The new DNA-seizure laws breach the Bill of Rights

yes well what they are supposed to do in theory is quite different to what happens in practice. doesn't mean that the principle isn't valid.

Considering I can chase after someone with a knife, stab them to death and only get 4yrs 3months for manslaughter, I'm pretty sure a proper self defence case where the circumstances are less ambiguous would land me a lot less than 3yrs in jail - thereby negating any need for the police to grab my DNA. lulz.

If they charge you you will get dna'd.

Youll also get finger printed and photographed.

And now the Attorney General reports that the Three Strikes law is contrary to the Bill of Rights Act too.

So what does ACT (the party of individual rights and freedoms apparently) suggest? Change the Bill of Rights because "we've got too hung up on people's rights". Christ almighty. The liberal party huh?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10559642

He said it may do?



Many people would say that after 3 serious crimes there is nothing disproportionately severe about a longer prison sentence. We already take previous convictions into account and sentence people to preventative detention - how is this any different?

That's the language that is used in the nature of an AG report at this stage in a bill's drafting.
I'll take his word on inconsistencies against the BORA against anyone else's.


But my post was mainly about "the Liberal Party" advocating that we are too hung up on individual rights! It's absurd for the party that rails against state intrusion into private affairs thinks we are too hung up on individual rights. I imagine there are a few true liberal ACToids that are pretty unhappy with comments like that.

I wonder what examples he would give of disproportionately severe in relation to the act. Its a bit of a value judgement really (obvious extreme examples aside).

You could look at it from the point of view that there are many people whose rights are affected by repeat offenders and they are trying to protect those individual rights over the crims.

I dont really listen to too much from act (or the greens/ alliance/progressives). It all seems to be headline grabbing rather than thought.

Can't copy the text sorry, but he lays it out in point 13 here: http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/77083170-E4A8-4905-AC0A-56FF04574624/100134/DBHOH_PAP_17759_64791.pdf

So that would involve removing this right:

I trust you're not advocating that.

any "three strikes" law will potentially be "disproportionate" in the sense that there is no sentencing discretion on the third offence - so substantial mitigating factors, age of previous convictions, etc will be irrelevant to the outcome - the outcome is automatic

it's an idiot law

im not a fan of the current three strikes law but i am suggesting that serious repeat offenders as subject to an exponential increase in their sentences.

Is that disproportionate?

When people lose faith in the system you get things like this (or potentially much worse).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10559850

There seems to be a distinct lack of faith evident at the moment, call it a media scare or whatever, it still exists.

well at least you can't say that it's all that media reporting that's led to his losing faith in the system......

Of course, that's when people lose faith in the system stopping crime occurring. It has nothing to do with faith in the punishment they'll receive after robbing you.

No, problems occur when they lose faith in any part of the system. Its no good having the death penalty for theft if they never get caught, nor is it great to have 99% convictions but wet bus ticket slapping for murder.

People are more likely to take their own revenge if either are perceived to be less than justice. And before anyone states the obvious yes some people will always be unhappy with the punishment.

bob you've laid your own perspective over that and fair enough.
But the article you linked to is nothing to do with that - that guy wants to stop being robbed. Simple as that.

Why does it need to be? Why not factor those in? Would that be satisfactory?

They could word it so it considered:
- Age of previous convictions
- Age of person when committing them
- Whether crime were all in a particular category such as murder, gun crime, rape etc.

Having said that I personally don't think as much attention should be paid to some of the commonly used mitigating factors once someone is on very serious crime #3. (such as disadvantaging their wife or mother etc.) At this stage they've used their leniency cards imo.

Well Rob that's prety much what happens now - sentencing discretion with guidelines that take into account the things you described. The Attorney General specifically makes the point that the existing approach can address all these without the potentially unjust outcome of "4yrs or 25yrs - nothing in between".

So you're criticising them for correctly realising a that there is a limit to how liberal you can be before you start doing more harm than good? Would you prefer them to be the stereotyped liberal party that lets individual rights get in the way of the public's safety.......

P.S - on the point relating to the criminal being the primary bread earner for their household etc....

Does this mean that the key to making crime pay is get a live in girlfriend and get her pregnant ASAP?

"Don't lock me up for too long bro....got a missus and kid to look after aye!!"

well that's fine - but then it's not a "three strikes" law by its usual definition

we were talking about automatic consequences of a third conviction in a particular category - not something more watered down than that - I thought!

Oh I had to lol. By comparison to Europe, NZ is NOT hung up on individual rights, not even remotely. What most continentals, and even Britons, would regard the bare minimum of human rights NZ doesn't even protect! The European Convention on Human Rights in all honesty shits all over the BORA when it comes to protection of civil liberties. Which is why violations of the BORA and their seeming acceptance in NZ concern me so much.

The LIberal Party needs to put the pipe down.

well that's just the way it is

until you pass a law stopping some people procreating - no sign of THAT happening

children ARE a get-out-of-jail free card in many cases

but nothing much we can do about that, because in many cases you are just shifting costs/problems into other areas and other state agencies i.e. CYFS, the taxpayer

common sense would indicate that if you've been previously found guilty of violent offences (note the plural) perhaps you're not in the best position to be raising kids anyway.......perhaps CYFS is the better option?

I wasn't talking specifically about repeat violent offenders

but it doesn't matter, I hear what you say.

expand CYFS, invest millions more in that department, arm the agency with expanded powers to take children off parents, entice hundreds more foster parents to come forward to provide loving homes etc etc etc

On that note i was talking to someone who has been a long time foster parent (18 kids for an average of 18mths) they have finally given up on it after having to always retrain (study) to continue to do so.

He is a bit disillusioned with the whole thing of late.

Perhaps we should be spending some of the money training the actual parents.

And MFAT believes the 3rd-strike laws etc could breach our obligations under international law and "would probably violate two human rights conventions monitored by the United Nations."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10562582&pnum=0


Oh grand, our pointless bloodlust is now breaching international treaties and destroying the pretty strong "quiet neutral guy in the corner that has a well developed moral authority" stance we'd built up over decades. Impressive work.

so let me get this straight, we could quite happily increase sentencing to say double its current but introducing a graduated system puts us foul of international law?

Huh? What a strange reading of that.
Isn't everything in there about the fact that we REMOVE the appropriate graduations and enforce sentences outside usual guidelines of justice? We are removing the graduated sentences available to judges etc...

Cost:benefit? The actual cost to our international reputation will be insignificant compared to the massive gains we will get from a safer society.

Well this is exactly the point of a select committee, yes. Take advice from the range of credible submitters and balance it out.
I probably disagree with the relative strength of benefit and cost you have there personally though.

Considering the key FTA partner we're after is the USA, where 3-strikes was invented, I don't really see an issue :>

Maybe those SEAsian countries we want FTAs with will lecture us on the severity of our system as well...

And people call John Key a pragmatic PM - you could teach him a few things about ruthless pragmatism it seems