gangrenous wrote: ↑December 26, 2023, 5:26 am
Mickey_Raider wrote:gangrenous wrote: ↑December 24, 2023, 4:11 pm
Don’t know that I agree with your line of reasoning here Mike. Need to know more about any crimes of the people released.
Looks like there’s around 260 homicide perpetrators per year in Australia. If we assume the worst then 80 murderers is absolutely meaningful. Particularly if we get into backgrounds where the murders are not the typical “crime of passion” type stuff that’d be more common in Australia.
Ultimately nothing the government could do following the High Court order beyond scramble as they did. You’d like to have seen them better prepared, but also can understand that this outcome sounds quite unexpected, and you have finite resource which would be prioritised on more likely outcomes.
Accepting refugees into the community with known (or more morally difficult - likely but unprovable) history of serious crime is not something I think our country ever would or should be blase about.
I am not quite sure what reasoning you don’t agree with.
Every single day countless Aussie citizens are released into the community after serving sentences for a variety of crimes. Often they are violent crimes.
And yet under these exact same circumstances, a relatively tiny number of refugees who in many cases have been detained for a decade are released into the community and we are supposed to be inherently more outraged and afraid about community safety than the former.
Why?
Did you read my post? It had my reasoning, none of which you seem to address?
Cliffs notes:
* It is not the “same circumstances”. Your stats for Australian criminals cover all crime. We don’t know the crimes of this group (which is why it’d be great to know more), but it seems fairly safe to assume they’re not being kept detained for marijuana possession. In terms of serious crimes like homicide their numbers are not insignificant.
* Given they’re coming from countries with a lot more instability there’s a chance some of them have backgrounds that are more serious than garden variety crimes of passion also.
* Australia holds no obligation to take refugees with backgrounds of serious crime. Which I think most people are comfortable with.
Adding in a couple of bonus reasons:
* Two wrongs don’t make a right. Your argument suggests more to be done with our judicial system, not that it makes it okay to release dangerous people in the community.
* Our criminals are at least judged to have served their appropriate time and/or shown remorse etc. No such process existed here.
Quite a few issues, fallacies and falsehoods in your post Gangers my friend.
1. "...
but it seems fairly safe to assume they’re not being kept detained for marijuana possession."
They are being kept detained because our immigration laws have been constructed so that maritime arrivals, even if legitimate refugees, are never allowed to be settled in Australia unless the Minister exercises god like powers to intervene. They aren't being detained for being so called "hardcore criminals" notwithstanding the fact that there are some in the cohort with criminal records.
2. "
Australia holds no obligation to take refugees with backgrounds of serious crime. Which I think most people are comfortable with."
Well this is actually what the High Court just ruled on. You are partially correct in that if refugees have backgrounds of serious crime Australia is fully entitled to investigate avenues for resettlement elsewhere, whether it is negotiating with other countries or back in their country of origin (latter would most likely need to be voluntary though, given that they are typically legitimate refugees who can't be sent back to country of origin).
However the HC ruling means that if the above arrangements are not reasonably foreseeable or practical (which would often entail a refugee with an adverse security assessment whom other countries are not willing to accept), then Australia can't just hold them in immigrant detention indefinitely.
3. "
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Your argument suggests more to be done with our judicial system, not that it makes it okay to release dangerous people in the community.
I am not suggesting or prescribing anything. What I am highlighting is the sad double standards we have as a society and community when it comes to refugees and others. More to come on this below...
4. "
Our criminals are at least judged to have served their appropriate time and/or shown remorse etc. No such process existed here."
And I think this is your biggest misapprehension, which is based on a falsehood. Not sure how you arrived there but FYI, every person being released into the community, if they had a criminal record, has either served their sentence in their country of origin or in the Australian system. So there would be former detainees who had adverse assessments from overseas involving a prison sentence; and former detainees who breached a visa condition through committing a crime in Australia, served their time in an Aussie jail, and were then transferred to immigration detention while our government tried (unsuccessfully) to deport them.
I think you've mistakenly interpreted the events of the last month or two as the courts conferring some special rights on foreign criminals when in fact this couldn't be further from the truth. In reality all it has done is limit the power of the government to subject some to the horrors of indefinite detention.
And herein lies my main point.
You have tried to make some qualitative difference between the 130 odd "hardcore foreign criminals" with spent convictions and the 60k Aussies with spent convictions released into the community every year. It stands to reason that such a big data set would comprise a mosaic of different crimes, from the most serious to the most minor. It also stands to reason that every year, true blue dinky di Aussie sex offenders, murderers, rapists, perpetrators of assault, perpetrators of burglary, and perpetrators of petty crime alike would be re-entering the community. Every. Single. Day.
And I therefore I refer to my original post and just have to restate my original question because it hasn't been answered.
Even if we accept that out of the 130+ former detainees released into the community there is an outsized representation of perpetrators of serious crime (which I wouldn't necessarily accept because I think it is being exaggerated for political effect). We know at this stage there are a few but for the sake of argument lets just accept it for a minute.
Why are we inherently more unsafe and angry about this despite the fact that literally thousands of Aussies with criminal histories are released into the community every year and walking amongst us.
Why?
