Actually, I started a thread on this in the international news forum, although it could belong here, or in the racism forum.I'm not sure if the story was available when Indiana Jones posted the link, but there's another story indicating that the Crown did not disclose all the facts to the judge. That he in fact misrepresented what had happened.
It's been my thought the last week or so that where we need civilian oversight-- and investigation-- is in the way the crown uses it's discretion to not lay charges. I think that is more important than any civilian oversight on police.
I know this is an Australian case, but the systems-- and outcomes-- are all too familiar.
I can remember us all being outraged here not long ago by a Canadian judge who mitigated the sentence of a child rapist because the child "was sexually provocative".
And where does the notion come from that a 10 year old or if my memory serves, a five year old in the Canadian case, can "consent" to sex?
That's fucked up thinking. And along those lines, the article said that the judges there are instructed to use jail for Aboriginals as a last resort. I read that a few days ago, and assumed it was because, similar to a few places in Canada, they were trying their own Aboriginal justice systems.
But such is not the case. In Australia, the directive came about because of 'too many deaths in custody of Aboriginals'.
So, instead of facing the racism and apparently murders of Aboriginals at the hands of police or corrections officers, or inmates head on, they create this convoluted system that leaves children unprotected.
Evil is a plasma.
[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]