But it’s so obvious

Up before a court: what to do for a five year old girl, whose two parents have (or have had) serious problems.

Father: a conviction for “wilful and obscene exposure”, which placed him on the sex offenders list; a heroin addiction evidence shows he appears to be overcoming; a knife and sword collection. Living on disability pension.

Mother: ongoing heroin and marijuana use, fails drug tests and lies to the court, filthy house, shoplifting and prostitution convictions.

Court well aware that all the research shows that taking children from their parents does long-term psychological harm, and it should therefore only ever be a very last resort.

Piss-easy, you say! Only a stupid moronic court filled with soft lefty hippy scum could have any difficulty figuring out what to do!

Bad parents did bad things, will always be bad people (unlike us), girl is obviously better off without them. All criminals and drug users should have their kids taken away from them, regardless of whether they’re cleaning up. A drug using parent managing their addiction is clearly more damaging to the child than the psychological trauma of ripping her away from her family.

It’s just common sense.

But get this: in real life, the court ordered the father to destroy his weapons, and – accepting the evidence that he was now clean, and was providing a reasonable parenting environment – left the child with him, presumably to review after a little while, and in the circumstances where a hostile mother would definitely apply for a review if the father relapsed or was not complying with the court order.

I know! What a bunch of irresponsible dickheads who heard all the evidence and reached a conclusion different to the easy sanctimonious unrealistic one we jumped to based on a one-sided tabloid article!

Clearly we should disband the courts and re-implement mob justice. For the children.

ELSEWHERE: In other “why bother finding out why it’s the case” bashing of the legal system, a musician writes on the Punch that “Hard Time may be the only deterrent for young offenders”. He doesn’t actually investigate any of the alternatives, or consider the damage that jail does to young people – turning minor offenders into lifelong serious offenders, for one thing – but why bother? It’s so much easier just to assume that the people who’ve studied the subject in great detail and developed approaches that reduce recidivism and make the rest of us safer were really all just a bunch of stupid do-gooder weak hippy lefty scum who love criminals and want to marry them and have their babies.

Obviously we won’t truly be safe till everyone else is locked in a prison that we can’t afford to pay for.

9 responses to “But it’s so obvious

  1. Saw this. One of those cases where you just had to be there, the Hun wasn’t, and therefore draws the obvious conclusion.

    Probably the best of a lot of shitty options for the child, and you can only hope that the father remains on the straight and narrow.

    But this is really worrying… the Hun has NEVER ignored the context of a case just for the case of a story before. I’m disturbed by this obviously temporary lapse in editorial judgement.

  2. People do seem to over-simplify the challenges of child protection. It is obviously a difficult area.

    On sentencing, the fact is that the public are simply less tolerant of violent crime than they have been in the past. Even the judiciary is slowly realising this – sentences have trended upward in the last couple of decades. Just not enough to actually reflect changing attitudes.

  3. shabadootwo

    Among other things, this is yet another argument for severely curtailing the DSP. So he can look after his daughter but can’t get a job? Pathetic.

  4. You have no idea why he’s on the DSP. And looking after his daughter is saving the taxpayer money anyway.

  5. Splatterbottom

    And looking after his daughter is saving the taxpayer money anyway.

    Now we are getting to the high moral ground!

  6. …only for those who are whinging about paying the DSP.

  7. A nice circular argument. If you can’t get a job, you shouldn’t be allowed to get a single parent benefit… which means you don’t have to get a job.

    Paging Joseph Heller…

  8. shabadootwo

    “At the end of December last year, 777,725 Australians were on the DSP.”


    Fair suck of the sauce bottle, but do you really think all of them are unable to work?

  9. Given how unsympathetically Centrelink applies the DSP test, yes I really do.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s