-
@godder Are you against the 3 strike legislation though? (as opposed to thinking it might be redundant considering existing law) If so would you mind talking me through why specifically? I haven't been able to get my head around Labours insistence to remove it, to me it seems to be some airy-fairy idea of rehabilitating those who in my mind have proved beyond rehabilitating. Freely admit that maybe I'm missing a different perspective on it though.
-
@chris-b said in NZ justice system 2.0:
@godder So you're on the Death Penalty train as well, Godder?
I guess one thing that it does is send a clear message to criminals as they accumulate their strikes - well, it would do if the judiciary didn't keep bailing out from enforcing the law under the "manifestly unjust" clause.
In theory... In practice, most smart criminals stick to white collar crime and other forms of fraud and theft. I'm sure the occasional criminal will get shocked to the straight and narrow, but studies consistently show that the most effective deterrent is the likelihood getting caught and punished, not the specific punishments/sentences.
@louis said in NZ justice system 2.0:
@godder said in NZ justice system 2.0:
I don't think it will be a surprise to anyone that I don't think much of the 3 strike legislation, any more than I did when it was enacted as I said here at the time.
It doesn't do any more than the Sentencing Act 2002 did then or now, particularly since Preventive Detention gives the option of never releasing particularly dangerous criminals after 2 offenses, and being able to recall them for life if they do overstep later.
In that case, you wouldn't need three strikes. You could apply preventative detention (PD) after one or two. You'd like to think two would be enough for mandatory PD depending on the crime.
I don't agree with mandatory preventive detention although I probably wouldn't lose any sleep over a double rapist getting mandatory PD.
@rembrandt said in NZ justice system 2.0:
@godder Are you against the 3 strike legislation though? (as opposed to thinking it might be redundant considering existing law) If so would you mind talking me through why specifically? I haven't been able to get my head around Labours insistence to remove it, to me it seems to be some airy-fairy idea of rehabilitating those who in my mind have proved beyond rehabilitating. Freely admit that maybe I'm missing a different perspective on it though.
The redundancy with preventive detention is an issue as well, but to me at least, it's deeper than that as 3 strikes has no nuance or room for judicial discretion or expertise, and imprisonment is very expensive (I don't have room for capital punishment in my values, so that's not an option for me to reduce the costs). My glib, flippant answer is that baseball is not an ideal model for criminal sentencing, but more broadly:
-
I much prefer professional judges working within legislative guidelines tailoring sentences to circumstances over mandatory sentencing. Even with 3 strike sentencing not fully applying when it would be "manifestly unjust", that's usually a very high bar to meet and doesn't normally leave much room for discretion.
-
Previous criminal history is already taken into account when sentencing, especially if it is recent, serious or both - to me, this is overkill.
-
Sometimes a timely low-level sentence to a previous or potential career criminal can get them back on track, and mandatory sentencing removes that option (although I acknowledge that given the list of crimes which qualify for strikes, that's not especially likely).
-
Maximum sentences in law and sentences from judges are designed with parole in mind, and the 3 strikes ignores that.
Sensible Sentencing Trust (a misnomer if ever I heard one) complaining about parole being an early release rather misses that point, as the point of a parole system isn't really to release offenders early (sentencing takes parole into account), it's to incentivise behaving and rehabilitation in prison (because they are punished by having to stay longer if they don't behave or undertake counselling and courses) and to provide for supervised release with the ability to recall people to prison with minimum fuss. If we replaced parole tomorrow with a system in which judges provided a minimum sentence, and then people were released with supervision and recall conditions, it would have the same effect while sounding much more saleable.
More generally, we have spent the past 30+ years increasing sentences (the Criminal Justice Act 1985 and Sentencing Act 2002 were both significantly harsher than their predecessors and we also toughened the Parole Act), and yet, recidivism has increased. Obviously it doesn't have a deterrent effect, and has not lowered the crime rate in a statistically measurable way (if anything, it makes criminals into worse criminals via institutionalisation and association with other criminals). Imprisonment is extremely expensive, and yet doing more of it hasn't worked, so when Bill English and Andrew Little both say the current system is a failure, I can see how they reached their conclusions.
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...
-
-
@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