-
@godder said in NZ justice system 2.0:
Someone less charitable than me might suggest that political parties who know 3 strikes and other tough on crime policies don't actually work, but continue to peddle them to voters bear at least some responsibility for the plight of the additional victims (acknowledging that first and primary responsibility is that of the criminal), but I'm not that uncharitable...
I agree they are unlikely to modify the perpatrator's behaviour. However, keeping ratbags out of society has some merit. I'm not positive about 3 strike legislation in principle (and you outline a number of reasons above). However, I thought that the 3 strike crimes were for really serious violent offences.
So I went and looked up the qualifying list, and paste it below. And...now I'm a bit mixed. No issue with most - if you get three off that list, I can understand why a society may say we don't watn you with us. Some seemed a bit dodge though - what is the bar for 'indecent assault' -- can you get pinged for a grope in a pub?
Still far far better than the US versions, where petty theft gets you your third strike.
What is clear from Kiwiblog is that some people getting caught have rap sheets as long as your arm. Now, they aren't going to put up the marginal cases, but it sure makes a case for separating some of these people from society.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0033/latest/whole.html#DLM1845314
serious violent offence means an offence against any of the following provisions of the Crimes Act 1961:
“(1)section 128B (sexual violation):
“(2)section 129 (attempted sexual violation and assault with intent to commit sexual violation):
“(3)section 129A(1) (sexual connection with consent induced by threat):
“(4)section 131(1) (sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years):
“(5)section 131(2) (attempted sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years):
“(6)section 132(1) (sexual connection with child):
“(7)section 132(2) (attempted sexual connection with child):
“(8)section 132(3) (indecent act on child):
“(9)section 134(1) (sexual connection with young person):
“(10)section 134(2) (attempted sexual connection with young person):
“(11)section 134(3) (indecent act on young person):
“(12)section 135 (indecent assault):
“(13)section 138(1) (exploitative sexual connection with person with significant impairment):
“(14)section 138(2) (attempted exploitative sexual connection with person with significant impairment):
“(15)section 142A (compelling indecent act with animal):
“(16)section 144A (sexual conduct with children and young people outside New Zealand):
“(17)section 172 (murder):
“(18)section 173 (attempted murder):
“(19)section 174 (counselling or attempting to procure murder):
“(20)section 175 (conspiracy to murder):
“(21)section 177 (manslaughter):
“(22)section 188(1) (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm):
“(23)section 188(2) (wounding with intent to injure):
“(24)section 189(1) (injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm):
“(25)section 191(1) (aggravated wounding):
“(26)section 191(2) (aggravated injury):
“(27)section 198(1) (discharging firearm or doing dangerous act with intent to do grievous bodily harm):
“(28)section 198(2) (discharging firearm or doing dangerous act with intent to injure):
“(29)section 198A(1) (using firearm against law enforcement officer, etc):
“(30)section 198A(2) (using firearm with intent to resist arrest or detention):
“(31)section 198B (commission of crime with firearm):
“(32)section 200(1) (poisoning with intent to cause grievous bodily harm):
“(33)section 201 (infecting with disease):
“(34)section 208 (abduction for purposes of marriage or sexual connection):
“(35)section 209 (kidnapping):
“(36)section 232(1) (aggravated burglary):
“(37)section 234 (robbery):
“(38)section 235 (aggravated robbery):
“(39)section 236(1) (causing grievous bodily harm with intent to rob or assault with intent to rob in specified circumstances):
“(40)section 236(2) (assault with intent to rob)
-
@godder A good and considered response. A couple of points:
-
I'm entirely unconcerned about the costs of imprisonment for these high end criminals - it is money well spent to keep them out of society;
-
A problem with the three strikes is that eventually someone like Dylan Davis is probably going to have to be released and still only in his mid-50s (after a 30 year sentence rather than 20 years if 3 strikes was applied). In my opinion, he is already beyond rehabilitation and is someone who should never be let out. In cases like his, life imprisonment should be for life - it's no longer about punishment or rehabilitation - it is about removing these people from society. Solves the problem of recidivism.
-
-
-
I’m a bit surprised this article downplays the actions of the people they try to make out to be the real victims . Under other circumstances I’m sure they wouldn’t excuse an 18 year old having sex with a 14 year old and it was more than just touching a guards bum but that doesn’t suit the narrative. It’s actually the opposite of the #metoo stuff they’ve been posting
:::
Spoiler Text
:::
-
@rembrandt said in NZ justice system 2.0:
Also I might add: compelling indecent act with animal
I don't want to even know how they define if the act is compelling or not.- adjective> evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.
Those judges are sick fucks.
-
Came across this in the Ferald
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12183664
Found it interesting how disproportionate the Canterbury representation was ...
-
-
Yikes.
Crowbar and a hammer and you don't get time. WTAF NZ?
-
@gt12 said in NZ justice system 2.0:
Yikes.
Crowbar and a hammer and you don't get time. WTAF NZ?
Lock them up, they only get out when the fella dies of natural causes. Fair to everyone.
-
@Bones said in NZ justice system 2.0:
@gt12 said in NZ justice system 2.0:
Yikes.
Crowbar and a hammer and you don't get time. WTAF NZ?
Lock them up, they only get out when the fella dies of natural causes. Fair to everyone.
Perhaps when the youngest of his children dies, and I’d consider that a reasonable deal.
I seriously can’t fathom this one, they attacked him because they thought he was a nark, and the authorities rewarded them with no time in jail.
-
An Aussie case, and not a case I was aware of until recently, but Kathleen Folbigg ...
Pardoned today for convictions for the death of her 4 kids over 10 years.
To quote Ian Fleming: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."
What about 4?
Am cynical, but "reasonable doubt" ... ?
-
@booboo said in NZ justice system 2.0:
An Aussie case, and not a case I was aware of until recently, but Kathleen Folbigg ...
Pardoned today for convictions for the death of her 4 kids over 10 years.
To quote Ian Fleming: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."
What about 4?
Am cynical, but "reasonable doubt" ... ?
Absolute tragedy for all concerned - inc. the jurors. Nothing is perfect, sadly. You can only try to find the truth as best you can, minimise miscarriages and learn from them.
The UK set up a Criminal Cases Review Commission, run by lay-people outside the Justice system, to investigate cases like this and refer them to the Appeal Court which has worked well. Does NZ or Oz have something similar?
NZ justice system 2.0