Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rick Sarre, Emeritus Professor in Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia

Erin Patterson, having been convicted in the Supreme Court of Victoria two months ago on three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, has today received a life sentence from the trial judge, Justice Christopher Beale.

He ordered a non-parole period of 33 years. Given her age (50) and the 676 days she’s already spent in detention, this means Patterson will not be eligible to apply for parole until 2056, when she is in her 80s.

Erin Patterson’s story is now one of the most well-known true crime cases in Australia. Nine weeks ago, a jury found her guilty of poisoning her lunch guests in July 2023 at her home in Leongatha with foraged death-cap mushrooms she had baked into individual servings of Beef Wellington.

In sentencing, Justice Beale said he had no hesitation in finding Patterson’s offending falls into the “worst category” of murder and attempted murder.

So after months of media frenzy and myriad headlines, the sentencing now bookends the case, pending any appeal. Here’s how the judge reached his decision and what happens now.

A lengthy prison term

The life sentence was as expected, given Patterson’s lawyer, Colin Mandy, did not oppose the prosecution’s bid for the maximum sentence for murder in Victoria.

The matter that exercised the judge’s mind, principally, in considering the sentence was the length of the non-parole period. The standard such period for murder in Victoria is 20 years.

If there’s more than one victim, however, the minimum non-parole period increases to 25 years.

While it’s possible to sentence a murderer to life without parole, it is very unusual.

In 2019, the judge who gave a life sentence to James Gargasoulas, the man who drove down Bourke Street Mall in Melbourne, killing six people, set a non-parole period of 46 years.

What did the judge consider?

The factors taken into account in sentencing relate to the nature of the crime and the personal circumstances of the person convicted.

The final outcome is informed by principles that vary only slightly across Australia’s states and territories.

The main one here, arguably, was denunciation: the sentence needs to reinforce in the public mind the abhorrence of her conduct.

Indeed, there was no plea of guilty, and no remorse from Patterson at any time.

Moreover, when considering a non-parole period, a judge takes into account what is referred to as “proportionality”. This can be a limiting feature where there is lesser culpability, but an exacerbating feature where there are multiple deaths.

One might refer to it colloquially as a person receiving their “just desserts”.

In this instance, the judge was mindful of the fact there were four victims.

He was also mindful of Patterson’s “harsh” prison conditions, telling the court:

you have effectively been held in continuous solitary confinement for the last 15 months and at the very least there is a substantial chance that for your protection you will continue to be held in solitary confinement for years to come.

Deterrence, as a regular feature of the sentencing exercise, in this case becomes a companion to denunciation.

Rehabilitation was always unlikely to have any impact on the sentence, given the life term. There was no submission by defence counsel that his client had a diagnosed mental disorder or would benefit from any form of an ongoing remediation or restorative program.

Huge personal tolls

What dominated the submissions at the pre-sentence hearing in August were the victim impact statements.

In Victoria, such statements have been in place since 1994, but it has only been since 2005 that the court has been required to take account of the impact of the crime on any victim when sentencing.

Only since 2011 have victims been granted the right to read a statement aloud in court or have a nominated representative do so on their behalf.

In the Patterson pre-sentence hearing, the sole survivor of the meal, Ian Wilkinson, read his own statement and described the loss of his wife Heather. He said he felt “only half alive without her”.

Patterson’s estranged husband Simon did not attend the pre-sentence hearing, so his statement was read to the judge by a family member. His children, he wrote:

have […] been robbed of hope for the kind of relationship with their mother that every child naturally yearns for.

The Wilkinsons’ daughter, Ruth Dubois, also addressed the judge with her own statement. She highlighted the wider victims of the crimes, namely medical staff, investigators, shop owners (who had had their names scrutinised), mushroom growers, the health department and taxpayers.

“I am horrified,” she said, “that our family is even associated, through no choice of our own, with such destructive behaviour towards the community”.

Will there be an appeal?

Patterson’s counsel has 28 days in which to appeal. An appeal would either be against conviction or the sentence or both.

In relation to an appeal against conviction, defence counsel would need to establish that the trial judge made a mistake in admitting (or ruling out) certain evidence or failing to properly explain the defence case.

The former, a mistake about evidence, is the more common appeal ground.

Less likely is the latter appeal ground because it would be difficult for defence counsel to assert that his client’s case was given too little regard by the judge, given the amount of time (almost two days) Justice Beale devoted to explaining the defence case to the jury.

When appealing the length of the non-parole period, either counsel can argue the duration was either manifestly inadequate (a prosecution submission) or manifestly excessive (a defence submission). It remains to be seen if either side will pursue this option.

Whatever the case, there would not be too many observers surprised by the judge’s final determination.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Four victims, no remorse: Erin Patterson given a life sentence for mushroom murders – https://theconversation.com/four-victims-no-remorse-erin-patterson-given-a-life-sentence-for-mushroom-murders-264128

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

What do world leaders talk about when they think we’re not listening? This week it was the idea of living forever.

Russian president Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping were caught off-guard at a military parade in Beijing discussing the possibility of using biotechnology to pursue immortality. In particular, Putin suggested repeated organ transplants could keep a person young forever.

There’s a lot to unpack here. The idea of lifespan extension is less outlandish, and less objectionable, than it might seem. But as a bioethicist, I do have some concerns.

Could transplants allow us to live forever?

Putin’s suggestion that we can achieve immortality via repeated organ transplants is almost certainly false.

One obvious question is where these organs would come from. Transplantable organs are a scarce medical resource. Using them to sustain the life of an ageing autocrat would deprive others of life-saving transplants.

However, Putin may have been envisaging lab-grown organs created using stem cells. This approach would not deprive others of transplants.

Unfortunately for Putin, while scientists can grow miniature “organoids” that model some aspects of human tissues, creating full-size transplantable organs remains far beyond current capabilities.

Even if, hypothetically, we had access to limitless replacement organs, ageing erodes our body’s general resilience. This would make recovering from repeated transplant surgeries – which are significant operations – increasingly unlikely.

Our ageing brains present an even deeper obstacle. We can replace a kidney or a liver without any threat to our identity. But we cannot replace our brains; whoever inhabits our bodies after a brain transplant would not be us.

---

Read more:
An artificial heart may save your life. But it can also change you in surprising ways

---

Other approaches

There may be better routes to increasing longevity.

Scientists have prolonged the lives of laboratory animals such as monkeys, mice and fruit flies through drugs, genetic alterations, dietary changes and cellular reprogramming (which involves reverting some of the body’s cells to a “younger”, more primitive state).

It’s always challenging to translate animal studies to humans. But nothing suggests human ageing is uniquely beyond modification.

In 2024, Putin launched a national project to combat ageing. Could Russia deliver the necessary scientific breakthrough?

Perhaps, though many experts are doubtful, given Russia’s fragile research infrastructure.

But Putin is not alone in funding longevity research. Breakthroughs might come from elsewhere – including, potentially, from major investments in anti-ageing biotechnologies from billionaires in the West.

Anti-ageing research could bring benefits

Whether they are authoritarian presidents or Silicon Valley billionaires, it’s easy to sneer at wealthy elites’ preoccupation with lifespan extension.

Death is the great leveller; it comes for us all. We understandably distrust those who want to rise above it.

But we need to disentangle motives and ethics. It is possible to pursue worthwhile projects for bad reasons.

For example, if I donate to an anti-malaria charity merely to impress my Tinder date, you might roll your eyes at my motivations. But the donation itself still achieves good.

The same applies to lifespan extension.

Anti-ageing research could have many benefits. Because ageing raises the risk of almost every major disease, slowing it could make people healthier at every age.

If we value preventing diseases such as heart disease, cancer and dementia, we should welcome research into slowing ageing (which could in turn help to reduce these problems).

Is seeking longer lives ethical?

Putin and Xi might seem less concerned with improving population health than with postponing their own deaths. But is it wrong to want longevity?

Many of us dread death – this is normal and understandable. Death deprives us of all the goods of life, while the prospect of dying can be frightening.

Nor is it suspect to want more than a “natural” lifespan. Since 1900, life expectancy in wealthy countries has risen by more than 30 years. We should welcome further improvements.

The most serious ethical concern about lifespan extension is that it will result in social stagnation.

Our views become increasingly rigid as we age. Young minds often bring new ideas.

If Taylor Swift is still topping the charts in 2089, many other musicians will miss out. And we will miss out on enjoying the evolution of pop music.

Music is one thing; morals are another. The 21st century is raising many new challenges – such as climate change and AI developments – that may benefit from fresh moral perspectives, and from the turnover of political power.

A Russia still ruled by Putin in 2150 will strike many as the starkest version of this worry. Fortunately, we need not be too concerned about a 200-year-old Putin. He is no longer young, and significant lifespan extension is probably decades away.

Still, the prospect of ageless autocrats should give us pause. We should welcome technologies that slow ageing and help us stay healthier for longer, while remembering that even good technologies can have bad effects.

If we succeed in dramatically extending lifespans, we will need to work out how to prevent our societies from becoming as static as some of the elites who lead them.

Julian Koplin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. No, organ transplants won’t make you live forever, whatever Putin says – https://theconversation.com/no-organ-transplants-wont-make-you-live-forever-whatever-putin-says-264573

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Meg Keen, Head of Pacific Research Program, Australian National University

It’s been a testing time for Pacific regional unity.

So far this year, there have been rifts between Cook Islands and New Zealand over security arrangements with China; New Caledonia and France over independence for the French territory; and among various Pacific nations over deep-sea mining.

Now, geopolitical tussles are buffeting the annual Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders’ meeting, held this week in Solomon Islands.

As regional leaders began preparing for their apex annual summit, there were disagreements over the regular dialogue with Pacific development partners held after the main meeting. Development partners include major outside powers such as the United States, China, France, United Kingdom and Japan, among others.

Last month, Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele called off the meeting with these global partners. He argued that excluding outsiders will allow time to complete a review among members on how such external engagements occur.

However, most believe he was bowing to Chinese pressure to exclude Taiwan – Solomon Islands switched its allegiance from Taipei to Beijing in 2019.

Chinese rhetoric against Taiwan is sharpening. Earlier this year, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in New Zealand was blunt about the inclusion of Taiwan in the Pacific Islands Forum:

Taiwan is a province of China […] and has no qualification or right to participate in Forum activities whatsoever.

At last year’s summit in Tonga, China’s special envoy to the Pacific, Qian Bo, flexed his diplomatic muscles and insisted on the removal of a mention of Taiwan from the final communique.

Even so, the PIF 1992 Honiara Declaration does sanction a Taiwan dialogue during the annual gathering for those wanting to meet on a bilateral basis — that arrangement has persisted for more than three decades.

Next year’s host Palau will reinstate the more inclusive status quo.

An official statement from Taiwan ahead of this year’s forum makes clear it is in the region to stay:

We firmly believe in the inclusive spirit of “The Pacific Way” [and…] look forward to ongoing participation in the PIF.

The Pacific pushes back

Most members are not happy with the exclusion of partner nations, but all are still coming this week and will work out their differences, as they have done in the past.

Tuvalu, Palau and Marshall Islands recognise, and have development partnerships with, Taiwan. They believe the exclusion of outside powers is a missed development opportunity. Tuvalu Prime Minister Feleti Teo has been clear:

We do not need the competition and conflict overshadowing our development agenda in the Pacific.

Even countries that recognise China worry about the cost of exclusion. Senior representatives from Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Samoa (all of whom are PIF members and will attend the summit) have expressed their disappointment in the decision to keep partner nations away.

The decision to call off the partner dialogue is divisive, but it is only a hurdle, not a hard stop. Those nations with diplomatic missions or visit visas to Honiara, including China, may well hold quiet bilateral meetings on the margins of the summit this week. However, Taiwanese representatives will not be present.

Setting the Pacific agenda

While exclusions and sharp reactions grab media headlines, much more crucial issues are on the summit agenda this year.

Climate change is top of the list. Buoyed by the recent Vanuatu-led triumph at the International Court of Justice, which ruled that states have a legal obligation to combat climate change, Pacific nations will look for more avenues to collectively seek climate justice.

Already Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa have submitted a resolution to the Rome Statute (the treaty that established the International Criminal Court) for a new crime of “ecocide” to be added in recognition of the irreversible damage to ecosystems from climate change.

They are also pushing hard for more money to deal with biodiversity losses, and ensuring a new “loss and damage” fund to help vulnerable states recover from climate disasters is effective.

Another high priority will be next year’s COP31 climate meeting, which Australia and the Pacific are proposing to co-host. This would be a chance to push harder for global climate action to speed up mitigation and adaptation. Pressure will be on Australia to deliver on its host bid promises, and for others to step up or out of the way.

Pacific nations also need better access to targeted funds to adapt to rising temperatures and sea levels. They are working to capitalise their own Pacific Resilience Facility to make communities disaster-ready. However, the ambitious aim to secure US$1.5 billion (A$2.3 billion) from the global community will be set back by the decision to exclude partner countries from the talks.

Working together to combat problems

Another priority on the PIF agenda is advancing economic integration. Supply chains, labour mobility and regional connectivity all need a boost.

For example, poor internet connectivity is hindering economic development, while inadequate infrastructure is impeding the movement of people, goods and information across the vast region.

With rising geopolitical pressures and donors crowding in to offer aid and curry influence in the Pacific, regional frameworks and rules of engagement need strengthening. Former PIF senior officials Sione Tekiteki and Joel Nilon argue:

By building on existing frameworks and creating a cohesive set of standards, the Pacific can assert its autonomy.

Significantly, the Blue Pacific Oceans of Peace Declaration will be launched at this year’s meeting — a move to advance Pacific sovereignty. It aims to prevent regional militarisation, keep the Pacific nuclear-free, and protect oceans from nuclear waste and degradation.

This reflects a determination to cooperatively manage transnational pressures such as ocean exploitation, pollution, and crime and security intrusions from foreign elements.

Tensions between global powers permeate all corners of the world, and the Pacific is no different. External players can pull at the fabric of regionalism, but PIF members are the threads that bind the region.

In the past, external pressures have led to improved collective management. The development of one of the world’s largest sustainable tuna fisheries is a good example. Let’s hope that will be true in the future and unity will hold.

Meg Keen leads the Pacific Research Program at the ANU which receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). All research conducted under this program is independent.

Meg Keen is a non-resident fellow of The Lowy Institute.

– ref. With global powers barred, can Pacific nations find unity at their annual summit? – https://theconversation.com/with-global-powers-barred-can-pacific-nations-find-unity-at-their-annual-summit-264331

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ken M.P. Setiawan, Senior Lecturer in Indonesian Studies, The University of Melbourne

During Indonesia’s recent mass protests, the looted homes of politicians in Jakarta revealed unexpected victims: cats reportedly left behind or stolen as their owners fled for safety.

The cats have gone viral on social media. Their politician owners – celebrities-turned-MPs Uya Kuya and Eko Patrio of the National Mandate Party (PAN) – were accused of “abandoning” their pets. This is a framing they reject, arguing they just didn’t have any opportunity to collect them before fleeing looters.

Wherever the truth lies, images of these frightened cats rescued by concerned citizens have struck a deep chord in cat-obsessed Indonesia.

Protesters and netizens quickly came to view these incidents as symbolic of politicians’ betrayal of their duty toward society’s most vulnerable.

Pets are political

Cats are hugely popular in Indonesia, which boasts the highest rate of cat ownership in the Asia-Pacific.

Indonesia is a majority Muslim country, and the high status of cats in Islam may help explain why cats are so popular there.

Beyond the cultural significance of cats, however, the recent incidents also offer insights into the nature of political image-making in Indonesia.

The phenomenon of politicians using cats and other animals to bolster their popularity is of course not new, nor is it uniquely Indonesian.

From Winston Churchill’s wartime cat Nelson, to Bill Clinton’s cat Socks or Downing Street’s “chief mouser” Larry, politicians have long used pet cats to carefully curate their public images as warm, approachable, relatable and humane.

The prime example from Indonesia is President Prabowo Subianto and his rescue tabby cat Bobby Kertanegara.

Bobby boasts almost 1 million followers on Instagram. Images of Prabowo feeding, playing with, and cuddling him helped transform the former army general’s public image in the lead-up to last year’s presidential election. He went from strongman with a questionable human rights record to a cuddly, sweet, animal-loving grandpa.

Now Indonesia’s “first cat” Bobby gets wheeled around in a luxury pet stroller and has his own security detail. He makes appearances at state functions where he receives gifts from foreign leaders. This includes a bespoke scarf Bobby recently received from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka and former Jakarta governor and 2024 presidential candidate Anies Baswedan have also used their pets to bolster their public image in Indonesia.

The recent protests

The recent protests in Jakarta were triggered by a proposed rise in MP allowances but also by general resentment towards the political class.

Anger has intensified over coverage of politicians’ lavish lives, as ordinary Indonesians struggle with high living costs and youth unemployment rates.

During the recent protests, several high-profile politicians had their houses looted.

Kuya and Patrio were reported to have left behind their cats, some of which were taken by looters or rescued by concerned citizens.

While many of these claims have been disputed by the politicians, commentary on viral posts have asked: if politicians can’t take responsibility for their own pets, how can they be trusted to care for the citizens they are supposed to represent?

Political image-crafting

Social media attention for these cats soon triggered a response from their owners.

Both Kuya and Patrio refuted claims the cats were “abandoned”. They argue there was no opportunity to grab the cats when their homes were targeted for looting, with the animals fleeing on their own.

Both have appealed for their pets to be returned, which has received some support from netizens.

The damage to the politicians’ reputations, however, has been done.

In the age of social media, pets have proven to be a double-edged sword.

Once used to soften politicians’ images and generate public support, these cats have now been drawn into a narrative that positions politicians as uncaring and out of touch. They have become metaphors for what some see as the elites’ betrayal of the people.

These cat incidents also reveal the precarious nature of political image-crafting in the age of social media.

Where once social media enabled political pets to be used to drive public adoration, it has now become a vehicle for backlash.

Ken M.P. Setiawan receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Board Member of EngageMedia, a nonprofit organisation that promotes digital rights, open and secure technology, and social issue documentary in the Asia-Pacific.

Charlotte Setijadi has previously received research funding from Singapore’s Ministry of Education and the Singapore Social Science Research Council. She is currently one of the co-convenors of the University of Melbourne’s Indonesia Forum.

Elisabeth Kramer receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australia-based Indonesia Council and the Australian Consortium for In-Country Indonesian Studies (ACICIS).

– ref. How MPs’ ‘abandoned’ cats became the unexpected symbol of Indonesia’s protests – https://theconversation.com/how-mps-abandoned-cats-became-the-unexpected-symbol-of-indonesias-protests-264511