Yet another woman dead because our 'justice' system decided that the rights of violent offenders were more important than the lives and safety of their victims and the general public.
A handful of men are killed by 'coward punches' and laws are immediately changed, with tougher penalties introduced. Women are killed at a rate of one every week (sometimes more) and nothing is done.
Every time the courts give rapists a slap on the wrist and let them out again, they are basically saying, "Hey ladies, you, your mothers and daughters, your sisters and friends, all of your lives are worth less than this rapist's happiness." All too often when a woman is murdered and/or raped, it turns out that the perpetrator has a history of violence against women but was out on bail or parole.
Anyone in the courts who is responsible for allowing these monsters to go free should be sacked and should be forced to compensate the victims and/or their families. It won't erase the trauma or bring loved ones back but helping them try to rebuild their lives is the least they could do when they allowed them to be destroyed in the first place (and maybe they'd think twice about letting violent offenders out to reoffend if there's a chance they might face personal consequences).
Also, fuck people who think these violent rapists should have a chance to be 'rehabilitated' (which doesn't work anyway) and have a second chance at a normal life among normal members of society. Their victims don't get a chance at a life where they weren't assaulted and traumatised. Families of women and girls like Jill Meagher and Masa Vukotic don't get a second chance at a life where their wife or daughter isn't dead.
These offenders are a good justification for the death penalty. And I know some bleeding heart idiot is going to go "But the death penalty is inhumaaaaaane!" Well, if it's a choice between the inhumane treatment of rapists and the inhumane treatment of innocent women, I know which one I'd prefer. Their sentences are far too lenient to begin with, but then the courts let them out on parole even earlier so they can hurt even more women. And even if they WERE serving life sentences, I'd rather my tax dollars go towards health or education or women's shelters (given that the government keeps wanting to defund those and make it even harder for domestic violence victims to get help, and therefore more likely these victims will end up seriously injured or killed) than keeping pieces of shit like this alive.
It's little wonder these crimes keep becoming more and more common when the perpetrators know they will face little to no consequences. Our so-called 'justice' system is little more than a cruel joke.
Showing posts with label Musings/Observations/Rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Musings/Observations/Rants. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Friday, July 16, 2010
Man's Best Friend... So Why Don't We Treat Him That Way?
Dogs. Anyone who has or has ever had one knows how much joy they can bring to the life of a person or family. Large dogs or small dogs, clever dogs or dopey dogs, they all bring a smile to your face when you get home from school or work and find them wagging their tail as they wait for you.
But the sad truth is, not all dogs end up in a suitable home.
Just under two months ago, the young couple in the middle unit next door bought a puppy. For the first week or so, it howled and whined constantly, starting as early as 6am and going until as late as 11pm, or in some cases until after midnight. Being a dog owner myself, I know that puppies do cry for company a lot until they adapt to their new home, so I thought it would stop after a few weeks. But it didn't.
Upon further observation, I noticed that the new puppy owners were going out at 7am, and not getting home until after 10pm pretty much every day. And then yesterday, having been woken once again by the dog's whining, I went out to look at the dog (part of filing a noisy animal complaint with a council requires you to verify that you saw the dog as well as heard it barking) through a hole in the fence. Now, keeping in mind that their backyard is about the size of a toilet, I assumed that I would see a Jack Russell or terrier or something similar. But no. It was a labrador.
How can anyone possibly think that having any dog - let alone something that will grow as big as a labrador - in a yard that small is a good idea? Dogs are naturally energetic creatures. They need exercise and space to run around. Sticking them in a yard the size of a car boot borders on animal cruelty (a far more serious and separate issue, which I don't intend to explore in this post). Box them into a yard like that and you might as well be keeping it in a cage.
Secondly, even if it does have a big yard to run around in, dogs are pack animals. They need social contact with other creatures, and that means they need to be with their human family. Not only because they get lonely, but also because they need to be mentally as well as physically engaged, by playing games with them, petting them, taking them for walks and so on. If they don't have this, they get bored, and as a result they will howl/bark constantly, dig holes and destroy anything they can get their teeth on. And then, when the owner decides they're not so cute anymore, the dog is either abandoned or dumped at an animal shelter, simply because their owner didn't bother to do any research on owning an animal before buying one.
I'm not saying that an owner should spend every waking moment with their dog - that would be ridiculous and impossible. But leaving a dog alone for pretty much the whole day every day is unacceptable. It is not fair on either the dog or on the neighbours who have to put up with it.
I think that one of the main causes of dogs ending up with unsuitable owners (apart from the sheer stupidity of some people) is that it is so easy to buy a dog. You can go into a shopping centre or down the main street of your town, walk into a pet shop and go home with a new puppy, no questions asked. My question is: Why?
Before buying a puppy, a prospective owner should be able to prove that they are capable of caring for an animal. They should have their home and property checked to make sure it is big enough. They should have their lifestyle examined to make sure they will be home enough to properly exercise, groom and accompany their pet. It should be difficult to buy a dog. That way, the only people who ended up with one would be people who were willing and able to look after it for the rest of its life, not just until it stops being small and cute and cuddly.
Edit: Upon recently seeing the dog again more clearly, I realised it was actually a staffordshire bull terrier. Not as big as a labrador, but still too big to live comfortably in a yard that small.
But the sad truth is, not all dogs end up in a suitable home.
Just under two months ago, the young couple in the middle unit next door bought a puppy. For the first week or so, it howled and whined constantly, starting as early as 6am and going until as late as 11pm, or in some cases until after midnight. Being a dog owner myself, I know that puppies do cry for company a lot until they adapt to their new home, so I thought it would stop after a few weeks. But it didn't.
Upon further observation, I noticed that the new puppy owners were going out at 7am, and not getting home until after 10pm pretty much every day. And then yesterday, having been woken once again by the dog's whining, I went out to look at the dog (part of filing a noisy animal complaint with a council requires you to verify that you saw the dog as well as heard it barking) through a hole in the fence. Now, keeping in mind that their backyard is about the size of a toilet, I assumed that I would see a Jack Russell or terrier or something similar. But no. It was a labrador.
How can anyone possibly think that having any dog - let alone something that will grow as big as a labrador - in a yard that small is a good idea? Dogs are naturally energetic creatures. They need exercise and space to run around. Sticking them in a yard the size of a car boot borders on animal cruelty (a far more serious and separate issue, which I don't intend to explore in this post). Box them into a yard like that and you might as well be keeping it in a cage.
Secondly, even if it does have a big yard to run around in, dogs are pack animals. They need social contact with other creatures, and that means they need to be with their human family. Not only because they get lonely, but also because they need to be mentally as well as physically engaged, by playing games with them, petting them, taking them for walks and so on. If they don't have this, they get bored, and as a result they will howl/bark constantly, dig holes and destroy anything they can get their teeth on. And then, when the owner decides they're not so cute anymore, the dog is either abandoned or dumped at an animal shelter, simply because their owner didn't bother to do any research on owning an animal before buying one.
I'm not saying that an owner should spend every waking moment with their dog - that would be ridiculous and impossible. But leaving a dog alone for pretty much the whole day every day is unacceptable. It is not fair on either the dog or on the neighbours who have to put up with it.
I think that one of the main causes of dogs ending up with unsuitable owners (apart from the sheer stupidity of some people) is that it is so easy to buy a dog. You can go into a shopping centre or down the main street of your town, walk into a pet shop and go home with a new puppy, no questions asked. My question is: Why?
Before buying a puppy, a prospective owner should be able to prove that they are capable of caring for an animal. They should have their home and property checked to make sure it is big enough. They should have their lifestyle examined to make sure they will be home enough to properly exercise, groom and accompany their pet. It should be difficult to buy a dog. That way, the only people who ended up with one would be people who were willing and able to look after it for the rest of its life, not just until it stops being small and cute and cuddly.
Edit: Upon recently seeing the dog again more clearly, I realised it was actually a staffordshire bull terrier. Not as big as a labrador, but still too big to live comfortably in a yard that small.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Less is More... Expensive
Over the last few years, I've noticed that a lot of consumables, particularly food, are getting smaller, yet more expensive. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Take Cadbury chocolate, for example. We've all seen the blocks on our supermarket shelves, in enough flavours to keep you standing in the chocolate aisle for a good twenty minutes trying to decide which one to buy. There was a time when most (if not all) of these flavours came in 250 gram blocks, and you'd pay about $3.50 for one. Not anymore.
A year or so ago (not exactly sure when), Cadbury decided to give their blocks new packaging, including a cardboard box (instead of the previous paper wrapping). Lovely, everyone thought, who doesn't love new pretty packaging for their food? However, if you looked closely at the box, a horrifying discovery could be made; Cadbury had shaved the size of their blocks from anywhere between 30 and 60 grams. But they were still charging the same price, if not more (I've seen them for as much as $4.99 in some supermarkets).
How stupid do they think we are?
Moving on... canteens. I remember in the last few years of high school, the price of those Zooper Dooper icy poles skyrocketed from 20 cents to 60 cents. Now I get that we were all struggling to cope with the GST, canteens included, but come on. That doesn't warrant TRIPLING the price of an icy pole (yes, I know it's a cheap example, but it's just the principle of it). I thought that by the time I got to uni, prices would have settled, but no. Every year, they still manage to make things more expensive, but give you less of it (eg. Upping the price of a bucket of chips by 50 cents, but giving you a bucket two thirds the size of the old ones, and giving you 9 chicken chips for $2.50 instead of 8 for $1.60). We're STUDENTS. Don't they realise that we of all people CAN'T afford to be paying more and getting less? Surely there's some sort of regulating association responsible for preventing rip-offs like this? (clearly not. But there should be)
So, will there come a day when we're paying $20 for a single slice of bread? When we have to sell our house to be able to afford lunch from the school/uni/work canteen? Probably not. But it wouldn't surprise me.
Take Cadbury chocolate, for example. We've all seen the blocks on our supermarket shelves, in enough flavours to keep you standing in the chocolate aisle for a good twenty minutes trying to decide which one to buy. There was a time when most (if not all) of these flavours came in 250 gram blocks, and you'd pay about $3.50 for one. Not anymore.
A year or so ago (not exactly sure when), Cadbury decided to give their blocks new packaging, including a cardboard box (instead of the previous paper wrapping). Lovely, everyone thought, who doesn't love new pretty packaging for their food? However, if you looked closely at the box, a horrifying discovery could be made; Cadbury had shaved the size of their blocks from anywhere between 30 and 60 grams. But they were still charging the same price, if not more (I've seen them for as much as $4.99 in some supermarkets).
How stupid do they think we are?
Moving on... canteens. I remember in the last few years of high school, the price of those Zooper Dooper icy poles skyrocketed from 20 cents to 60 cents. Now I get that we were all struggling to cope with the GST, canteens included, but come on. That doesn't warrant TRIPLING the price of an icy pole (yes, I know it's a cheap example, but it's just the principle of it). I thought that by the time I got to uni, prices would have settled, but no. Every year, they still manage to make things more expensive, but give you less of it (eg. Upping the price of a bucket of chips by 50 cents, but giving you a bucket two thirds the size of the old ones, and giving you 9 chicken chips for $2.50 instead of 8 for $1.60). We're STUDENTS. Don't they realise that we of all people CAN'T afford to be paying more and getting less? Surely there's some sort of regulating association responsible for preventing rip-offs like this? (clearly not. But there should be)
So, will there come a day when we're paying $20 for a single slice of bread? When we have to sell our house to be able to afford lunch from the school/uni/work canteen? Probably not. But it wouldn't surprise me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)