Recently in good ol' Sydney, Australia we had a march for the rights to gay marriage (1st of August '09). Sadly I missed the whole march and illegal marriage as I had a Legal Lecture and I didn't exactly check my email until it had all been over. I'm a strong activist for gay rights, I believe they are no different to heterosexual couples and deserve the rights that heterosexual couples receive. Thing is recent reforms to de facto relationships mean that those who are in a de facto are almost treated like a married couple and quite frankly I think they're in a de facto relationship for a reason. These de facto reforms go for both hetero and homosexual couples. I understand that under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) it states that marriage is a "union between a man and woman, to the exclusion to all others, voluntarily entered into for life", but we've already introduced no-fault divorce under the Family Law Act 1975 which contradicts the "for life" part of the definition as you can easily divorce your partner.
My parents are strongly against homosexual relationships they believe that it's not normal, but normal is relative. However, as I said before, I'm a strong activist for gay rights and I get in quite a few heated arguments about this with my parents, to the point where they had to reinstate that if I'm gay I'll be out on my ass before I could finish my sentence. I don't know how I've become such an activist, but I have been for a while. Another perfect place for my stubborn passion. I have a few bisexual friends, some so bi that they're edging gay and I know a few gays and lesbians.
One thing that has been brought to my attention about the misconception of gays and lesbians is that if they're gay, lesbian, bi is that they respectively like all males or females, or both. This just re-emphasise how they aren't that different from straight people, reality check people they DON'T like ever male or female, they still have classes of hot, or not hot. My good friend is bisexual, and she constantly rates chicks. She'd be like, "she was NOT hot". It's not like because they're gay they'll try rape you in your sleep simply because you're the same sex.
Last night I was sitting and channel surfing when I came across an American show. Didn't sit and watch the whole thing, but the segment I watched was about a serial killer on trial and it was during the sentencing process. The sentence was between life sentence, or the death penalty. In Australia, however, we have abolished the death penalty and life sentence is not actually a LIFE sentence, unless you were "cemented in" a legislation that came in that allows complete life sentences for severe cases.
Firstly, who decides if the case is severe enough? For all you know you could stumble across something a lot more severe later on. The cementing in legislation in Australia came in after the Bronson Blessington case. Basically this Blessington when he was 14 was part of a gang rape where they kidnapped this girl and slashed her with a knife and raped her wounds. He was sentenced to life behind bars while the other boys weren't (can't remember their sentence lenghts). So that was pretty bad, sure, but I've heard of many heinous crimes that have happened over the years but never has such a severe punishment been handed down.
Secondly, I personally feel that life behind bars serves more justice than the death penalty. The death penalty, that person is dead and won't feel remorse or feel the aftermath of what they did. Life sentence on the other hand, they can sit in the cell for every single day of their lives and hopefully remorse will finally settle, if not then all the more reason to have them locked away for life. I know the counter argument to all this is that it's expensive to keep behind bars, and I know that. It's about $270 a day to keep a person behind bars, but at least justice is served. But what if someone was sentenced to life when they didn't deserve to or in Bronson Blessington's case when they were extremely young? Sure my argument for Blessignton is that when you're 14 you know the distinction between right and wrong, but he'll never see the light of day outside of the prison walls ever again.
With everything I've said in mind, the highest level or recidivism is by people who have been to prison. Those who had been rehabilitated and received post-rehabilitation/prison support had a much smaller chance of recidivism. People released from prison come out a lot worse than when they go in, unless they're someone like Ivan Milat. They learn from other prisoners who are nothing but bad influence. And for some who have grown up in a world of turmoil and nothing but trouble, they tend to return to crime simply because they feel more at home in prison. Prisoners who don't receive post-sentencing support feel the need to return to crime as nobody in society can accept them. Employers don't want to employ them, and the government (Centrelink) doesn't want to give them allowance or a place to live. So if that's how society treats them is there no surprise that they return to crime?
Honestly Legal Studies has really not just opened my eyes to the world, but has also taken over my life and perceptions. Whenever something happens all I can think is "how does this relate to what I know?"
That's enough from me today.
xx
0 comments:
Post a Comment