[BLML] Ethical standards (was "generous") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Fri Jul 6 08:47:48 CEST 2012


Grattan Endicott, 23rd September 2009:

+=+ I think it wrong to say the 'deterrent' has
gone. The deterrent lies in the use of Law 90.
The policy in regard to that lies with the RAs
and the practice with Directors. It distorts
comparisons across the field if the element of
punishment is embodied in the rectification
thus giving the NOS a gratuitous bonus in their
score. ~ Grattan ~ +=+

The Economist, 24th October 2009, page 38:

[snip]
To deter, a punishment must be swift, certain
and severe. Of these, severity matters the least,
reckons Mr Kleinman, and there is a trade-off:
the harsher the punishment, the more legal
safeguards are required to ensure it is not mis-
applied. States that execute murderers do so
only after decades of appeals. This costs
millions in legal fees. So they hardly ever do it,
which is not much of a deterrent.

It turns out that milder sanctions can be swifter
and more certain. For example, in Hawaii, until
recently, felons ignored the terms of their
probation because the only punishment
available was a harsh one: being sent back to
prison for the remainder of their term, typically
five to ten years. Courts and probation officers
were too swamped to handle the necessary
paperwork and rebut the legal challenges to
such harsh penalties. So violators typically got
off scot free. This led people to conclude that
they could misbehave with impunity. The
chaos only ended when a judge started
handing out instant sentences of a week or so.
The certain prospect of spending a few days
behind bars straight away made most of the
probationers behave.
[snip]

Appeals Examples, WBF Code of Practice,
27th November 2003 edition, No 13.

Procedural Penalty

Teams - Round Robin

The Facts:
One of the players of this match was 3 minutes
late to arrive at the table.

The Director:
Applied the penalty, prescribed in the
regulations.

Ruling:
1VP Penalty

The Player appealed.

The Player:
Is a well known personality who had been in
an official meeting prior to the match. He
suggested it was unfair to his team to punish
them for his engagements. He commented he
always plays fast enough and in fact ended the
match with almost half an hour to spare.

The Committee:
Noted that the regulations contain automatic
penalties for some good reasons. The
Committee did not accept the excuse for
being late and did not think that the case
should have been brought to the Committee.

The Committee's decision:
Director's decision upheld.

Relevant Laws:
Regulation B.2.1

Deposit:
Forfeited

WBF Comment:
The player, or his captain, seems to have
acted with little foresight.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120706/011b95c2/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list