, Gerrard, Parker, Wright-Phillips, Nolan

Worth about $100m. Once again, no problems with names, only an issue of team balance and structure. Hard to go past Lampard, Gerrard and Parker as three of the four, possibly with some Becks as well. Free kick taking will be an interesting issue, with all the above names having ligitimate claims to the still ball.


FORWARDS: Rooney, Bent x 2, Vassell (alas, no Shearer)

Going to be an issue. If Rooney turns it on, England could be slightly devastating. If Rooney loses his cool or the ball on the repeated basis, England may find themselves turning to the midfield for goal scoring opportunities.


THE DRAW: Well, can't be too difficult realy: Paraguay, Trinidad & Tobago, Sweden. England should be able to knock of Sweden, leaving only Paraguay as the main opposition (who, given the name in the Red and White, England should beat).


FINAL WORD
Well, perhaps the people of Germany shall be spared the festive side of English tourists. At the end of the day though, who really cares.... carn Ozzie!