16yo from Ethiopia bashes father-of-four to death in Springvale

[clinton_09]

probably nothing. my view: save the taxpayer some money, and just deport the the guy back.

Zero tolerance policy, you commit a crime, you get deported.

Exactly my views!! get him out the country

[Wizard]

When analysing this situation, it is important to take into account that the man had a troubled past; he had endured poverty in a warzone. Upon coming to Australia, he had little education, and was involved with the wrong people. This does not, however, mitigate the severity of his crimes. Is deportation the answer? It is demonstrable that deporting a man for his crimes is not the solution; he committed these heinous crimes on Australian soil, and therefore he should be sentenced to the charge which a "true Australian" would receive. I mean, within Australia there are so many different people of differing ethnicities, who if committed a crime would be deported. In other words, it is clearly evident that deportation is not the answer.     

[Mao]

When analysing this situation, it is important to take into account that the man had a troubled past; he had endured poverty in a warzone. Upon coming to Australia, he had little education, and was involved with the wrong people. This does not, however, mitigate the severity of his crimes. Is deportation the answer? It is demonstrable that deporting a man for his crimes is not the solution; he committed these heinous crimes on Australian soil, and therefore he should be sentenced to the charge which a "true Australian" would receive. I mean, within Australia there are so many different people of differing ethnicities, who if committed a crime would be deported. In other words, it is clearly evident that deportation is not the answer.    

I disagree. I believe that before someone can be treated as a "true Australian", there must be a period of probation in which the character of the immigrant can be judged, if by nothing other than criminal record. If that cannot be kept, then why should Australia accept this person?

[/0]

If the guy steals a bag of chips or something like that then it's not as serious. The harm is minimal and rehabilitation can occur if caught. But murder is serious. The guy has taken stolen someone else's life. We can't let people into our country if it means people in our country are going to be at a disadvantage. It's just not fair. Deportation sets an example, and it is appropriate, but we should be more careful who we let into our country in the first place.

[excal]

When analysing this situation, it is important to take into account that the man had a troubled past;

Irrelevant.

He had endured poverty in a warzone. Upon coming to Australia, he had little education,

Maybe relevant in sentencing

and was involved with the wrong people.

Irrelevant.

This does not, however, mitigate the severity of his crimes.

Depends on your lawyer, but I agree.

Is deportation the answer? It is demonstrable that deporting a man for his crimes is not the solution; he committed these heinous crimes on Australian soil, and therefore he should be sentenced to the charge which a "true Australian" would receive. I mean, within Australia there are so many different people of differing ethnicities, who if committed a crime would be deported. In other words, it is clearly evident that deportation is not the answer.    

Not very 'clearly evident' to me. It sounds like that you're:

- holding the contention that 'deporting a man for his crimes is not the solution'
- proposing a solution - 'he committed these heinous crimes on Australian soil, and therefore he should be sentenced to the charge which a "true Australian" would receive'
- providing a completely irrelevant and, grammatically indecipherable, piece of supposed evidence - 'I mean, within Australia there are so many different people of differing ethnicities, who if committed a crime would be deported'.

I still don't get what your point of view is. And, to be honest, he stopped being a 'true Australian' when he violated his assertion of good character in his entry visa when he killed that man.

The sad part is that he'll probably get let off the hook as a juvenile along with other mitigating factors. Furthermore, as a criteria to murder is premeditation, he might also be sentenced to a 'lesser' degree (manslaughter?). In any case, sentencing is way too lax in this state in my opinion.

[bubble sunglasses]

  I agree with Mao's idea of having a "probationary period"; detention is, in reality, too harsh and goes on for too long.

[Wizard]

lol, sorry, I agree that I didnt make myself very clear. For example, when I said : 'I mean, within Australia there are so many different people of differing ethnicities, who if committed a crime would be deported', what I meant was that Australia has a pretty large multicultural population, and deporting a man for committing a crime on the basis of background seemed to be wrong. However, upon reading Mao's opinion, I definitely agree with Mao, a probation period would overcome most of the setbacks  

[Mao]

lol, sorry, I agree that I didnt make myself very clear. For example, when I said : 'I mean, within Australia there are so many different people of differing ethnicities, who if committed a crime would be deported', what I meant was that Australia has a pretty large multicultural population, and deporting a man for committing a crime on the basis of background seemed to be wrong. However, upon reading Mao's opinion, I definitely agree with Mao, a probation period would overcome most of the setbacks  

That would indeed be wrong, if this said criminal has lived in Australia all his life, or a long enough period with clean records for a significant period of time. I do believe the comment that this person should be deported comes from knowing that this person haven't been in Australia for very long.

And this 'probation' period is already in place, it is otherwise known as the residency requirement when one apply for citizenship, at which point the person is checked for police records. The thing is that the laws are not harsh enough to deport criminals without an Australian citizenships, costing residents, most of whom are citizens, for jail expenses.

[gregi]

Give him the chair.

[excal]

lol, sorry, I agree that I didnt make myself very clear. For example, when I said : 'I mean, within Australia there are so many different people of differing ethnicities, who if committed a crime would be deported', what I meant was that Australia has a pretty large multicultural population, and deporting a man for committing a crime on the basis of background seemed to be wrong. However, upon reading Mao's opinion, I definitely agree with Mao, a probation period would overcome most of the setbacks  

That would indeed be wrong, if this said criminal has lived in Australia all his life, or a long enough period with clean records for a significant period of time. I do believe the comment that this person should be deported comes from knowing that this person haven't been in Australia for very long.

And this 'probation' period is already in place, it is otherwise known as the residency requirement when one apply for citizenship, at which point the person is checked for police records. The thing is that the laws are not harsh enough to deport criminals without an Australian citizenships, costing residents, most of whom are citizens, for jail expenses.

To add to this, I contend that while you're not a citizen of a country, you're merely a guest. If you had a guest over for dinner who was abusing your hospitality, you'd kick him out, right?

It is a simplistic analogy, but it captures the situation almost perfectly.

[doboman]

When analysing this situation, it is important to take into account that the man had a troubled past; he had endured poverty in a warzone. Upon coming to Australia, he had little education, and was involved with the wrong people. This does not, however, mitigate the severity of his crimes. Is deportation the answer? It is demonstrable that deporting a man for his crimes is not the solution; he committed these heinous crimes on Australian soil, and therefore he should be sentenced to the charge which a "true Australian" would receive. I mean, within Australia there are so many different people of differing ethnicities, who if committed a crime would be deported. In other words, it is clearly evident that deportation is not the answer.    

I disagree. I believe that before someone can be treated as a "true Australian", there must be a period of probation in which the character of the immigrant can be judged, if by nothing other than criminal record. If that cannot be kept, then why should Australia accept this person?

Sorry Mao, I can't bring myself to agree with your 'solution'. Those who immigrate to Australia, those who have paid significant amounts of money- and even sacrificed their lives, are coming for a new beginning. Coming to a place where freedom is OUR slogan, where everybody is given a "fair go" and a place where they can bring up their kids in a clean- healthy environment- rather  than their third-tier war-torn country. And as that is mostly the case, no matter how long this 'probation' period may be- these immigrants will be on best behaviour ensuring they donnot commit any action that might sabotage their citizenship.
Imagine this: you go to your home country and you bring back a girl. You plan on marrying this girl, but she doesn't really like you. However, b/c she wants to leave her morbid situation, she pretends to like you throughout your engagement period. It is clear, that however long this engagement period may be, she will force herself to 'pretend' to be the woman of your dreams. After you get married, and she gets her citizenship/stable job, she will return to her old self and as she has what she wants- she'll divorce your sorry butt. The same with these immigrants, they will serve out their probation in the best manner possible- but once they get it- they will do whatever they want...
I think the best solution, and i kno how much people won't agree with me is- just like med schools have bonded places which ppl take because of the courses high demanding nature- Australia, who will always be popular in immigration, should implement a policy to all new immi's which says: your citizenship will be terminated if you commit a crime with great severity.




Sorry about the lame analogy, but its too late to think of a good one!

[Glockmeister]

...your citizenship will be terminated if you commit a crime with great severity.

In some circumstances, this could lead a person to become stateless (for example if the citizenship laws of their previous country do not allow dual citizenship). That's not a good thing, as it means we can't deport such people (i.e. they are stuck here).

[Mao]

doboman: I disagree. I do not believe citizenship should be revertible without consent, that will be truly racist, as the person is judged by a background, as opposed to a residency status. When one makes the pledge of commitment to become a country's citizen, that person has sworn allegiance to the country and its people. Crimes that may be committed henceforth should be punished the same as a native citizen.

Your case with the marriage thing is rather irrelevant, it's a personal mistake, and the girl has done nothing illegal. As far as the legal system is concerned, the girl has become a lawful resident/citizen, it's just that the marriage didn't work out.

[mullums1]

When analysing this situation, it is important to take into account that the man had a troubled past; he had endured poverty in a warzone. Upon coming to Australia, he had little education, and was involved with the wrong people. This does not, however, mitigate the severity of his crimes. Is deportation the answer? It is demonstrable that deporting a man for his crimes is not the solution; he committed these heinous crimes on Australian soil, and therefore he should be sentenced to the charge which a "true Australian" would receive. I mean, within Australia there are so many different people of differing ethnicities, who if committed a crime would be deported. In other words, it is clearly evident that deportation is not the answer.    

I disagree. I believe that before someone can be treated as a "true Australian", there must be a period of probation in which the character of the immigrant can be judged, if by nothing other than criminal record. If that cannot be kept, then why should Australia accept this person?

Sorry Mao, I can't bring myself to agree with your 'solution'. Those who immigrate to Australia, those who have paid significant amounts of money- and even sacrificed their lives, are coming for a new beginning. Coming to a place where freedom is OUR slogan, where everybody is given a "fair go" and a place where they can bring up their kids in a clean- healthy environment- rather  than their third-tier war-torn country. And as that is mostly the case, no matter how long this 'probation' period may be- these immigrants will be on best behaviour ensuring they donnot commit any action that might sabotage their citizenship.
Imagine this: you go to your home country and you bring back a girl. You plan on marrying this girl, but she doesn't really like you. However, b/c she wants to leave her morbid situation, she pretends to like you throughout your engagement period. It is clear, that however long this engagement period may be, she will force herself to 'pretend' to be the woman of your dreams. After you get married, and she gets her citizenship/stable job, she will return to her old self and as she has what she wants- she'll divorce your sorry butt. The same with these immigrants, they will serve out their probation in the best manner possible- but once they get it- they will do whatever they want...
I think the best solution, and i kno how much people won't agree with me is- just like med schools have bonded places which ppl take because of the courses high demanding nature- Australia, who will always be popular in immigration, should implement a policy to all new immi's which says: your citizenship will be terminated if you commit a crime with great severity.




Sorry about the lame analogy, but its too late to think of a good one!

I just disagree with you. Yeh, your analogy probably isnt accurate for this situation. Mainly because; are you saying by returning to her 'old self', its illegal? She is allowed to behave in whichever way she wants. Ofcourse, as long as she stays within the rules.

Firstly, no one wants to purposely behave 'badly'. People who behave 'badly' do so because they think their behaviour is acceptable. Their true purpose isnt to do the wrong thing, just satisfy their desires. So you wont find any people who will pretend to be righteous all these years and when they get their citizenship, go on a murder spree.

They dont see citzenship as a license to commit crime.

If they really are a bad person, their real persona will be seen by the public in their probationary period and will not be allowed to gain a citizenship.