Lawyers/lefties/concerned individuals - Crime solutions.

Thailand, while I was living there... In 2004 over 3000 suspected drug dealers were killed by police. Yes, 3000.

The PM, Thaksin Shinawatra (since ousted in a coup), essentially gave police an open ticket to close down drug dealers... the effect was many people were shot by trigger happy cops... who then went 'oops, crap...!' and then could explain it all away by simply saying they found drugs etc. Generally no-one followed this up or even documented the evidence/proof.

Nuf said it didn't do much for Thailand's international reputation.

Re: the little guys you mention.. how's this then? At closing time at clubs, 1am on the dot (2 in some places), you'd often walk out at 1 and there would be 20 or more cops with tents already set up ready to urine test everybody (for speed I guess). Two queues: locals and foreigners. Local queue got bundled to a cell if they failed. Foreign queue got asked if they'd like to avoid prison and court with some financial lubricant.

It was so profitable for the police they still do it whenever their monthly take is down or the wife needs a new car.

Put simply: Thailand is the worst place in the world to take ideas from unless it's how to do sex-change surgery or create an army of little sluts (sometimes jointly)

Take away the police bribery, and I think you just described a Vad-topia :>

Aside from the obvious - its harder to pick corporate fraudsters than patched gang member. I'm not suggesting locking up people who associate with gangs, merely investigating them.

I believe the corporate fraud investigators have *VERY* wide ranging powers, including forcing people to PROVE their income is legitimate rather than having to prove it isnt.

I am equally tough on white collar crime as gang crime. I believe many of the sentences white collar crime gets are ridiculously short. Fraudulently taking customers life savings can have just as much, if not more effect than a serious assault/robbery and the time should reflect that.

I agree totally. If Rod Petricevic doesn't get significant jail-time I predict someone will seriously bash him one day. I mean tens of thousands of people have had their life savings essentially ripped off them by him. At least one person in that lot will snap - the maths almost ensures it.

Forgot to say. Sentencing should be set for these crimes at a paired amount per dollar. E.g. every million dollars of fraud = another 3 months in prison.

AND no mitigating factors like wife/kids/dependants etc can be considered by the judge in sentencing. Reason being most of the mega corporate fraudsters continue to be loaded through trusts even if they are bankrupted.

I'm told that in the UK the punishment for white collar crime (specifically fraud) can be harsher than that for a murder....

Something about fraud being seen as "stealing from the crown itself" which, put in that context sounds a lot worse than just "stealing from another person"

Once the Nazis/Fascists/Japanese Imperialists are gone, no one will fill the very profitable gap they have left?

No.

As in this case you mean? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10559114

Oh.. Doh!.. Sixth time and still basically let off with a warning!

The judges hands sentencing guidelines should force their hand imo. On 3rd conviction of any jailable offence the person must spent some time in jail.

In Singapore, drink driving is mega low - so much that a conviction of it is front-page news the rare times it happens.

Why?... Because the punishment for 1st offence is permanent driving ban. Yes, for life.

It's a totally practical solution with none of the excuses we hear for violence, theft etc.

do you read? do you think? or just react?

I said GENERALLY on a 5th or 6th offence of DWD (or EBA) the response is imprisonment

every sentencing decision involves a variety of different factors

for example, someone might be jailed on their 4th conviction, and again on their 5th conviction, then offends again, the court may decide to take a different approach because imprisonment isn't working i.e. more of a rehabilitative approach.

home detention with six months release conditions is NOT being let off "with a warning"

also, you do not know how old some of his prior convictions were

on a reading of 585 many people would feel totally okay to drive - the judge was correct to observe this was a low reading

and you want us to adopt a life-time ban from driving in this country? ridiculously excessive and unnecessary

Singapore should not be used as any precedent for New Zealand

also bear in mind that if every judge in every court imposed jail on every 3rd time drink-driver/disqualified-driver you would have to invest millions of dollars in building more prisons - with prisoners serving pointless short terms of imprisonment

Within less than five years people would learn.. I think even a two week spell in the slammer - having to get work off, explain to friends/family etc - would be a much better deterrent than a fine or home detention. I doubt many people would repeat the act and the ones who do, we'll you've learned an important lesson about them anyway and can target them with some specific help.

We are a country of letting off quite serious lapses in judgement with warning after warning - and it's not working one bit. Failing other suggestions of how to address this sort of crime why not consider having short terms as automatic punishments?

As for the jailing on thr 5th or 6th conviction - I wasn't having a go, I was pointing out a clear cut case which fitted your numbers and that it is pretty incredible that a half-arse justification such as "the last conviction was x years ago" would even be used. People are generally less inclined to remember things the longer ago they happened. A six time offender, even over 20 years is way too many to warrant another warning imo.

If he's spent a couple of weeks in jail on the 3rd time it's likely the next 3 would never have happened. He would be thanking the judge for saving himself from his own stupidity!

Police 10-7 last night, girl assaulted a police officer and got a community service sentence. How the fuck is that fair?

I've heard of youths using metal bars to assault people and getting CYFS discharges.

It's fair because when she was 6 someone told her she couldn't have a pony and it's affected her anger management since. A social worker has determined that she should get paid every time she assaults a cop.

Considering they were also skinhead racists...

Horrific

no you are wrong about deterrence

my experience of recidivist drink drivers is that NOTHING deters the majority of them

they will simply drink-drive again after leaving prison

you are talking bout extremely unhappy people, with myriad life-problems, who have an alcohol addiction

certainly, there is nothing to indicate that imprisonment is any MORE effective than imposing several hundred hours community work

but of course you know better than judges, prosecutors, lawyers, probation officers etc

get real

it was one kick to the leg

deserves community work and nothing more

are you suggesting a prison sentence for a kick

sheesh you guys are unbalanced

and where did you get that magic figure from

all dem skanks in dem wine bars of shorties?

But they've shown that they are incapable of reducing reoffending with their current methods. Our reoffending rates are insanely high compared to even Australia. Why? Are we somehow different people or is the system inherently faulty?

Maybe time we tried another method of reducing it perhaps?

Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity. Yet that's what our judges, prosecutors, lawyers, probation officers etc do week after week.

I know. how about the death-penalty for every drink drive offence - that's different!

You see Rob, this is the problem with using hunches and assumptions in reasoning on what works and what doesn't for criminal justice. It is now generally accepted that short term sentences of imprisonment do not work. They do not deter and do not reduce re-offending. But I guess you know better than criminologists, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, etc.

I'll answer your question by using UK as an example. Since the early 1990s police powers in UK have grown enormously. Barrage of legislation has given the police all sorts of powers, to stop and search, to arrest without warrant, to tap phones, to detain and question suspects on a greater scale than 50 years ago, etc etc. Today almost 20 years on since the enactment of this power-widening legislation, crime had not markedly decreased. Instead, take stop and search powers, what has been observed is a disproportionate use of this power by the police against ethnic minorities, straining community relations so much so that many are calling for this power to be abolished. The threat posed to civil liberties as a consequence of the widening police powers is a live issue in UK today, and the social effects of it all are already being felt (it was only 8 years ago that a damning report on police racism hit the headlines here after a hate crime was handled with grave incompetence yet 8 years on whilst some changes have been observed ethnic minorities still feel unfairly targeted by the police).

I really do not believe that increasing police power is the answer. But you and I have very different starting points. You have an alarmist concern about the level of crime in today's society, whereas I don't. I therefore do not see the need for any power widening, or a dna database, let alone draconian solutions a la vadinho.

If you're happy to accept that these criminologists/judges etc are in the know - please explain how, when they get the wrong end-results over and over, often with tons of much hindsight, there aren't more people stepping up and saying "hey, this isn't working in X cases.."

Addressing crime seems to be one particular area where people have tons of criticism but rarely any answers. When someone suggests something different - generally leaning towards the more punitive side of things - they get up and on their chairs saying it will never work - yet rarely offer offer evidence except the current failed system, or suggest an alternative beyond the basic line - and it is basic - "it all starts with childhood".

Imagine somehow it was a done deal that every child was brought up differently and none went on to be serious criminals... We'd still have 20 years to wait with the current crop of them. THAT is a major problem which doesn't fit with the plan.

It is a pretty obvious fact that a very serious criminal is less likely to offend while in prison. Therefore the longer they're inside, the longer before they have a chance to reoffend. Garth McVicar takes this to the nth, arguing everyone should be inside, but at some point near the middle ground his point has validity - we let too many serious criminals back into public who are almost guaranteed to reoffend in short order.

As much as judges/criminologists (I don't even know why you mentioned prosecutors - that is just lol) do their good work, a really practical task would be to figure out how to identify the worst of the worst and make sure they are kept away from the general masses. If that means people like Burton stay in prison for their entire sentence it is a tiny price to pay given he ran off an killed someone. The RSA murderer ditto. Both major failings which occurred due to the basic failings of the judges/criminologists who are supposed to be experts. And who seem to repeat their failings too often in the case of very serious criminals.

So far as short (couple of week) prison terms go - can you give any examples of where short, minor punishments have been shown not to work? Most parents in the world with young kids know it is an effective form of addressing errant behaviour. Surely there is some small link in relevance?

Should parole be reassessed and viewed as a privilege for good behaviour and progress instead of a right which it basically is seen as now?

Are those special powers to be used for normal crime or terrorist / organised crime?

An alarmist concern for crime in society? I consider my attitude to the sentencing of crime to be fairly moderate considering many peoples attitude. My 'alarm' is that we seem to be doing the same thing repetitively and either expecting the result to somehow change or simply going through the motions.

What concerns me is the apparent indifference of the legal profession.

because prosecutors do not always seek imprisonment, or the harshest possible penalty

they will seek what is appropriate to the case, from the police/Crown angle

there are plenty of cases in court when prosecutors stand up and specifically advise the judge that they are not seeking imprisonment!

(for example)

well the USA has the HIGHEST incarceration rate in the world, masses of prisons, the death penalty in many states, and they are REALLY on top of their crime problem

?!?!?

If X = time in jail and Y = time out of jail, as X approaches infinity and Y approaches 0 it is obvious that crime rates will reduce!!

Nobody commits crimes against the public IN JAIL.

And if they commit another when they get out, put them back in jail for longer.

If those poow widdle Bangwadeshis and Pakistaniwanikis feew so persecuted in England, why don't they fuck off home? Oh, that's right, because "racist English police" still keep them a shitload safer than their ethnic brethren back home. There would be maybe 1% who wouldn't agree that the British police are much, much better than police in Asian countries.

I have no doubt the NZ police have a lot of sexism and racism within their ranks. When it doesn't extend to rape ala Rickards, it doesn't concern me. Nobody is perfect, and I'd rather cops kept me safe than won Person of the month from the NAACP

A serious question for JH/BG

Bail: If someone breaches bail several times, why are they granted it again? What is the principle here? Surely if somebody is under conditions X, Y and Z, and they're spotted in breach not once, but twice or more, they should have bail revoked immediately? How is the community made safer by such easy bail?

And as I've said to you before, for FIRST offences I am all for easy, relaxed sentences

Hell for a first offence - even if it were manslaughter - if there were enough mitigating circumstances I would support a non-custodial sentence in almost every case. Because anybody can make ONE mistake and a single mistake doesn't indicate disregard for the law./

Where the problems arise is with the 1% who commit 80% of offences, because sentencing for the crime (in specific) rather than the crime of continual disobedience to the laws is never, ever sufficient! This is where the law has far too myopic a view and doesn't truly look at the social repercussions except from the victim's perspective

It's OK for a judge to assess the impact on an offender's family and saying - rightly - that imprisonment would mean the family/children suffer too much - but what about the judge assessing the impact of light sentences for repeat offenders on the social contract and the strength of the law?

The law is like a glass window: every little chip reduces its overall strength.

well it's a question that's hopelessly ill-defined

people can and do lose their bail for breaching bail conditions

also for failing to turn up to court

sometimes people are given bail warnings instead eg if the breach is minor

judges are reluctant to revoke bail completely if the charges are minor and there is no realistic possibility of imprisonment

Yet crime stats in LA prove, if you accept their stats, that harsher penalties do reduce the most serious crimes massively.

Their three-strikes law has been such a success that (since it was enacted in 1994) the state has dropped plans for some new prisons as prison populations have levelled off.

because what seems more immediate and real for many judges is the impact on the the family of the defendant in the dock in front of them eg if they send the breadwinner to jail, they are immediately cutting off income for the family, mum has to look after 10 kids, daddy in jail

potential future offending is more abstract, it's not staring the judge in the face like the piece of human misery right there in front of them

arguably sentencing judges should pay more attention to the abstract issues of the social contract and strength of the law - there are some judges who lean more in that direction

well I can't comment on that, not familiar with the stats

would probably need to see more than one opinion/analysis on the same set of stats anyway

isn't California in the midst of letting 56,000 prisoners free as they have effectively run out of room in their prisons?

the 3 strikes rule highlights all that is wrong with our attempts at law & order

if we work under the assumption that people can't change, won't respond to rehab then we may as well kill them and show ourselves for the small minded and petty people we are

even god is prepared to forgive people their sins

finally - your comments are like a breath of fresh air in this forum

There is only solution to this......the government needs to intervene and stop the reporting of crime to the public. That way NZers will walk around believing that crime rates have magically reduced.

Funny thing is we criticise other nations for doing that, some shit about freedom of expression and people's rights to know the truth etc ......but as BG has pointed out, the public obviously can't handle the truth or else they wouldn't be so wound up about crime in NZ.

I was thinking before that in general our sentencing IS skewed towards "one off hideous" incidents.

Murders, in my mind, receive too lengthy a sentence.

I always bring people back to Sun Tzu's lesson on this "If you instruct once, and the student gets it wrong, it is the instructor's fault. If you instruct twice, and the student says they understand it, and they do it wrong, it is still the instructor's fault. But if you instruct three times, and the student gets it wrong, it is the student's fault."

People CAN change. People CAN respond to rehab. But once you've done that second crime - become a repeat offender - the odds are incredibly small. I bet JH can tell us how many of his clients have a record the size of a phone book (albeit minor charges).

well yes it's incredibly common

I have seen 23 year olds with 100+ convictions

it's difficult to know what to say or do - life options become severely restricted with that sort of record - the person is labelled a criminal, the world views them as a criminal, the person seems themselves as a criminal - so the better option seems to be to carry on offending

we all know the resources are not provided at decent or effective levels to effectively rehabilitate our convicted criminals, therefore the 3 strikes sun tzu scenario highlights the fact we have let our criminals down, but we insist on punishing them not the 'instructors'

locking them up only serves to teach them one lesson currently - try not to get caught

those advocating harsher and harsher penalties still refuse to accept we haven't attempted to do anything to correct their behaviour except deny them their freedom for a while and since that doesn't seem to be working then we fall back on the mantra of locking them up for longer will solve the problem - this solution simply doesn't make any sense, except to satisfy peoples desire for revenge - which begs the question, why are so many of us so angry that we want to advocate solutions to problems that don't seem destined to work and will only create more suffering

Which is when they're - to borrow an insurance term - "write off."

We don't have endless dollars to rehabilitate them or incur the costs their offending imposes on society.

Sooner or later, we literally have to lock them up and throw away the key because it's the only option.

Either that or we invent a Clockwork Orange brain reprogrammer.

First of all, this is bullshit.

Youth offenders receive PLENTY of assistance in rehabilitation and various mechanisms to help them understand what they're doing. There's heaps of rehab if crims want it, but it's up to them. They have to stop associating with their crim friends, get a job as a labourer, whatever.

Second, you seem to somehow be saying it's entirely the state's fault that these people don't rehabilitate! Excuse me? Surely after that first crime it's the criminal's responsibility to put their life back on track, not the state. The state can lead the crim to water but can't make it drink.

It's individual choice that leads people to commit crimes.

NZ has a great welfare system. NZ has free education. There is no reason to stick to a life of crime - nobody is going to starve if they don't rob a dairy.

This isn't Somalia.

Because so many law abiding people are so disillusioned with hearing time after time that a serious crime was committed by someone who had done it before or, worse, was supposed to still be under supervision and wasn't.

All this talk about there being lack of resources to rehabilitate people... Are the methods themselves actually wrong? Or does the lack of funds just worsen it? I think the first question is a big part. You're not suggesting that full funding would come close to rehabilitating people to a satisfactory level are you?

To those who think harsher penalties, longer sentences etc don't work: please suggest something that will work for a criminal today, not some pie in the sky idea which will take 20 years to show any effect (like identifying at-risk children/parents etc). We can do that too but please have something for the Graeme Burton's of the world.

Now, on someone like Graeme Burton - consider that he was given chance after chance to meet the pretty low bar of simply not being an animal and yet still managed to convince the parole people he was safe enough to be out in public, only to murder someone within days. Can you suggest why it isn't the obvious, practical solution to not jail him for a long time for mere punishment, but primarily to keep everyone else safe?

bobd: its annoying that someone cant question the current system without being labelled as a "lock em up and throw away the key" type.

Law and order is, and increasingly so, something on the mind of people. Its not just a figment of the medias collective fear campaign. Most people i know have first hand experience of it.

If the lefties/centrists arent seen to do something about it, the extreme rights will get into power on hardline policies and youll get things like in some states in the US which dont achieve much other than simple escalation.

I dont trust *any* particular govt to do something (which works in the long term) by itself as its going to cost a lot and take a long time to pay off - far more than 1 or two terms. So there needs to be a combination of short, medium and long term strategies to get it done and more importantly being SEEN to be done, so that people have increasing faith in the system.

The system as it stands seems to be just processing people, going through the motions and giving inconsistent results.

Sure its never going to be perfect and there will always be people who commit serious crimes, repeatedly. Identify them and spend more money on the people you can do something about, at the very beginning.

not sure I understand you bob - I too am critical of our current system(s)... yet aren't the lock em up and throw away the key type

Totally aggree that we need combinations of approaches - that are people focused perhaps, with less emphasis on a one rule suits all. Of course there will always be some people that can't be helped or won't be, these are I believe the minority (yet often attract the most publicity by the nature of their crimes)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10560088

Why doesn't this guy get bail?

It was a single crime of anger. Has he committed crimes before? No. Sure, he's a flight risk, so seize his passport and notify the airport.

It infuriates me that he is refused bail when people can be drunken youth gang members involved in multiple burglaries and/or robberies and they get bail.

because it was possibly premeditated.

no bail seems fine to me in this case, at least till more info is taken.

also s 15 of the bail act applies

he may be granted bail at a later date

Do people get compensation if they spend two years in custody awaiting trial and get found not guilty?

Lack of empathy is the main driver of crime involving theft and violence (i think) - these people are often bred into families which either have nothing or feel that it's okay to hurt others and steal things.

If the Government refused financial support for any children after the second, then we'd make a big dent in crime down the track. If people are pregnant with children they can't afford (and remember they can use protection!) then they can a) abort b) adopt c) get a fkn job.

Parents could be deemed unfit for further children if they have multiple criminals in their offspring, and need to prove they are capable before getting them back. Using children as a means of income is rather unethical...

Unfortunately I don't know of a way to reduce current crime - there is a culture which says that it's okay to steal and bash people, and that you should look out for your mates.

I think people should seriously consider 'honour' when it comes to fighting, and try to ingrain it into society, something like:

Don't fight unless it's mutually agreed or self defense
Don't use a weapon
One on one only.

Breaching those would magnify the offence and time spent in jail.

Just a few random suggestions poorly expressed, but maybe you guys can understand what I'm getting at?

Amen. A lot of them are borderline sociopaths. Why do we bother?

I completely agree.

I'd go as far to say, people who's parents are career beneficiaries can't get a benefit until X year old/years later etc. I mean we accept that out parents are the biggest factor in our upbringing - so don't allow the lesson to be learned that mum and/or dad never worked so I wont either.

There ave something like 500 families in NZ identified as basically: no-one has worked (officially) for over a decade. Their kids will generally follow that career path.. Why not make it impossible for the trend to continue?

once agin the heartless sod that have no empathy for those "at the bottom of the heap" leap in and want to dictate how the poor live their lives

compassion is more than a word

Living a productive life and contributing to the country is not a form you fill in every two months to maintain your lifestyle either.

you propose the ultimate nanny state Rob- how does that thought sit with you?

Police 10-7 just had a guy who attacked another guy, without provocation, with a serrated knife.

Sentence? Home detention!!!

If you really were a socialist you'd have no qualms with it. But you're not, because leftism is about the collective, not individuals.

he prefers the governess state bob_d, get it right

It's not that - the poor should not demand that we give them money for something they shouldn't be doing. If they had only 1 or two children, and had a minimum wage job, with the way current entitlements work they'd be fine (at least with the way rents work in CHCH...)

The poor -can- get out of the situation that they are in - at least the ones who aren't overburdened with children they shouldn't have had.

The ones that I feel sorry for are the ones who are injured and can't get work, ACC won't cough up for them, and they have to raise children that they were previously able to support on a reasonable income.

yeh even I thought that was a bit on the light side

still, be careful about the provocation part - remember we only heard ONE side of the story - and the guy sounded like a spinner

ps the woman who was breath tested at home was shafted legally - don't get me wrong, she deserved to be convicted - but police did not follow correct procedure AT ALL

I don't think I am any sort of "ist", I'm far too random

As a lawyer, how do you reconcile that a tiny misstep by a cop in processing can let a guilty as hell person off? (perhaps using that woman as an example). If I was that cop I wouldn't have been so patient.

Reading behind the lines it seems that guy who stabbed the other was either temporarily mentally affected or perhaps ongoing. I know of some people who have done (admittedly lower end) crime and not been imprisoned due to extraordinary circumstances (including marriage breakups and agoraphobia)

it's easy to reconcile if you focus on the abstract instead of the particular

i.e. the importance of protecting the GENERAL right to privacy at home/protection from unreasonable search and seizure without genuine consent, may outweigh the importance of obtaining a conviction in one individual case

easy

this is why some people hate defence lawyers


personally, I was glad she did not get off - and I can't blame him at all, I would have been a lot less patient too

I was reading heaps of stuff about breath testing on the intranet other day - you can be breathtested at home if there's hot pursuit can't you?

If you get home you just need to empty a couple of cans of something down the drain and claim you skulled them before they arrived at your door.

mind you they will try to work out what your blood alcohol would have been before you drunk what you claimed and there's the fact the judge might not believe you.

yep, hot-pursuit is one factor

but under s 119 of the LTA you need all three:

1. failure to stop for warning (eg flashing of red/blue lights and/or siren)

2. hot pursuit to the door

3. reasonable grounds to believe drink-driving and/or dangerous driving


often, as in this case, number (1) is missing

you can always consent to a breath test, but it has to be genuine consent - I don't think that happened from the footage I saw

that's right

people have tried that defence, with mixed results

more chance of getting off if you are only just over the limit, obviously

My ability to scull a half bottle of vodka is going to save my ass!!

exactly!

but you are a good law-abiding boy anyway

3 cases:

a) Person sells Ecstasy to friends
b) Person speeds 120km over the limit in the 50km zone, and kills someone
c) Person speeds 40km over the limit in a 50km zone and fails to stop for police, with previous offences.

One person is given home detention for 11 months, one is jailed for a year, the other 3 years.

The law needs to find some relativity when it comes to the 'seriousness' of crime.

I can already see a degree of relativity in the examples given - they do make sense to me - I can certainly take a guess at the rationale behind them

Sorry was trying to get people to figure out for themselves, so did sentences randomly

Guy who sold eccy to his friends got 3 years.
Guy who didn't stop for police after speeding got 1 year.
Guy who killed someone going 120km over the limit got 11 months home detention.

It's little surprise that some people have no confidence in the legal system; and thus don't see why they should abide by it.

hmm the only one that stands out to me as a bit odd (a tad lenient) is the 11 months home d - certainly too lenient in light of recent authorities - but this could be a person who has led a blameless life, offending an aberration?

the 1 year imprisonment is totally unsurprising if the person had a history of bad driving/driving convictions - the court may have finally lost patience - so the person is being punished for their repeat offending as much as anything else - deterrence necessary -no doubt vads would see the failing to stop for police as a significant aggravating factor

the 3 years for eccy may seem harsh at first blush, but this is ACTUAL supply of Class B, not just possession, or poss for supply, also how much eccy? to how many people? over what period of time? profit? etc

3 Strike Polciy shown to be load of arse

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10565592

NZ Murder Rate almost halfed in past 20 years

www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10565563


not the best day for the hell and damnation law and order brigade

I am sure the herald will resume the usual fearmonging tomorrow

Two completely different things to measure there.

Violent crime has gone up on a per incident basis.

So violent crime has gone up, but we've halved the number of people who make that big violent step of murder? Counter-intuitive to me.


bob_d, note that ACT's first cut of the three strikes would have "saved" those 77 people, but the version now in draft would have saved none. Given ACTs was so extreme that nobody wanted it, and even the new version has huge civil liberty issues, why are we bothering? Trampling the BORA for ZERO impact? Pragmatism please My Key.

pragmatism means letting your colaition partner's pet projects have their day in the sun

coalition...

The lack of ruthlessness in the 3 Strikes Bill as put forward is a clear indication that the people putting it forward don't actually understand that the KEY is prevention of repetitive crime in its generic sense, not specific acts of violence.

I read the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Brookers readers guide today

How come something that is so sensible in that form is turned into utter ridiculousness by our limp wristed judiciary?

what do you mean - explain further

Well the principles are all well argued. They even mention Kant in the Brooker's guide about retributive justice etc.

The problem is that those well argued principles don't seem to turn into actual numbers in sentencing.

Also I read the cumulative vs. concurrent principles and the few high profile sentences I've heard dont seem to fit!

And, as this is discussed the Tony Veitch depositions hearing due for next Monday has been called off.... wonder what's in the works..

1. Read ss 7,8 and 9. There is nothing in those sections that gives greater weight to any particular principle or factor mentioned.

2. Note s 8(g) (least restrictive outcome) and s 16(1) (restriction on imposition of imprisonment).

3. The cumulative/concurrent principles are generally followed (which in turn are always subject to the totality principle).