Victims Levy

National plans $50 levy on criminals for victims

www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10501299

Many criminals would not pay victims' levy, Govt says

www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10501342


thoughts?

is the first piece on concrete policy national has offered up?

agree with Mrs King

Confiscate any compensation paid to prisoners for abuse or unfair treatment in prison and divert the money to the general victims' expenses fund if not claimed by individual victims under an existing 2005 law. Only $19,961 out of $35,082 paid to prisoners since 2005 has been claimed by the prisoners' individual victims.

So a prisoner duly serving his prison sentence for his crime who is severely beaten in prison (by fellow prisoners, guards, whoever) will have to give up any compensation he receives into the general victims' expenses fund? But is he not a victim just like anyone else?

lame response from Mrs King

Labour = trumped again

course it'll not make a blind difference - hardened crims just won't pay up just like they don't now

The problem with charging criminals money, is that the punitative effect is amplified for the poor. Some businessman getting charged $50 will barely notice, but some poor family on the dole will actually feel that.

And generally, yes, is a bizzare gimmick aimed at "bloody crims get all the breaks" middle NZers. Hardly constructive policy...

yeah the payment thang was my initial thought - don't some people commit crime cause they got no money? Maybe I've been reading too many novels

I also thought it odd nat is impossing a tax on criminals basically - aren't they the tax break party

I await their harsher sentences calls

Interesting to see nandors comment - a reflection on his leaving I guess

at least we are seeing some policy

People at the poorer end of the spectrum have more money available to them than they ever have.. poverty crime should have gone away by now according to the logic... funny that it's risen - heaps - even moreso in the areas where welfare dependency is highest.

Maybe it has more to do with pride and giving a f***.

R

you gotta pay for the crack one way or t'other

what that effectively means, is that most prisoners won't bother suing for gross maltreatment now, knowing that even if they do get damages, that money will be taken off them.

there is already the power to order offenders to pay reparation - s for everything, including emotional harm to victims

I think 74 million or so remains unpaid

there is the old adage "can't get out blood out of a stone"

this is on top of the reparation payments JH - as I read it anyways

this is a crime tax for all convicted persons, a one off $50 for their deeds and they would still be liable for reparation fines

74 million

yes exactly - it's a tax in addition to reparations - so err why is it needed exactly?

fines can be levied for most offences - these go into government coffers

court costs also get levied ($130 is standard)

these are three sources of income off criminals

so what are the policy reasons for levying more money? why do victims need more than reparation?

people will get levied $50 for victimless crimes as well! is it logical that this money goes to a "victim's fund"?

I don't think National sees criminals as "people"

I think they see them as a means to an end - re-election

however the UK has something similar so there is a precedent to follow

yes there is a precedent

not necessarily a good one

I'm uncomfortable with the notion of a flat tax for crimes

equally logically, you should add say $5 to $10 to all infringement notices, parking tickets, speeding tickets etc. (after all, it's AFFORDABLE!)

the tax ought to be put into a special fund for victims of car accidents, or a special fund for advertising and promoting safe road usage, or some other such crap.

and why do we need a Victims Services Centre as well?

we already have Victim Support and they do a fine job.

should we be creating an industry out of victimhood with associated administrative costs?

if we are to cut the number of state servants and cut red tape and all that then yes JH we do...

so in short National are as confused as ever but somehow that appeals to the NZ public (if the heralds comments pages is anything to go on)

yeah why not?

but as to the flat rate argument: this is proposed only for those charged and convicted with multiple offences no?

Herald

multiple convictions only one fine - BARGAIN

lovely

shoplifted item from the 2 dollar shop - tax=$50

pack rapist convicted of 20 rapes - tax = $50


and here's another thought

if the rapist pleaded guilty to different rapes on different court dates - would he be charged $50 per rape?

whereas if he got all charges consolidated to one court date, then pleaded guilty to all of them, that would cost him just $50?

cheap rapes! I mean rates

that's where I went wrong - was skimming

fuck that bullshit make 'em pay heaps the more charges the merrier

keep dem lawyaahhhs busy

but more soberly, Mrs King says that there will be only 2 to 3 million dollars available after administrative costs are factored in

but correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that 2 to 3 million dollars more than is there right now?

no the lawyer conversation is more likely to be "nah bro I ain't pleadin guilty cos like I ain't got a spare 50 bucks"

true but you shouldn't collect money in an unprincipled way

see my infringement notice example above

that is just as philosophically justifiable.

so why one and not the other?

needs more fine tuning

no doubt that was factored in at Nat party hq

so expect more media feeds in coming months

oh the joys of election year

its just another case of Key spouting out rubbish that hasnt been thought through.

exactly. there's no point analysing it too closely. primarily Nats see this tax as a vote-grabber. it's very typically Tory.

this couldn't be better timed

this is LOL as well, and proves that Nats are wanting to impose a crime tax. nothing to do with victims, it's revenue collecting. but still, middle NZ rejoices.

i wish people would stop with the whole 'will somebody please think of the victims' attitude. victims of crime are rarely as clean as an innocent bystander finding himself at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Considering the sheer quantity of burglaries, who are pretty much by definition innocent bystanders...

yeh I agree vadz that that was a weird thing for BG to say.
I read her statement as implying that a large number of victims have somehow colluded in the crime. I'm quite aghast that BG (staunch defender of humanitarian rights) could say this, in fact so surprised that I assumed I was reading her incorrectly.
Tell me I am (reading you wrong ) please BG

No you are not. Obviously crimes against property are clearly innocent bystander stuff but violent crimes (which is what I was referring to and which is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of 'victim crime') are not commonly wrong place wrong time situations. Well, not from my experience anyway.

And I'm not saying the victims necessarily "collude" in the crime, but yeah, pretty much every single violent crime I have dealt with the victim was not an innocent bystander, still a victim nonetheless, but definitely not holier than thou. Which is why all this 'will somebody please think of the victims' mentality which sells things like crime tax, and harsher penalties, and abuses of rights of offenders, irks me a bit....Maybe it's just me.

BG is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT correct

people who work in the system realise this

particularly in the realm of domestic violence

its all convictions people not just violent crime

saying that I get the impression our resident lawyers have had a tough day/week/career...

Yes, but the vast majority of crimes are burglaries, not violent crimes.

tears, hugs etc for lawyers are most unusual .. but most welcome

where do you get your stats?

recent stats show massive increase in domestic violence offences because of"

a) more reporting

b) greater police emphasis on charging/prosecuting these cases

I have already explained that when I hear 'victim crime' I immediately think of violence crimes not property crimes which is the qualification I have brought to my statement that I'm sick of the 'will somebody please think of the victims' mentality that dominates the thinking behind criminal justice policy at the moment.

yes it is. i don't like the crime tax for a whole lot of reasons, the bleeding hearts for the victims of violence is just one of those reasons.

the mentality of which you speak is a great attention grabber... hence the tangent being worked - its election year, them proposing this bill don't give a fuck for victims unless they happen to be people they personally know

I wonder how all those of us whom have been burgled feel about compensation from this fund when in the cases I have had call to report lose of property the police have not even investigated... let alone got the culprit and thus a conviction

hence the payouts and tax seem to be flawed - as I'd suggest the majority of victims aren't even elligable for compensation

anyways in a few weeks Key will say he didn't mean anything and he was misquoted

Hmmmm, just thought, I would kindly like to note on your comment - its not just 'his' sentence. 'His or Hers' thankyou. I know its not your fault....typical misconception in NZ society that men are the monsters.

He and she - not just he. Cheers.

$50 barely does any thing for any victim....but it could be a start, if it pools.

if you become a victim of violence will your heart bleed?

heh, my example was of an inmate being beaten in prison and then not being entitled to compensation...i'd say most of such inmates are male hence the generalisation. i'm well aware that both males and females commit crime, and my comments apply to both, but for the example I was posting about using just the male gender was convenient.

probably and in turn i wouldn't expect to have any objectivity towards the offender, but criminal justice policy needs objectivity.

Ahh... contradictory. The objectivity of criminal justice is about a SUBJECTIVE concept called justice.

When you actually realise what we think of as justice is just as emotive as the response of an assaulted person, the scales will fall from your eyes.

yes vadinho I can envisage an effectively operating justice system based on each and every individual's subjective assessment of what "justice" requires in each and every case.

most victims do not want justice but revenge. not all, but most.

And why shouldn't they get it?

He who pays the piper, calls the tune...

because the days of victim-administered-justice are long gone. the CIVILISATION has moved on.

if the State has to find and prosecute the offenders, the State will punish them too. if the victims wish to punish then the victims can find and prosecute too. yes? after all as you say, he who pays the piper calls the tune...the entire tune that is, from the beginning to the end, not only the final crescendo.

Justice is not an end in itself; justice is a SERVANT of the will of the people.
What the state does DESCRIPTIVELY doesn't necessarily mean what the state should do NORMATIVELY.

do we have to get into this debate again guys? it's all been said a zillion times before on these boards.

the specific thread topic is more interesting