Andrew Bolt asked this question:
A toddler tragically stabbed to death and her mother attacked, too – all, reportedly, over an argument about going to the beach. But was this also a case of culture clash, in which Afghan notions of a wife’s duty to obey her husband have collided violently with Australia’s greater individualism?
I don’t know the answer, but wonder if the views of Judge Norris should apply:
Call to cut Aboriginal offenders’ sentences: The range of his proposals, accepted by the association, include recognising cultural and social circumstances as mitigating factors during sentencing, moving the focus from punishment to rehabilitation, conducting a ”cost/benefit analysis of incarceration” Hat tip Paul Sheehan
If cultural factors excuse bad behavior, then surely they do so irrespective of race? That’s if we can even call it bad behavior. After all, who are we to judge their cultural norms? Cultural colonialism is only one step away from cultural genocide.
Judge Norris is obviously a classic example of why Jury Nullification not judicial activism should determine when guilty people are released into the community rather than incarcerated.
Justice Left Behind explores the problems caused by the likes of Norris:
Activist judges reject precedent and impose their values when sentencing. This in turn sets precedents other leftwing judges can draw on when sentencing. It also sets precedent that conservative judges feel obliged to follow. Bleeding heart judges feel good about themselves when imposing lenient sentences or giving criminals another chance. They do not see the hidden costs of their selfish approach to sentencing. Costs such as:
- Innocent people being harmed or forced to live in fear because criminals who should be incarcerated are preying on them or their neighbors.
- People sentenced to inappropriately long sentences due to mandatory minimum sentences or three strikes and you are out laws.
Soft sentences cause people to lose faith in the system. Some may take the law into their own hands. Others demand the legislature act to ensure appropriate sentences. There are only so many things the legislature can do. None of them is cost free. Mandatory minimum sentences and three strike laws are ways the legislature addresses the problem. Activist judges injecting their values into sentences are the direct cause of mandatory minimum sentences or three strikes and you are out laws. These measures remove the ability of judges to impose overly lenient sentences or to impose appropriately lenient sentences.
Make no mistake. The progressive left and activist judges are directly responsible for the injustice that arises from mandatory minimum sentences and three strikes and you are out laws. Every instance should be one more nail in the progressive left coffin. It matters not how good or selfish their intentions are.
I could say that the likes of Norris are the reason why “the law is an ass”. But given the murder of the two year old girl and stabbing of her mother I feel this could be inappropriate. It could give a lie to the origins of the phrase “the law is an ass”:
Olive Twist: “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.” “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass- a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience- by experience.”
So I will content myself with saying Judge Norris is an ass:
Judge Norris you are an ass. Your views bring the law into disrepute. My fellow citizens and I can have no faith in your judgment or the evenhandedness of your sentencing. If you have an ounce of integrity or respect for your office you will resign. You can then voice your stupid views to your hearts content.
I will also reflect on what fine people we are allowing into our community. The man may have gone on his stabbing rampage because he was prone to violence, rather than for cultural reasons. His self harm suggests it is not the typical Islamic honor killing. If this is the case should he be incarcerated for longer? After all, without mitigating cultural and social circumstances relevant to the crime then sentencing should be severe, particularly if he is not insane.
Justice is meant to be blind. I repeat, blind. It is meant to be blind to the accused skin color and to their social and cultural origins. Equality before the law is one of the defining characteristics of our civilization. Remove it and you remove a core component of our society. Without equality before the law our society will lack legitimacy. Lacking legitimacy it will not last long. Barbarism or despotism may replace it. Then we will all be far worse off, irrespective of our social and cultural background or the color of our skin.