Lawyers/lefties/concerned individuals - Crime solutions.

Vadz, you're excused.

What are your ideas for reducing crime in NZ in particular actually catching and punishing people who do it in a way that makes society think people have been treated fairly (victims and perps) with a view of reducing the impact of crime.

reminder on the functions of imprisonment.

Sense of justice,
Removal from society,
Punishment,
Rehabilitation.

Dont need to restate the problems with the current system unless its to contrast your ideas.

More police powers? More police? less gangsta music videos? legalise drugs?

Thoughts?

fisrt of all we have to focus more on prevention - creat a world where only the bad eggs will habitually commit crimes - the pipe dream vision

in practical matters we need to focus on those crimes that effect people the most - property etc. Catch the crooks not simply ignore the crime because resources are over stretched

tackle the big issue- drugs, legalise/decriminalise

more resources (feet on the round) for the police, not more powers - we run the risk like other western nations of further eradicating ourliberties and heading towards a police state

get rid of any thought that prisons etc could be privatised (take a look at Brian Rudmans column in yesterdays hearld and try not to throw up)

until we work together as a nation to create a caring sharing society we will always be at the mercy of criminals and those we empower to 'protect' us

prevention of criminals or prevention of crime? or what for which?

what do you do about the hardened criminals who are unlikely to change and how do you stop them affecting society and recruiting other criminals (gangs, children).

A case for you...

A guy beats the shit out of someone an steals his property... AND has a previous conviction for assaulting his girlfriend.

Was given home detention a $414 fine and $500 reparations.

His lawyer says he forgot to take his ADHD medicine, which somehow now turns people into violent criminals (sic).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10557416

ANY violent assault conviction should trigger a 6 months in jail minimum imo. The judges hands should be tied on this one.

What do you think would reduce these sort of crimes and give people a bit of confidence that crime will be punished?

crime prevention - ie focus on giving all nz'ers a higher quality of life... better prospects for their children... empower the community and focus on issues at the community level - you know all that wishy washy shite that will reduce the alienation so many seem to feel within our communities (yes I know a lot is already being done at various levels but there is more that can be done, always more)

lets move away from the ambulence at the bottom of the cliff solution to our problems

those people that have and continue to show they can't be rehabilitated stay in prison

it is hard to recruit people to gangs if the only incentives are prison

oh I should also throw in - we need to change our economic system - money makes us poor as a species and only serves to inflame the inherent problems we face when living in a community

confidence could be greatly boosted if the media stopped playing on our fears and stop only reporting that which frightens us - ie when was the last story the herald printed about someone whom had served time and gone onto do good things?

The media prints what is freaky, interesting etc.. it's a lot harder to go out and find those stories to be fair. They do exist..

But I don't think the public confidence side of it only comes from seeing the news.. fear from the reporting doesn't have anything to do with the quick punishment of the offenders. Tell anyone from most countries that someone on their second extremely violent conviction was not even jailed and they will struggle to believe you.

People love to point out that jailing people doesn't necessarily reduce crime, but we're proving for sure that not jailing them is just as bad. A six month stint wont ruin the life of someone with potential to be a functioning adult but it will kick them into a realisation of their deeds. I'm not talking about those jailed for 8 or 9 years etc.

Def think we should send people more to jail for shorter (2-6 month type thing) periods. I'm pretty sure it'd be a much more effective wake-up call than being sentenced to six months of playstation, internet, friends over for beer etc which is basically what home detention has become.

there is no point in simply locking people up and then letting them out sometime later - this is the failure of our prison system

rehabilitation and other worthwhile and proven to be effective (in most cases) solutions must be given a decent chance - but these are exactly the areas cut backs impact on and thus we get more violent and trained ciminals leaving gaol

prison in itself is not the answer - it is but a part of the solution to helping some people become btter people and thus citizens and ultimately reducing some types of crime - please note I don't believe for a second all crime can be eradicated but it can be greatly reduced

There absolutely is. As a short-term wake-up it is far more effective than not.



For the sort of case above, a young guy who snapped - the prison sentence itself is the rehabilitation. Sure it's not ideal to put them with career crims and the highest level offenders so maybe a low-level crime prison is needed.

But, importantly, to demonstrate how much worse it could get if they don't buck their ideas up.

Saying prisons don't work as an all-encompassing statement, which has almost become the norm in NZ, is utter crap. If that guy had been given 2 months for his first extremely violent offence the country would have found out faster whether a) it was a youthful detour which he realised, or b) whether he hasn't got it in him to be an adult and play nice in society. Either way, we'd have achieved something.

In many cases a couple of weeks in the slammer would be just the arse-kick many needed but who instead have gone on to commit crime after crime because they know they can basically get away with it - only because people want to treat crime with thicker and thicker padded gloves.

Without some level of deterrent there is no point in even getting to the rehabilitation issue. Our deterrents are not working.

If the argument for not sending multiple-event violent offenders to prison is that prison will teach them how to be worse crims and they'll get to associate with the worst then maybe they need to make prisons differently - not: prisons don't work therefore we wont jail people.

Feel free to come up with/suggest a plausible alternative which has merit and also will satisfy the greater public's basic ask that justice not just be a slap in the face of the victim as it is too often now.

That's a very particular framing, and I'm not sure one that is consistent - "public confidence in justice" is not related to reducing the number or severity of crimes committed?

If the question is about severity of sentence reducing crime through deterrence - I think playing at the margins is totally useless. This whole idea of full economic rationality in terms of sentencing is nuts - not one serious violent criminal stops and thinks "gee, if the likely sentencing guidelines for this crime were 14 years I'd totally do it, but because they're now 17 years I won't". Sure, if it was 12months vs 20years, but it's not - it's fiddling at minor margins.
So the marginal race-to-the-bottom of tougher prison sentences does nothing for deterrence in serious violent crime. That leaves you with a huge increase in sentencing to make a noticeable difference - and I'm not sure that the resulting sentences would be fair in that case.


I'm not really that fussed about public perception of justice, it all falls into the background for me in comparison to actually stopping the number and/or severity of crimes committed. Telling someone that you've added 3 years to the sentence of the guy that killed your brother ain't nothing on stopping that murder happening in the first place.
I'm broadly with bob_d on treating root cause to stop crime, not "aggregating a bunch of criminally-minded young men together and expecting them to come out clean" as I heard one Youth Court judge put it recently.

For sure, but given out extremely high reoffending rate identifying the worst criminals and keeping them in for longer will prevent the 'just got out and did it again' scenarios we keep seeing from our worst. Seeing those guys in the media gives all the lower levels of crims a free ticket in essence or at least in their mind.

The difference between us and the USA, for example, is those worst guys wouldn't have gotten out in the first place or were at least kept out of circulation longer. You might argue that it's only the odd case which makes the news which shows these sort of cases, Graham Burton for example, but the fact remains - if he'd been kept in and not molly-coddled by the parole system some guy wouldn't have been murdered.

The failings of the parole system are a major issue in NZ. Labour dropped the ball on this big-time - letting oven mittens replace common sense. Our system and close adherence to it is a joke compared to even Aussie. Here it seems like it's treated as almost a sport for lawyers to argue how much their client has improved their lot etc - so there has to be a problem with it since amongst the worst of the worst are the ones who get paroled and go on to murder people within weeks.

so its not the system - its those running it Rob?

So Gdub's point about constant tinkering won't helps as its those we charge to run things that seem to be one of the major failings - well other than some cunts keep committing crimes

I often get the feeling this alientation is far too entrenched for much to change. And it saddens me.

nothing is ever too entrenched to be lost - one of the upsides of dramatic change (refer to GFC) is that values that we have semaingly lost or forgotten can and will quickly reseatablish themselves when and if the need is there, this of course goes for positives and negatives

we need to move away from the age of individualism (but not lose our sense of self) and back to a more collective approach to our lives - this of course goes against our current market economy

money makes us poor

Yup, repeat offences should (and do) see for stronger sentences at least partly as a "removal from opportunity". Preventative detention obviously being the ultimate version of that.

But the counter to that is that longer prison sentences can lead to a more "criminalised" group of people that increases their tendency to commit crime when they get out. Over the medium-term over the whole group this counter could outweigh the decrease from keeping them away longer.

It's Prevention + Deterrence (which I've claimed is almost zero at the margins) vs Increased Criminality on eventual release. Tough to model where that balance would lie in practice.

For clarity - "removal from opportunity" I meant as "removal from opportunity to commit crime by being imprisoned"

I don't think that's right - at least in 100 year lots. Urban areas always become the places for the worst of the worst crimes. Why? Is it just that each person has less individual impact (on average) and feeling down, left behind, downtrodden etc is all that much worse because you are reminded of the other half more often?

I'd like to know why, in the nine years of growing social support and efforts to get people out of the doldrums, crime rates haven't gone down? If crime and poverty are so intrinsically linked, why has there not been a comparable reduction?

Why?... because there isn't the link we're told imo. Some people are just criminals at heart and the only language they understand is... Oh... wrong thread/topic



People might roll with that dream - and it is a dream - if it weren't for the basic operation of government to ignore individuals - particularly the last nine years. The hardening of noses of the average NZer is not down to sheer selfishness as lefties love to claim, but just as much down to a basic resentment of being passed over and over and over in policy yet expected to play along nice with the least 'return' on their contribution to the country.

Over a long period of time, the effect of govt policy is splitting us into those who rely on it more and more out of sheer habit, and those who pay for it and will increasingly look for alternatives where they don't feel like they're contributing to an ultimately failed cause.

(I'm not for a second suggesting social welfare is bad, but that the mindset of those who perceive themselves as contributing way more than they are ever catered for in policy is getting hardened. The flip-side is those who never consider this at all and just get on with their life - the sort of people we need more of.)

people aren't born to be criminals any more than people are born to be lawyers - they learn these traits and skills

the loss of community in some areas is not solely due to the govt and def not due to the past nine years (get that monkey off ya back rob ) - this breakdown has taken at least 30 years if not longer to develop and to reverse it will take time too - its a long game not a short term fix (which is where many of us will think differently)

Can you suggest a single, practical task/activity which would be some step towards this please.

Are we talking community cake stalls-type thing or somehow instilling in kids that respect for others is actually an important thing in life?

idea one - if everybody was to knock on their neighbours door and introduce themselves...

cake stalls I am 100% against as it only encourages over eating of the wrong sort of food and thus obesity

if only the lefties would get the rogernome monkey off theirs

never, never I tells ya... we're still benefitting from Roger's days

Now, as small as it seems, that is a brilliant idea Bob. I fully support that idea.

I think there is a ridiculous modern obsession with crime and punishment

there will always be a small minority of people in society who are actually bad/evil who will cause harm to others - that will never change

the majority of us will be good law-abiding people, who would not dream of causing serious harm to others because it is against our conscience

I agree totally. Our issue should be getting better at identifying the small minority you mention and treating them differently to the ones who commit one-off or accidental/negligence crimes.

yes, and I think that in the case of repeat minor/petty offending we need to look more closely at the social factors causing that sort of offending eg poverty, bad family situations, drug or alcohol addiction.

I am more left wing than ANY of you.

So when we see gang members with 1% patches should we be allowed to shoot them?

no, you are more deluded than any of us

I think I need to get a degree in how your brain works before I can answer that question

I might get back to you another time jh with a flowchart/mindmap thingy to amuse you if I can remember

He's talking about the small minority

A 1% tattoo/badge on a gang member is an indication they regard themselves as the "1%" who refuse to obey the law

"refuse to obey the law" is not what I mean

you're confusing different concepts

What else does "there will always be a small minority of people in society who are actually bad/evil who will cause harm to others - that will never change"

mean?

it is NOT synonymous with "people who refuse to obey the law"

because that phrase could even include well-meaning protesters exercising what they believe to be their democratic rights (but involve minor infractions of the law)

they are not bad/evil people!

Let's put forward a VERY simple argument
- the vast majority of crimes are committed by a small number of individuals
- people who commit two (or two series of crimes) consecutively are very likely to commit more
- the number of crimes committed is a strong indicator of future behaviour

This is a perfect opportunity for legislation akin to the "three strikes." I have a feeling that if we actually analysed the data we'd find that someone who has been inside twice has a 90% chance of committing further crimes etc. And probably three times raises it to 95%.

Which leads to a VERY SIMPLE PHILOSOPHY of sentencing: exponential sentences for repetitive crimes.

Someone who commits a burg, goes inside, comes out, does it again, gets jailed, comes out, does it again, is almost certain to commit future crimes. So why not just lock them up for life?

Because some leftie will point back to a teacher who took a crayon off them 20 years ago as the cause.

Actually.. Vads for ten year tenure as crime management/overlord = problem solved imo.

You guys have to be trolling.

Regarding the first comment, aside from the cost implications of locking people up for life, and the inherent injustice of sentencing that is out of proportion to the crime, many young offenders mature, and grow out of offending.

Regarding the second, what utter crap. Many serious offenders have suffered extremely depraved childhoods.

No they don't. Statistics show that a very small % of offenders commit a very high % of ALL crimes.
Secondly, you're only looking at the specific, not the general aspects, of a particular crime. Repetitive disobedience is petty treason and deserves substantial punishment. Not only that, it ensures that they won't reoffend.
And yes, it'll cost a lot more. But it'll cost less than the cost currently borne by society otherwise.

rehabilitation has been shown to be effective, but we don't have or place enough resources into this part of our punishment regime

everyone seems so happy to lock people up and throw away the keys -a reflection on a heartless society IMO

ever thought we could make our world better? For ALL?

nah fuck that lock em up and throw away the keys... oh the humanity

It's not that.

First time: OK, people make mistakes. We give them support and rehabilitation
Second time: Getting frustrated, but give them another chance. More support and rehab.
Third time: They are obviously career criminals and will continue to offend. The security of society is best served by eliminating them.

Mould on cheese is removed by cutting away the section. Sure, sometimes you take a little too much, but it's the best way.

Pretty much agree with everything said by b_d, jh, gummi, et al - surprise surprise

Crime will always exist. Far too much is expected of the criminal justice system which is incapable of solving the problem of crime, it is nothing more than an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. No one is capable of solving the problem of crime, rather it's a question of managing it, keeping it down to a necessary minimum. As bob_d points out this involves an attack on causes of crime, which requires a multi-disciplinary response.

The thing about crime is that no one really knows what works, we only know what doesn't. Higher penalties don't reduce crime, locking people and throwing away the key will not reduce crime, making prisons harsher and more intolerable environments will not reduce crime. One-size-fits all solutions don't work. 'Simple' and 'quick' solutions don't exist.

I'm afraid crime is just one of those riddles that might never be solved, save for a utopian society where the conditions causative of crime do not exist.

How very fatalistic BG.


Yes there will always be some crime perhaps the title should have been how can we better manage crime.

Making sure we catch criminals as early as possible, and processing them quickly WILL reduce crime.

Locking up repeat offenders for longer WILL Reduce crime.

Offering people help and advice on drug/alcohol will help reduce associated crime.

etc

catch criminals as early as possible?

There was a system introduced (or at least attempted to be introduced) where children from each school who displayed certain undesirable behaviour traits would be 'targeted' to ensure they don't turn into criminals - naturally there was an unproar because you can't single out children like that, some shit about abusing their rights......

better to wait till their first P-fuelled murder spree, then you'll know for sure whether they're a criminal or not.

I mean a properly resourced police and court system (maybe we could cut back on defence lawyers to save some money ).

It took almost 2 years for the guy who drunkenly crashed into my parked car to get to court and then to top it off the prosecutor didnt see fit to tell the witnesses the court date. The guy walked. An isolated and minor case perhaps but ive heard from a few insurance companies that this is pretty commmon.

Generally speaking i have no problem in targetting help to "at risk" people whether theyre kids or not.

Maybe this guy could have been jailed a dozen or so offences earlier.

Man finally jailed for 25th driving while disqualified conviction.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10558094

If he'd killed someone I'd think the previous judges he's been past would have a hell of a lot to answer for.

I know virgo1 is the resident fascist (), but christ what happened to good ol personal liberty?
If nobody has committed a crime, why exactly is the state interfering with them again? Offering help is one thing (that I'm all for) - targetting them to "make sure they don't become criminals" as he stated is entirely different.

Yeah this floors me too - how can you not be sentenced to the heavier sentence much earlier than that? Clearly there is sentencing room for imprisonment for that crime (although I would hope that's only reserved as a last option for disqualified driving) so why was that not imposed at 5 or 10? Instead of 25?
Not that it would have stopped him by the looks of things.

Well this is the issue isnt it - personal liberty - the right to do what ever the fuck you want versus the needs of society etc. People are saying that the justice system is the ambo at the bottom of the cliff. But you cant go sticking fences at the top of the cliff because that might infringe on someones rights. On one hand you have people saying, if mental health had got to them sooner (usually in relation to family members pleading for help) they wouldnt have commited X. But on the other side is it ok to lock someone up in a mental health facility for acting like they *might* cause themselves or other harm? Where do you set the line? Obviously after they have killed someone its a bit late - but how far back do you do it and what cost in terms of $$$ and personal freedoms?

In the case of targeting children who display certain types of behaviour it has been going on for centuries - teachers call up the parents and explain their concerns. Teachers have a DUTY to do so and if the parents dont care or are perhaps the cause of the problems then i think at some point the teachers (and society in general) have a duty to act in the best interests of that child.

What ever we are doing (not doing?) at the moment is not working and things are only getting worse.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3547700



im not sure what those convictions are but im guessing they werent all minor.

Once someone hits 3 convictions (or three groups of convictions if multiple convictions relate to the same incident) of any sort you should be put under supervision for a time relative to the seriousness of the convictions. Im not a fan of the three strikes rule per say.

We seem to have strayed onto the topic of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill - aka "3 strikes".

Having gone through Graeme Edgeler's analysis over at PA, I'm relatively happy with the bill in it's current state - the initial Sensible Sentencing one being ridiculous.

His initial post is analysing the SST bill, but note his links at the bottom to the comments he's made as the draft bill proper has been released...
http://publicaddress.net/5697#post5697

Basically, you're first two strikes are only for crimes where a sentence of 5 years or more has been laid down (not the max, what you've been given). And the judge has to state a sentence of greater than five years for the third strike to be counted as such, triggering the 25 year sentence.
To get sentenced for more than 5 years, three times in a row, suggests a consistent string of violent-enough offences that long-term incarceration seems warranted. Mainfestly injust outcomes can be avoided at the discretion of the sentencing judge

It is just sick that someone with so much criminal history could get any leeway in sentencing for an early plea and showing remorse.

Maybe sentencing should be more like: whatever the judge gives you according to the current case and then and extra month for every previous criminal conviction you've had in your life which can't be mitigated by the judge. In this guy's case: 88 months or over 7 years worth of bonus points.

So on that topic - the three strikes law would only have applied to the guy you linked to bob if two of those previous convictions were serious enough to get him five-year prison sentences.

Wont this just increase the habit of judges dishing out 4 years and 11 months sentences so as, at their discretion and after pleading many crocodile tears by the defence, not to be the guy who jailed X criminal for two decades?

The problem I have with the term manifestly injust outcomes is that sentences are too often manifestly injust to the victim not the jailed person. If anything judges in NZ are extremely gunshy to give anything near the maximum even when the person is a career, unrepentant, pathological criminal - except in the five minutes of sentencing statements when they suddenly are genuinely sorry and have a bright future ahead of them.

While it is a start, I think that misses a big part of the problem. If someone has 3 assault convictions (lets say within 10 years for arguments sake) then firstly they should be under supervision/help *of some sort* but they should also know that if they are convicted another time they will get sentence x2.

Im not a fan of throwing away the key etc but lets face it if people cant change their behaviour then stopping them from being able to commit more by confinement is desirable, even if it is expensive.

Disclaimer: this should be looked at on a case by case basis.

Question for lawyers. If someone was convicted of a generic bar room assault 3 times in a row what would their likely sentences be for each one? eg diversion/ 3 months /1 year? ie currently how much does previous convictions count for subsequent ones?

Yes, as it should be - judges are our sentencing decision makers. Remember they work within guidelines so if the guidelines don't allow for a less than 5 year sentence (e.g. murder) then they won't be able to. But if the guideline calculations bring it down to "about 5 years" then that judge will have the call as to whether or not the actual served sentence should be 5 or 25. The California version of the law had nothing of the sort and saw people put away for life for minor crimes.

If you have a history of violent offending, the likely sentence for a lot of violent crimes is over 5 years. And if the sentence is for under 5 years then it's probably a crime that was not so serious as to justify a 25yr prison sentence.

I'm pretty much borderline on this - I think this sort of stuff should be dealt with through sentencing laws and "overrides" of sentencing guidelines like this don't really sit with concepts of natural justice. But it has been narrowed and prescribed enough that I don't think the people who end up being caught up in this will elicit much sympathy from me.

This bill also brings in National's "no parole for repeat offenders" stuff - a second strike (being a second sentence of >=5years) means you are not eligible for parole. Which I reckon is a bullshit way of dealing with it, but there you go.

Impossible to say, as it would depend on such factors as: seriousness of the assault, injuries suffered by victim, length of time between convictions, age of the defendant, mitigating factors, aggravating factors etc

it should not be assumed you will get diversion for a first assault

nor should it be assumed that even on a third conviction you would be imprisoned

a typical progression MIGHT be: fine, community work, community work/supervision (or imprisonment)

but difficult to generalise

err..... you guys have taken entirely the wrong inference from that article.

it does NOT say this the FIRST time he has been jailed for driving while disqualified!

if this is his 25th conviction for DWD, believe me he WOULD have been jailed for it prior to this conviction.

jail is imposed generally on a 5th or 6th conviction

The three strikes bill misses the point
Again, it is punishing specific acts, not the criminal mindset that is far more dangerous to stability.

or on the 3rd or 4th the further South you go

It might be fatalistic but its also realistic. I conceded that attacking causes of crime will reduce it. What I am sceptical of is how much the criminal justice system can do to combat crime. I think the public perception of what the criminal justice system can do is utterly unrealistic.

I get my fatalism from the simple observation of how criminal justice is dispensed across the world. Almost every conceivable form of criminal justice exists somewhere on this planet: we have adverserial systems and inquisitorial systems, we have capital punishment jurisdictions and non capital punishment jurisdictions, we have countries where the victims takes an active part in proceedings and jurisdictions like ours where the victims are fairly insignificant, we have harsh penalties systems and relative light penal systems, we have sharia law jurisdictions and secular law jurisdiction and then places like Pakistan which do a mix of the two, some countries have high imprisonment rates other have low imprisonment rates, some give police unimaginably wide powers others clamp down on them to the point where their power to investigate is significantly impeded (Germany comes to mind for its insistence on privacy of individuals for example severely restricts what the police can collect and use as evidence). I could go on and on but you get the picture. Much has been attempted by way of 'getting tough on crime', law and order have dominated party politics at least in UK for well over 2 decades, is any of this getting us any closer to the ultimate solution to crime? No. It's just repackaging and relabeling.

I guess I'm at that rather pessimistic stage in my thinking about criminal justice...

granted there will always be crime but i didnt limit solutions (to reduce crime) to the criminal justice system, it is as already pointed out, the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff for the crimes already committed. However it could also be the point where something new starts.

I believe crime is the result of both long and short term effects on society. Certain immigration, urbanisation and the media have their part in causing and moulding peoples perceptions on crime.

In the US they build more prisons and lock up more people, that would be fine if it was seen as a short term measure while they sort all the long term shit out. They dont and hence they pay for it.

Here i think we are too soft on catching "minor" crime and while we have spent a bit of effort in addressing the poverty and education issues surrounding crime we perhaps havent used enough stick early enough on.

If people see others getting caught and punished for crimes then they are less likely to do so themselves. If instead they see people profiting from crime and not getting adequately punished then theyre going to think it is a viable option.

etc etc.

To go back to my points earlier
- We KNOW a very high % of crime is caused by a very small % of the population
- If we ensure that small % can't commit crimes through extremely lengthy sentencing and aggressive policing, we remove a very high % of crime

If we locked up every single gang member (ethnic and OMCGs) + associates + hangarounds it'd be less than 2000 people and crime in NZ would drop by 50%. Like that.

There is very little crime in Singapore. There was very little crime in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia (I'm not saying we need everything they had, but let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater)

If cheese is mouldy, you CUT AWAY THE MOULD to save the rest.

well if you lock up all those people mentioned you also disrupt thousands of families and other family connections - more children with fathers in jail etc

and a chain of other consequences

it's very simplistic

Singapore is a horrible, repressive, authoritarian country with massive state surveillance and suppression of basic human rights - but the shopping is good, apparently

which is rather typical of vadinho's approach to crime despite it being pointed out to him time and again that there are no simple or one-size-fits all solutions.

i won't even go into what on earth a person who simply 'associates' or 'hangs around' with a gang member is supposed to have done that is criminal which would justify imposition of punishment. not that something like that would bother you vadinho because random preemptive arrests based on a 'hunch' for criminal propensity backed up by some statistic would be just fine and dandy with you.

In case of camembert sure. But if its blue cheese, identifying the mould and cutting it away becomes a rather difficult process. The issue we are talking about is more of a blue cheese rather than camembert issue, understand?

So the lawyers would have us carry on as we have been and just accept more and more crime?

You do realise that we are heading towards an increasingly vigilante population who bypass the lengthy and inconsistent justice system and hire gangs to sort out debts.

Perhaps a little bit of state injustice is better than 'justice' at the hands of individuals. Perhaps some members of the judiciary need to stop micro focus on their particular part of the machines and stop to look around and see where the machine is heading.

It's usually those hangers on, the outsiders of these groups who get sucked in to do all the dirty work. Make drug deliveries, beat someone up for not paying or for over-stepping their turf. It's those insignificant guys who cause all the trouble.

Investigating people who choose to hang around with a criminal organisation is common sense.

In the war of cheese analogies: BG - 1; Vadinho - 0

Perhaps switch to a cancer analogy - chemotherapy anyone?

doesn't that kill a whole lot of non-cancerous cells as well? stick to the cheese I say.

the idea is to cut the mould away when it's still fresh, ie, when it still has that whitish powdery look. at that stage you can still distinguish it from the blue mould in the cheese so cutting it away is not so bad, plus at that stage it's still on the surface and hasn't infected the inside of the cheese yet.

When you wait too long then it turns into bluey green THEN it becomes difficult to distinguish between the good mould and the bad mould, which brings us back to targeting these people at the first sign that they could get criminal, don't wait until they actually do something wrong.

common sense perhaps but not right

Awesome - do nothing illegal and the state will target you anyway!

So I presume you're all happy with police being able to search your house, car and person for coming out of a club because that's where most of that nasty drug stuff happens?
Or be free to search through your computer because you have a lot of internet traffic and so do people who pirate movies?
Or tear apart your house looking for cannabis because you went out for a drink with a guy that was once in a gang whose members have been accused of selling it?

Mind boggling eh?

Police will always have discretion to decide if a person is a worthy target for investigation. Cops are not in the habit of creating more work for themselves than they absolutely have to.

If I look a bit too chummy with known drug dealer, as in catching up with him for a drink on a regular basis - I'll get what's coming to me, but I seriously doubt police will ransack my house because on one occasion they saw me say hello to drug dealer in a club.....

maybe I should've said "Don't wait until they actually commit a crime"

you don't think it's possible to display anti-social behaviour without actually doing something criminal?

discussing the extremes of any particular situation is fairly unhelpful.

I dont believe there is anything wrong with investigating - ie asking for the name of someone the police have witnessed having a meeting with a known drug dealer. The police are already able to ask anyone for identification. Discussing ransacking a house for being seen with a drug dealer is nothing anyone here has suggested, perhaps cross referencing phone records might be acceptable (though dealers are unlikely to have on account numbers).

i don't think that g-dub's examples were extremes at all. they are a direct result of the sort of approach that you and to an even more problematic level virgo 1 advocate.

what's worse is that virgo 1 would mitigate the potential for abuse of these vast police powers with....wait for it.... discretion! "Police will always have discretion to decide if a person is a worthy target for investigation" So we should give them as wide a power as they want and then rely on their 'discretion' to guard against arbitrary or abusive use of that power. Ridiculous!

and bob please stop with the alarmism. public 'dissatisfaction' with the criminal justice system is a consequence of its intense politicisation and media hype. it gets votes and sells papers. i wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

Regardless of if it is a fabrication of the media or not it is a valid concern because people are concerned. Putting your head in the sand and saying we cant do anything will only do more to feed the flames and you might end up with some truly stupid laws like we have in america.

Btw, most people I talk to have more to say about the crims through first hand experience than the media so I'm not sure it is media driven. Though it might just be that I'm working in west Auckland at the moment.

Heres a question for you - would giving police *some* more powers help them catch criminals and prevent some crime in the short medium and long term?

And if society deems the pay off of increasing the powers to the cost of some personal freedoms then is it not right that parliament enacts such laws? Lets say, for arguments sake that 66% of society voted in a referendum for mandatory dna sampling of the population (putting aside costs for the moment).

If you think I'm suggesting police should have the power to ransack someone's house because they were seen with a gang member then I must not have adequately explained what I think is reasonable or practical.

They have that discretion right now, and if you read the rest of my post you'll see that I'm not relying on their discretion because they're all honest people - yes I know cops will sometimes abuse power.

But the point I'm arguing relates to pragmatism rather than honesty on the police's part. It is utterly paranoid to think that the police are going to just stop me and make my life difficult, unless I've given them reason to, it's simply too much work for them to do, and they'd much rather be dishing out speeding tickets rather than wasting hours of time processing paper work for unjustified arrests.

Lawyers love paperwork and making peoples lives difficult so I guess its hard for them to understand why anyone else wouldn't want too

That said I'm not so keen on relying solely on time management as a defence of the public from abuse by the police. Ive met/known of a few cops who took on personal projects. Most of those were good results in big convictions but i am sure they can sometimes get fixated with the wrong person.

This is absolutely true

Analysis of organised crime groups shows that the high levels (remember some gangs have only 20 or so patched members) do very little criminala ctivity (or criminal activity that can be traced), whereas the associates and hangarounds do the vast majority of it.

Except that 1% of society is criminal, whereas a lot higher % of blue cheese is mould :>

Strawman much?

Propensity is measurable here. My initial point was that ALL 3+ repeat offenders are extraordinarily (as in well over 50%) likely to offend again. So it makes sense to stop them first.

How do you explain speed limits?

Speed limits are a PREVENTIVE crime that's on the books despite the fact that speed itself is not harmful.

We already have "dangerous driving causing an accident" or whatever, but we decided we also needed a PREVENTIVE crime! We also have crimes against grooming online, or even engaging in a criminal group. These are all preventive crimes. So are seatbelt laws actually.

Defining certain behaviour - what you'd call "pre-screening" - is no different qualitatively to speed limits: targeting a behaviour that while unharmful in itself leads to extremely high levels of harm from a probabilistic perspective.

This is how it could be done:

- Parliament meets. Under urgency, it suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus, and also passes a measure defining "Petty Treason" as "repetitive action indicating wilful disregard for the laws of the nation."
- the Minister of Defence speaks with the Minister of Police, allowing the use of NZDF personnel in civil roles
- a massive swoop of NZ Police personnel (backed up by customs and SIS) against ALL gang headquarters is launched. To deal with the shortfall of bobbies on the beat, uniformed NZDF personnel are used for street patrols + backup to gang raid
- I'd guesstimate approximately 1000-1500 are arrested
- friendly judges (preselected, if necessary put into the High Court immediately) are then chosen to process the accused immediately under the petty treason or some sort of organised crime legislation
- they are then shipped offshore to a NZ protectorate such as ... Auckland Islands?
- crime drops 75% over the following year

who do they go after once they have solved the crime issue?

I don't want our fine law enforcers on the dole

It's called demobilisation

Just like after a war.

so when demobilised...and unemployed we face the prospect of new gangs...

de-mobbed

I like

I think they could be retasked as production people for the TV show on said Auckland Island location of the gang-members. Each year a series will be filmed with the winners allowed back. Winners to be decided by who does the most knitting or mows the most grass etc.

once the gangs are gone - no one will fill the very profitable gap they have left?

come on capitlaists - a gap in the market denotes opportunity with super good profits, margins and all the crack whore ya std filled body can cope with

or in simple terms you may be able destroy a group (in the short term at least) but not eradicate crime in one swoop

Dunno, Indonesia or thailand did a very severe round up of gangs and drug dealers a few years ago. Funilly enough all the smaller fish just had to swear that they would never do it again and they were set free.

The result was a dramatic reduction in drug and related crime. Partially because the 'bigger fish' went around killing all their lower ranks so they didn't rat to the police.

Of course there will be some reoccurance but the issue at the moment is we have very organised crime where the top figures believe themselves fairly untouchable and so far they have been right.

are the top figures gnag memmbers as per the theme in this thread?

I think not, perhaps we need to cast our eyese higher up the respectable citizen chain

massive profits attract BIG fish

geez your a strange one eyed creature BD.

Perhaps start a thread on "white collar" crime or corporate greed.

bob_d merely balances the obsession many of you have with gang based crime.

I wonder if it would make sense to lock people up who merely associate with corporate fraudsters?