NZ Judiciary
-
@Tim and with our shit record of child abuse stuff like that is far too common
Also as the cycle continues we will continue to have people who get sentenced with consideration of their own troubled aka fucking horrid upbringings. Obviously far more context and nuance in the mix. But holy shit we need to figure out a way forward with all of this.
-
@Paekakboyz i have read judges summaries citing it is tougher being a prisoner in your own home, am sure they must have data or research but you'd think it would be easier at home.
-
@taniwharugby while where you are limited too obviously can vary us humans do react pretty strongly to be restricted in movement. A fair few do thrive in isolation but most of us would struggle with it after long enough.
-
@bones "It just broke me when I found out what actually happened ... I have to live with this for the rest of my life.” Well fluffybunny, let me rewrite that for you: ""That man's poor mother had to see that and will live with it for the rest of her life. I'm ashamed and I need to look for ways to make it up to her and the community". Nobody gives a fuck if you have to live with this for the rest of your life - so you fucking well should, its the least you could do. Self entitled fluffybunny.
I hate this kind of thing. He says he's remorseful but his statement's actually about him feeling sorry for himself rather than the victim and family.
-
@jc surely that is at the heart (or lack there of) this sort of scenario. Had he had more empathy for others, and a lot more emotional capability then things may have been different. But his focus on the impact to him, at least as it's been conveyed in the article, is beyond icky. He may have spoken about the impact on the victims family but it clearly hasn't been reported.
-
@jc said in NZ Judiciary:
@bones "It just broke me when I found out what actually happened ... I have to live with this for the rest of my life.” Well fluffybunny, let me rewrite that for you: ""That man's poor mother had to see that and will live with it for the rest of her life. I'm ashamed and I need to look for ways to make it up to her and the community". Nobody gives a fuck if you have to live with this for the rest of your life - so you fucking well should, its the least you could do. Self entitled fluffybunny.
I hate this kind of thing. He says he's remorseful but his statement's actually about him feeling sorry for himself rather than the victim and family.
While I understand exactly what you are saying and agree with the sentiment I also understand that he has likely been counselled to think that way, say it out loud to affirm that thinking and take on the realisation that his actions have consequences not just for others but for himself.
If we want scrotes like this to re-enter society and not repeat themselves or pass this stupid mindset on to others (including their children) we have to teach them to think about consequences. Consequences for themselves is a stronger headspace than consequences for others.
He will also have had it explained in no uncertain teams that he has badly affected the lives of others and will have had to come to terms with that.A couple of other points to note. 'Less than half his sentence' is standard. That's how the system works. However to get that release you have to be adjudged as fit for it. I have recently heard stories of just how hard those parole boards are on people like him. They really test and stretch them to see if the rehab work has truly taken hold or they are just pretending. Often to the point where those doing the rehab complain that work is undone in the process.
-
@crucial I don't disagree. I get that he has probably been counseled on this because it feels scripted or coached, like the kind of thing you say because it is expected that you say something. But it misses the point. As @Paekakboyz says, that could simply be a gap in the reporting. Whatever, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of his having gained any insight into - or empathy around - his victims' suffering, so while he says he wants to make this his last time in prison I'm not going to be surprised if we see him doing something similar again.
-
@jc said in NZ Judiciary:
@crucial I don't disagree. I get that he has probably been counseled on this because it feels scripted or coached, like the kind of thing you say because it is expected that you say something. But it misses the point. As @Paekakboyz says, that could simply be a gap in the reporting. Whatever, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of his having gained any insight into - or empathy around - his victims' suffering, so while he says he wants to make this his last time in prison I'm not going to be surprised if we see him doing something similar again.
Yep, bad reporting. There is a reason why we have a thread about that that includes the name of the publication this is from.
All that I can reiterate is that the PB will have questioned him hard over his understanding of victim sufferings and impacts.
Does all of that mean that he won't re-offend? Nope, but it does mean that he meets the threshold of giving him a chance to fix himself. The alternative is to make him complete his sentence which carries no incentive to take or take in rehab programmes and just gets set loose on us all the same person he was when he went in.
-
@crucial said in NZ Judiciary:
@kirwan said in NZ Judiciary:
I think the ship may have sailed for a guy that murders someone over a car park.
You have an alternative? A serious one?
Get them while they are young, and make sure that there are consequences for violent behaviour.
If you kill someone, you serve the full sentence. If it's particularly bad, you don't get out at all.
I know Andrew Little wants to let criminals out of jail, but that's not a serious option.
-
@kirwan said in NZ Judiciary:
@crucial said in NZ Judiciary:
@kirwan said in NZ Judiciary:
I think the ship may have sailed for a guy that murders someone over a car park.
You have an alternative? A serious one?
Get them while they are young, and make sure that there are consequences for violent behaviour.
Doesn't really apply in this case but yeah Youth Courts have an even trickier balancing act to consider.
If you kill someone, you serve the full sentence. If it's particularly bad, you don't get out at all.
And you are happy to pay for that? Serious question. These are your taxes at work. Are you also happy with the concept that punishment will change behaviour? Again a serious question as the stats don't support that position and not only does society usually suffer again the perp ends up back costing us all more money. Not having a carrot of parole means worse behaviour inside prisons (again costing more money).
I know Andrew Little wants to let criminals out of jail, but that's not a serious option.
Little isn't the MoJ anymore but if he said that it certainly isn't his position alone. The approach that you suggest doesn't work, has never worked. It's why we build bigger jails that cost more money, have generational users of those facilities and have them released to be free to make another person suffer.
A system where rehabilitation is offered, tested and chances given through reintegration is proven to reduce re-offending meaning lower prison numbers, less community damage and breaks the cycle of family generations committing crime.
No one is of the illusion that this ideal works for everyone or is even applicable to everyone but even a 25% success rate has massive short and long term effects. -
I think having a safe society for my children is money well spent.
My preference is for a system that considers the victim and potential future victims over the offenders "rights".
Even if it's a deterrant for 5% of offenders, it's money well spent. And for the other 95%, keep them away from society as much as possible.
But as I said, the prison system is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. If you don't get the kids out of terrible homes where violence is the norm, say with gangs, then IMO it's too late.
-
@kirwan I completely agree with the focus being on victims/future victims. Would argue our system isn't nearly victim-focused enough.
(it will forever grate that 'remorse' is a sentencing factor and that restorative justice seems so much more about offender gaining brownie points than actual justice for victims.) -
@kirwan said in NZ Judiciary:
I think having a safe society for my children is money well spent.
Does your way achieve that? Seems to me that while following hard line policies of no rehab and long sentences crime increased not decreased. Even if you 'throw away the key' you've just passed the problem on to another generation on both sides.
My preference is for a system that considers the victim and potential future victims over the offenders "rights".
It's not about 'rights'. The only rights a prisoner gets are those that we sign up to as human rights. If you want to throw those away we should probably stop this discussion now. I assume though that you mean their ability to be put forward for parole after serving a portion of their sentence (which the sentencing judge is fully aware of at the time). Potential future victims are considered by rehabilitation, that's the whole point of it. The balance is trying to provide an incentive for rehab while also providing consequences to satisfy the victim.
Even if it's a deterrant for 5% of offenders, it's money well spent. And for the other 95%, keep them away from society as much as possible.
Again, pushing the problem down the track. Your kids will be happy when even more embittered and institutionalised crims walk out the gates lining up their next victim.
But as I said, the prison system is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. If you don't get the kids out of terrible homes where violence is the norm, say with gangs, then IMO it's too late.
Taking kids away from their families is one of the major causes of NZ having the second highest incarceration rate in the OECD. I don't get this line of thinking at all.
Of course fixing a cause is better than trying to repair damage, I wouldn't try and argue against that at all. What I'm saying is that an ambulance is better than a hearse as long as the ambulance has the right equipment to try and save the cliff jumper. -
@mokey said in NZ Judiciary:
@kirwan I completely agree with the focus being on victims/future victims. Would argue our system isn't nearly victim-focused enough.
(it will forever grate that 'remorse' is a sentencing factor and that restorative justice seems so much more about offender gaining brownie points than actual justice for victims.)I don't disagree about victims not being a big enough part of the system. Restorative justice only works in a few situations and still never really ends up achieving a lot.
A really blunt way to look at things is that shit has happened and the clock can't be turned back. From the point of a crime the victim is a victim and the criminal the criminal and that's where separation and treatment should start. If the victim has a need to vent at the crim they should have that opportunity but the focus should be on helping the victim physically, emotionally and financially.
Equally the crim needs to be punished but at the same time we need to try and fix them. Not so much for their own sake but for ours.
It's not an easy balancing act but sure as hell removing parole isn't the answer. -
@crucial said in NZ Judiciary:
Taking kids away from their families is one of the major causes of NZ having the second highest incarceration rate in the OECD. I don't get this line of thinking at all.
Is there a data source for incarceration rates that supports the 2nd highest incarceration rate? I looked here but it doesn't seem to agree:
One thing that did stand out from that site though was the huge disparity between the proportion of people imprisoned for sexual offenses (38.3 per 100,000) vs the median (6.7 per 100,000) and in fact "interpersonal offenses" overall. Is there a causal link between removing kids from their families and this type of crime? Not just a correlation I mean.
-
@jc said in NZ Judiciary:
@crucial said in NZ Judiciary:
Taking kids away from their families is one of the major causes of NZ having the second highest incarceration rate in the OECD. I don't get this line of thinking at all.
Is there a data source for incarceration rates that supports the 2nd highest incarceration rate? I looked here but it doesn't seem to agree:
You are correct in that it is an ever changing picture and depends on what you measure eg imprisonment sentences vs numbers in prisons. The two differ (and are fluid) especially when you consider that in NZ 40% of those locked up are on remand.
I found some more recent stats (the one I used was an oft quoted old one) https://www.statista.com/statistics/300986/incarceration-rates-in-oecd-countries/
Apart from the US (that imprisons people for very low level crimes for short periods) and Turkey (no surprise) we sit among a bunch of east european countries almost 20% more than Australia and almost 50% more than the UK.
Those are May 200 figures and don't take into account the recent reduction due in part to COVID.One thing that did stand out from that site though was the huge disparity between the proportion of people imprisoned for sexual offenses (38.3 per 100,000) vs the median (6.7 per 100,000) and in fact "interpersonal offenses" overall. Is there a causal link between removing kids from their families and this type of crime? Not just a correlation I mean.
That's a really interesting stat and would take quite a bit of research to come up with anything resembling an answer.
Some possible reasons for the high number of imprisonments for sexual offending would be the seriousness applied to the offence by courts compared to other countries, a higher rate of prosecutions, a higher rate of reported crimes or even the ranking of the crime in order of severity as stats usually count the 'highest' crime when someone is convicted of multiple offences.
As for the question of causal links? Without digging for nasty stats and going down a rabbit hole of unpleasant reading I do believe that the rates of sexual offending in state care and places like youth correctional facilities is higher than the norm. Then we know all about what happens in church care.EDIT: here is an interesting excerpt from the OECD that may go some way to explaining an unusual disparity in sexual offending rates. The quote doesn't give NZ %s but the linked graph indicates that it is around the 7% mark.
Social acceptance of domestic violence against women by women themselves weakens the functioning of legal frameworks and is an obstacle to addressing violence against women. SIGI 2019 shows that within OECD countries, 8% of women say that a husband may be justified in hitting or beating his wife, from 1% or less in Denmark and Ireland to up to 18% in Korea and 20% in Germany (Figure 8.8). In emerging economies, acceptance of violence against women can be much higher – 34% of women in Indonesia and 61% of women South Africa say that spousal violence can be justified.
I think you could safely say that in a country that feels that violence in a marriage is acceptable the acceptance of sexual violence is also high and under prosecuted.