3 strikes policy

[ukusa]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3242717/Three-strikes-policy-announced

about bloody time. Hopefully it should stop those namby pamby judges giving out bullshit sentances to repeat offenders,

[p.dath]

I support the three strikes policy. It worked great when introduced in LA, and I'm sure it it will a similar effect with a drastic reduction in violent crime here.

And I'm happy to pay to keep those repeat violent offenders in jail.

[oldrider]

I support the three strikes policy. It worked great when introduced in LA, and I'm sure it it will a similar effect with a drastic reduction in violent crime here.

And I'm happy to pay to keep those repeat violent offenders in jail.

Me too but by the time this weak kneed National coalition has watered the bill down so far that we will have to beg forgiveness from the criminal's for punishing them, the policy will be worthless anyway!

[JimO]

Me too but by the time this weak kneed National coalition has watered the bill down so far that we will have to beg forgiveness from the criminal's for punishing them, the policy will be worthless anyway!

what he said

just shoot the cunts i reckon that will stop recidivism

[wbks]

I support the three strikes policy. It worked great when introduced in LA, and I'm sure it it will a similar effect with a drastic reduction in violent crime here.

And I'm happy to pay to keep those repeat violent offenders in jail.
Got a better idea? I've yet to see someone who was closely affected by a continual re offender complain about the judges who actually have a spine giving out harsher sentances, nor the three strikes plan

what he said

just shoot the cunts i reckon that will stop recidivismyep, but thats not as humane as letting them kill and rape all over again according to the humanitarians who seem to be agaisnt domestic humanity

[Headbanger]

Doesn't go far enough, No violent offender deserves parole even on their first offense, and they should be locked up until death on their third offense. And supplied with a rope while they mull over a lifetime in a cell.

All violent offenses done by youths should be dealt with in the adult court, and all offenders should lose the right of parole on their third offense no matter how minor it is.

This is just more soft bullshit.

[SMOKEU]

So it seems that this law will only apply to persons who are at least 18 years of age. What bullshit. In Christchurch (and I'm sure in all other parts of NZ) a lot of serious assaults are commited by people aged 14 or 15, sometimes even younger than that.

[steve_t]

It's shit eh?! Why 18? Cos a 17 year old doesn't know that beating the shit out of some old guy is wrong?!

[Molly]

There were a few extreme examples from the US of people receiving huge custodial sentences for, in one case, stealing a pizza (as it was a third offence).

This country does need tougher sentencing but this legislation is clumsy at best.

[p.dath]

There were a few extreme examples from the US of people receiving huge custodial sentences for, in one case, stealing a pizza (as it was a third offence).

This country does need tougher sentencing but this legislation is clumsy at best.

You would have thought that after his second offence the offender would have been on their best behaviour ... however in NZ we are only talking about violent crime, not petty theft.

[Hitcher]

about bloody time. Hopefully it should stop those namby pamby judges giving out bullshit sentances to repeat offenders,

Judges' sentencing generally reflects society's standards. This proposed law is nothing more than harmless window dressing to buy off a minority coalition partner. If anybody thinks this will make any difference to crime and reoffending, they are deluded.

[P38]

I support the three strikes policy. It worked great when introduced in LA, and I'm sure it it will a similar effect with a drastic reduction in violent crime here.

And I'm happy to pay to keep those repeat violent offenders in jail.

I'd be happier if we just dug a hole for them.

[mashman]

Heh, an attempt at winning back the popular vote eh... a platitude for the masses... and for sentences that only warrant a 5 year stint... if they require 5 years they should never be allowed out anyway... but hey, i'm only a member of the public with an opinion.

[Usarka]

Judges' sentencing generally reflects society's standards. This proposed law is nothing more than harmless window dressing to buy off a minority coalition partner. If anybody thinks this will make any difference to crime and reoffending, they are deluded.

However if one is actually deluded it doesn't necessarily mean that they believe it will make any difference. I'm sure some vocabulary nazi has a name for that.

[JellyBellyKelly]

get rid of the parole period is my opinion. if they're sentanced to 20 years - make them stay for 20 years, not get released in 5 so they can re-offend.
i also like the option of turning the containers into cells that was in the news late last year. none of this "milton hilton" million dollar jailhouse type place (i'm sure it's nicer than my rented house - that i pay for).... and bring back hard labour, not free room, board and food.

wasn't there a movie where they sent all the murderers, rapists etc (really really bad guys) onto an island and let them sort each other out?

[mashman]

get rid of the parole period is my opinion. if they're sentanced to 20 years - make them stay for 20 years, not get released in 5 so they can re-offend.
i also like the option of turning the containers into cells that was in the news late last year. none of this "milton hilton" million dollar jailhouse type place (i'm sure it's nicer than my rented house - that i pay for).... and bring back hard labour, not free room, board and food.

wasn't there a movie where they sent all the murderers, rapists etc (really really bad guys) onto an island and let them sort each other out?

nar, that was just the english starting to take over Australia.

[scumdog]

There were a few extreme examples from the US of people receiving huge custodial sentences for, in one case, stealing a pizza (as it was a third offence).

This country does need tougher sentencing but this legislation is clumsy at best.

Don't worry, NZ Govt will water it all down to the stage where it will only apply to 18+-years-old-with- two-previous-convictions-for-the-same- imprisonable-offence within-a-two-year-time-frame.:mad:

[p.dath]

Judges' sentencing generally reflects society's standards. This proposed law is nothing more than harmless window dressing to buy off a minority coalition partner. If anybody thinks this will make any difference to crime and reoffending, they are deluded.

I wish I could agree with you, but I can't. Judge's are usually bound by what other Judge's have previously given out. They can't suddenly give a sentence out which is much harsher than what other people have been given for a similar circumstance. Judges can also be given guidelines by the MOJ.

And none of this reflects how the public feels.

There often is a core of repeat offenders. They keep repeating no matter what. This will allow those people to be kept in jail much longer. The result will be much lower rates of offending and re-offending - because they have much less opportunity. And if it is anything like what happened in LA, it acted as a significant deterrent to criminals in training. They know once they have had two strikes the next time is going to be "bad". No more community service.

[Milts]

In gerneral I've been completely against 3 strike policies, but this one seems to have enough qualifications (crime warranting more than 5 years, judges discretion to waive it etc) that it works for me.
The thing which really worries me about 3 strike policies is that you get criminals who realise they're about to get arrested for the third offence, and suddenly have nothing to lose; who cares if they have to shoot a cop to get away, if they don't get away they're in deep shit regardless. It leads to an 'all or nothing' mentality which can often result in more crimes being committed to avoid arrest.
I also find it interesting how everyone seems so keen to move towards a US style prison system, when they have serious crime issues and a huge % of the population in prison, compared to a scandanavian style system which seems to work much better (for them anyway)...

[p.dath]

I also find it interesting how everyone seems so keen to move towards a US style prison system, when they have serious crime issues and a huge % of the population in prison, compared to a scandanavian style system which seems to work much better (for them anyway)...

They also have loose gun control laws, and a far more serious drug scene than us. So I don't think you can attribute their serious crime issue soley to the fact they like to put the "bad" guys in jail and leave them there.

[98tls]

Didnt they come up with a 3 strike policy for drink driving a few years back which was never enforced,for my money this will go the same way.If a judge has room to move it seems he will.

[BoristheBiter]

In gerneral I've been completely against 3 strike policies, but this one seems to have enough qualifications (crime warranting more than 5 years, judges discretion to waive it etc) that it works for me.
The thing which really worries me about 3 strike policies is that you get criminals who realise they're about to get arrested for the third offence, and suddenly have nothing to lose; who cares if they have to shoot a cop to get away, if they don't get away they're in deep shit regardless. It leads to an 'all or nothing' mentality which can often result in more crimes being committed to avoid arrest.
I also find it interesting how everyone seems so keen to move towards a US style prison system, when they have serious crime issues and a huge % of the population in prison, compared to a scandanavian style system which seems to work much better (for them anyway)...

What a pile of crap. this is like saying putting someone in jail has no effect so we will just let everyone out, or the boy racer who will loose his car so will just run.

if you can't live within the law you should be put away, and if it is your third offence you should never be let out period.

if somebody is going to shoot a copper to get away then they should just be put down end of story.
its people like you that have been voting with a liberal amount of do gooder labour crap that has put us where we are now because all the crim's are just laughing.

This is a good start but goes know where far enough. Bring back public hanging.

[BoristheBiter]

posted it tiwce sorry.

[sinfull]

Don't know if it was just the way i heard it, but the way they put it across on the news, it sounded like if ya have several violent offences on yr record already, the old offences will not be taken into account for this 3rd strike policy !
So violent offenders will be getting realeased for the next ten years and will be allowed to reoffend violently three more times before they aint elligable for parole ! WTF

[scumdog]

Don't know if it was just the way i heard it, but the way they put it across on the news, it sounded like if ya have several violent offences on yr record already, the old offences will not be taken into account for this 3rd strike policy !
So violent offenders will be getting realeased for the next ten years and will be allowed to reoffend violently three more times before they aint elligable for parole ! WTF

Told you it would be watered down....and that's not the last bit of 'watering down' we'll see.....

[caseye]

"Public Hanging" Now there was a deterrent that didn't fail! Afraid that by the time this law hits our streets it'll mean very few crims will ever feel the finger on thier collar for the full stint.
Back to basisc, you shoot someone YOU get shot, you steal, you lose a hand and all rights of ordinary citizens form that day onwards For Good,never to be trusted again.No crims on bikes then aye.

[Swoop]

According to the government's mouthpiese (tv1) last night, there is no parole on the second offence. The third offence gets the maximum penalty + no parole.

Still, too pussified and lacking teeth to be decent legislation. Open to interpretation by the judge, so it will be a balls-up.

When they finally work out that single occupant jail cells are an absolute joke and that by sticking a bunk bed in each cell (like the British have done since the '50's), suddenly they have enough space to accomodate a larger population.

[Pascal]

about bloody time. Hopefully it should stop those namby pamby judges giving out bullshit sentances to repeat offenders,

Good start, but it still seems a bit light to me. I'd want to see the punishment being a lot harsher, prisons becoming REAL prisons and not temporary holiday accomodation along with using prisoners as labour. There are plenty of roads that need re-doing, orchards that need picking or fields that need to be cleared of gorse / whatever. Might as well use them while we're paying for them and hopefully they'll learn a trade out of it.

[oldrider]

Did anyone else notice the quality of the footwear and apparel worn by the "prisoners" shown on the TV footage accompanying the release of the said information?

Absolutely top class stuff!

You can't afford stuff like that if you are just on a pension, so who get the rewards in this country?

Crime does pay in New Zealand it seems!

[p.dath]

Didnt they come up with a 3 strike policy for drink driving a few years back which was never enforced,for my money this will go the same way.If a judge has room to move it seems he will.

The new proposed law removes the discretionary power of Judges. The law requires them on the third strike to give the maximum sentence. No ifs, buts or maybes.

[Headbanger]

The Maori party is appalled....

[BoristheBiter]

The Maori party is appalled....

like thats a surprise.

[Milts]

What a pile of crap. this is like saying putting someone in jail has no effect so we will just let everyone out, or the boy racer who will loose his car so will just run.

So you are saying that you believe increasing punishments for speeding dramatically (ie to prison sentances) would dramatically reduce the number of runners? Because that's the same logic. And I know that if I were going to go to jail when I saw lights behind me while doing 20ks over the limit I'd think twice about pulling over.


"Public Hanging" Now there was a deterrent that didn't fail! Afraid that by the time this law hits our streets it'll mean very few crims will ever feel the finger on thier collar for the full stint.
Back to basisc, you shoot someone YOU get shot, you steal, you lose a hand and all rights of ordinary citizens form that day onwards For Good,never to be trusted again.No crims on bikes then aye.

Hate to break it to you, but back in the days of public excecution there was a shitload more crime. Yes, I am aware that this has more to do with society back then vs society now, but strict punishment does not always equal less crime. In 'spur of the moment' crimes/crimes of passion, the offender isn't thinking about the senence at all; many premeditated crimes are commited by people who feel they have no choice, or think they're god and won't be caught, or are high on drugs and just aren't thinking full stop.

[wbks]

So you are saying that you believe increasing punishments for speeding dramatically (ie to prison sentances) would dramatically reduce the number of runners? Because that's the same logic. And I know that if I were going to go to jail when I saw lights behind me while doing 20ks over the limit I'd think twice about pulling over.Because letting them do the same thing over and over again is a much better option...

[BoristheBiter]

So you are saying that you believe increasing punishments for speeding dramatically (ie to prison sentances) would dramatically reduce the number of runners? Because that's the same logic. And I know that if I were going to go to jail when I saw lights behind me while doing 20ks over the limit I'd think twice about pulling over.



Hate to break it to you, but back in the days of public excecution there was a shitload more crime. Yes, I am aware that this has more to do with society back then vs society now, but strict punishment does not always equal less crime. In 'spur of the moment' crimes/crimes of passion, the offender isn't thinking about the senence at all; many premeditated crimes are commited by people who feel they have no choice, or think they're god and won't be caught, or are high on drugs and just aren't thinking full stop.

OK so not all sentences are going to be a detrient for all, at least they won't be on the streets anymore.

[Milts]

Because letting them do the same thing over and over again is a much better option...


I'm not arguing that point at the moment, I'm just pointing out one of the sideeffects this law will have which is often overlooked. You're missing the point of my post.


Don't know if it was just the way i heard it, but the way they put it across on the news, it sounded like if ya have several violent offences on yr record already, the old offences will not be taken into account for this 3rd strike policy !
So violent offenders will be getting realeased for the next ten years and will be allowed to reoffend violently three more times before they aint elligable for parole ! WTF

The only reason for this is that to do so would make the law retrospective; essentially it's making something a crime after the fact, and then charging you for it. I suspect they'd love to make it apply to current criminals, but creating retrospective laws sets a bad precident, which they want to avoid.

[Pascal]

In 'spur of the moment' crimes/crimes of passion, the offender isn't thinking about the senence at all; many premeditated crimes are commited by people who feel they have no choice, or think they're god and won't be caught, or are high on drugs and just aren't thinking full stop.

It would be interesting to see how many crimes are of the passionate / spur of the moment variety and how many are premeditated. I almost typed premedicated, which would have been equally apt methinks :p

[ukusa]

Told you it would be watered down....and that's not the last bit of 'watering down' we'll see.....

It may be watered down a bit, and I would think that most honest citizens would say the laws aren't harsh enough. BUT it's a hell of a lot better than the bullshit we had.
How many times have we seen week kneed judges sit up on their highchair at sentencing & spout out to the multiple offender that the crime was so heinous, one of the worst cases he has heard, and then goes and gives them 5 years with 2 years off for the guilty plea when the maximum is 15 years!

As for the Maori party oppostion, wtf? What planet are these pricks on. They always seem to be advocates for crims. Look at the way they support the likes of taggers etc saying it's just art. Is rape just sex? Is armed robbery just to way to feed the kids?
They need to stop believing that repeat offenders can be sent back into the community rehabilitated. They are called repeat offenders for a reason. They either don't want to or can't stop.

[Miscreant]

This proposed law is nothing more than harmless window dressing to buy off a minority coalition partner.

at the expense of another. Could be interesting to see where any objections come from.

[Milts]

It may be watered down a bit, and I would think that most honest citizens would say the laws aren't harsh enough. BUT it's a hell of a lot better than the bullshit we had.
How many times have we seen week kneed judges sit up on their highchair at sentencing & spout out to the multiple offender that the crime was so heinous, one of the worst cases he has heard, and then goes and gives them 5 years with 2 years off for the guilty plea when the maximum is 15 years!

As for the Maori party oppostion, wtf? What planet are these pricks on. They always seem to be advocates for crims. Look at the way they support the likes of taggers etc saying it's just art. Is rape just sex? Is armed robbery just to way to feed the kids?
They need to stop believing that repeat offenders can be sent back into the community rehabilitated. They are called repeat offenders for a reason. They either don't want to or can't stop.

I can't say I disagree with the second half of your post, but:
Firstly, the 'most honest citizens' part couldn't be further from the truth. There is a reason labour got in 3 times running.
Also, I've never understood all this hate for judges. They don't set the maximum penalties for crimes. They don't write the legislation, and most of the laws they do create are made at the highest level and make sense. They are some of the best educated people in the country, and have to deal with crime every day. I suspect most of the criticism for them comes from people who have no understanding of their reasoning.
For example, you're criticising them for taking time off for pleading guilty. They have little choice in the matter, it's law. And it's not law because some pinko liberal decided that we should give them time off for being good little boys. Trials are expensive, take a huge amount of court time, and thanks to the jury system (which is seriously flawed at best) there is always a significant chance they will be let off. The net loss to society by letting them out of jail earlier for pleading guilty is less than the net loss of putting them through the system, with the chance they will get off free anyway.

[ukusa]

I can't say I disagree with the second half of your post, but:
I've never understood all this hate for judges. They don't set the maximum penalties for crimes. They don't write the legislation, and most of the laws they do create are made at the highest level and make sense. They are some of the best educated people in the country, and have to deal with crime every day. I suspect most of the criticism for them comes from people who have no understanding of their reasoning.
For example, you're criticising them for taking time off for pleading guilty. They have little choice in the matter, it's law. And it's not law because some pinko liberal decided that we should give them time off for being good little boys. Trials are expensive, take a huge amount of court time, and thanks to the jury system (which is seriously flawed at best) there is always a significant chance they will be let off. The net loss to society by letting them out of jail earlier for pleading guilty is less than the net loss of putting them through the system, with the chance they will get off free anyway.

So why were people like William Bell & Graeme Burton, both people with dozens (if not hundreds) of previous convictions never given maximum sentences for their multiple previous crimes? Both got out to kill. Judges do have a lot to answer for. Sure they don't make the law, but the law makers have set maximum sentences for crimes, it seems to me that the judges never use them.

[BoristheBiter]

I can't say I disagree with the second half of your post, but:
I've never understood all this hate for judges. They don't set the maximum penalties for crimes. They don't write the legislation, and most of the laws they do create are made at the highest level and make sense. They are some of the best educated people in the country, and have to deal with crime every day. I suspect most of the criticism for them comes from people who have no understanding of their reasoning.
For example, you're criticising them for taking time off for pleading guilty. They have little choice in the matter, it's law. And it's not law because some pinko liberal decided that we should give them time off for being good little boys. Trials are expensive, take a huge amount of court time, and thanks to the jury system (which is seriously flawed at best) there is always a significant chance they will be let off. The net loss to society by letting them out of jail earlier for pleading guilty is less than the net loss of putting them through the system, with the chance they will get off free anyway.

don't even get me started on judges.
If you think they are doing a good job then you must be even dumber than i thought.
When you sit there all day hearing the crap sentences they give out you might want to change your above statment.
It gets very depressing when you work hard to arrest offenders to have some judge give them a slap on the hand and tell them don't do it again, or the one who breaks bail and gets bail again and again and again.
they can give out tougher sentences but dont want to set presadince an get it turned down in the appeal court.

[PrincessBandit]

The Maori party is appalled....

Ha, you beat me to it. It struck me too that the only "public" outcry against this policy has come from the Maori party.

Maybe they should do more about it themselves with their own people if they think it's going to count so harshly against them. Can't help but read that with a pretty cynical eye...I'm sure it wouldn't be a concern to them whatsoever if Maori didn't figure so highly in crime stats. If non-Maori were the prime culprits to suffer under this sentencing system I don't think you'd hear a peep from them.

[p.dath]

So you are saying that you believe increasing punishments for speeding dramatically (ie to prison sentances) would dramatically reduce the number of runners? Because that's the same logic. And I know that if I were going to go to jail when I saw lights behind me while doing 20ks over the limit I'd think twice about pulling over.

Over a longer time frame, yes, it would reduce the numebr of runners. I think you would find that less and less people would get themselves to the 2nd strike because of the severe consequences. And some runners might get away, but if you assume on the whole the majority get caught and put away for a long time then they will not have an opportunity to do a runner for a long time.

Not that I condone three strikes for speeding offences ...


Hate to break it to you, but back in the days of public excecution there was a shitload more crime. Yes, I am aware that this has more to do with society back then vs society now, but strict punishment does not always equal less crime. In 'spur of the moment' crimes/crimes of passion, the offender isn't thinking about the senence at all; many premeditated crimes are commited by people who feel they have no choice, or think they're god and won't be caught, or are high on drugs and just aren't thinking full stop.

I think you would be hard pressed to come up with violent crime statistics for the period of time when there was public executions. Hell if I new I could be executed for an activity I would think twice about doing it!

[scumdog]

The Maori party is appalled....

Then they had better start talking a lot of those that voted for them/who they stand for into behaving in a more lawful manner than present.

But maybe they're appaled because it will show how little they have actually done to prevent so many Maori ending up in prison so often..:whistle:

[Milts]

Over a longer time frame, yes, it would reduce the numebr of runners. I think you would find that less and less people would get themselves to the 2nd strike because of the severe consequences. And some runners might get away, but if you assume on the whole the majority get caught and put away for a long time then they will not have an opportunity to do a runner for a long time.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree here. If the options are "pull over and go to jail for life, do a runner and maybe get caught and go to jail for life OR maybe get away", I think the choice is pretty clear. Once people have nothing to lose they will do all sorts of stupid shit. Obviously I'm not suggesting life sentences for doing a runner, it just seemed like a... relevant example to use to show my point. It's not only the fact that people are more inclined to run, or that more people will feel inclined to run; it's that when they do they'll be more desperate, more reckless, and more violent in there attempts to avoid arrest.


I think you would be hard pressed to come up with violent crime statistics for the period of time when there was public executions. Hell if I new I could be executed for an activity I would think twice about doing it!

Would you disagree that the wild west, where public hangings were one of the major forms of punnishment (as well as just getting shot, or beaten up by the sheriffs) would qualify as a society with strict punishments?
http://volokh.com/posts/1188076990.shtml
There are several people who disagree with this guy but none of them seem nearly as well researched. Also, if I were a crack addict, I doubt I'd think twice about anything, regardless of punishment.

Boris, I'll have to take your word for your experience with judges. All I can say is that there have been very few stories I've read and seen the punishment handed out by a judge and gone "that makes no sense at all!".

[Headbanger]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree here. If the options are "pull over and go to jail for life, do a runner and maybe get caught and go to jail for life OR maybe get away", I think the choice is pretty clear. Once people have nothing to lose they will do all sorts of stupid shit. Obviously I'm not suggesting life sentences for doing a runner, it just seemed like a... relevant example to use to show my point. It's not only the fact that people are more inclined to run, or that more people will feel inclined to run; it's that when they do they'll be more desperate, more reckless, and more violent in there attempts to avoid arrest.
.

All chases should be to the death.

[BoristheBiter]

Boris, I'll have to take your word for your experience with judges. All I can say is that there have been very few stories I've read and seen the punishment handed out by a judge and gone "that makes no sense at all!".

You must not watch the news then.
1)dog bites kid, gay owner gets 3 months jail, dog bites kid lady gets off with warning.
2) Burtin is allowed out at all WTF!

The list is endless with crap handed down by judges so put them away for ever. end of story.
if you think that going to jail for speeding or traffic offences is wrong try tell that to familys who have just lost someone to these people.

[Headbanger]

The violent offenders should be given lodgings with the Judge who sentenced them upon release, And defense lawyers should be locked up with their clients.

That will sort it, No one will waste time and money defending them, and the Judges won't ever let them out.

[Milts]

You must not watch the news then.
1)dog bites kid, gay owner gets 3 months jail, dog bites kid lady gets off with warning.
2) Burtin is allowed out at all WTF!

The list is endless with crap handed down by judges so put them away for ever. end of story.
if you think that going to jail for speeding or traffic offences is wrong try tell that to familys who have just lost someone to these people.

I'm sure there are inconsistencies with sentencing. It's next to impossible to have a completely uniform system, and some rulings won't make sense. But the only way to solve it would be to remove all the judges you disagree with and replace them with judges you think are correct. And what puts you in the position to make that call?
And I said I didn't support people going to jail FOR LIFE for traffic offences, sure some may warrant prison. But I am very strongly against laws or sentences being set on the grounds of 'but think of the families of the victims'. If someone I cared about was killed by a speeding driver, I would be the last person you should go to for advice on sentencing, because I would be emotional and irrational.
Also, here's the opinions of several legal and criminal experts on the new legislation.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3243404/Opposition-to-Govts-three-strikes-sentencing-policy

Interesting to note that under this law, Burton would (now) be out of jail sooner than under the current law (preventative detention).
Sure, this could be addressed by making the third strike a mandatory life sentence, but doing so assumes that there is zero chance of rehabilitation or reform. I'm sure that sometimes that's true, but it's not always the case. Especially if you widen the list of offences which qualify; in some states in the USA, drug charges count as a strike. You can't tell me that someone who was caught selling weed to his mates three times can never be rehabilitated into society.

[mashman]

How does the current law stand in regards to past crimes? I seem to remember in the UK that previous convictions and warnings, both related to and unrelated to the crime being "tried" are not allowed to be used as evidence? I always found that was what really bound the judges hands. I know there's the odd judge that fookin useless, he read the books and is a soft arsed liberal by choice, heart of gold, just wants to please people, but in general the judges i've heard about (media and through family members) are pretty much spot on with their sentencing. Yet although a defence is allowed to bring up and use the socialisation of an individual as an excuse to plea for leniency, the common problem was that judges never got to "try" someone with a prosecution that could use a criminals prior history to get the full picture of an individual, irrespective of how good his english was. I would have thought that this would allow a judge to freely hand out much more severe sentences... there's always the way a person was socialised quelling the length of the sentence and i've never really been able to understand that. Sorry for the waffle, but on the whole i believe that judges are doing about the best that they can given what they have.

[Headbanger]

If someone I cared about was killed by a speeding driver, I would be the last person you should go to for advice on sentencing, because I would be emotional and irrational.



A person in that position would be the perfect person to have an input into sentencing.

I'd be happy to load the gun for them.

That aside, People should be charged with murder or manslaughter when they kill people with their car, I cant see much difference between driving your car on the wrong side of the road and firing a gun into a crowd.

[scumdog]

How does the current law stand in regards to past crimes? I seem to remember in the UK that previous convictions and warnings, both related to and unrelated to the crime being "tried" are not allowed to be used as evidence? I always found that was what really bound the judges hands.

Few crimes can have previous convictions used in evidence against somebody - BUT the judge bases his sentencing on the number of previous offences the idiot on front of him has. (Or is meant to take them into account)

"Ah, yes Mr Winebotle, sixth time for drink driving eh? Well I'm going to give you one final warning, you may well be putting your liberty at risk should you appear on a another drink-driving charge".

[BoristheBiter]

I'm sure there are inconsistencies with sentencing. It's next to impossible to have a completely uniform system, and some rulings won't make sense. But the only way to solve it would be to remove all the judges you disagree with and replace them with judges you think are correct. And what puts you in the position to make that call?
And I said I didn't support people going to jail FOR LIFE for traffic offences, sure some may warrant prison. But I am very strongly against laws or sentences being set on the grounds of 'but think of the families of the victims'. If someone I cared about was killed by a speeding driver, I would be the last person you should go to for advice on sentencing, because I would be emotional and irrational.
Also, here's the opinions of several legal and criminal experts on the new legislation.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3243404/Opposition-to-Govts-three-strikes-sentencing-policy

Interesting to note that under this law, Burton would (now) be out of jail sooner than under the current law (preventative detention).
Sure, this could be addressed by making the third strike a mandatory life sentence, but doing so assumes that there is zero chance of rehabilitation or reform. I'm sure that sometimes that's true, but it's not always the case. Especially if you widen the list of offences which qualify; in some states in the USA, drug charges count as a strike. You can't tell me that someone who was caught selling weed to his mates three times can never be rehabilitated into society.

We will just have to agaree to disagree on this one.
I would not take into account what "legal and criminal experts" have to say as they are just looking out for them selves.
i'm not to bothered about speeders but repeat drink drivers should go away for life and if you are dumb enough to be caught three time for dope selling then that s just to bad.
as for burton preventative detention is what he should have got in the first place (again crap sentance) then he wouldn't have been out to kill that guy in Wellington.

[p.dath]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree here. If the options are "pull over and go to jail for life, do a runner and maybe get caught and go to jail for life OR maybe get away", I think the choice is pretty clear.

Your saying that if it gets to that point that will be the consequence. I'm saying with the consequence being so high that less people would get themselves into that situation, hence less runners overall. So to marry the two, I think there would be far fewer runners, but of those that do get to the third ocassion, a greater majority of them would try.

Since the overall effect is a reduction, I still support three strikes for violent crime.

[mashman]

Few crimes can have previous convictions used in evidence against somebody - BUT the judge bases his sentencing on the number of previous offences the idiot on front of him has. (Or is meant to take them into account)

"Ah, yes Mr Winebotle, sixth time for drink driving eh? Well I'm going to give you one final warning, you may well be putting your liberty at risk should you appear on a another drink-driving charge".

Tnahks for the clarification and potentially inspiration. I've had an idea... granted it may not a good idea... but... why not implement a points system for crimes... jail time apportioned by the points you accumulate, but without them ever being able to be withdrawn. Then the sentence goes up irrespective of the plea entered. A second offence in the same "genre" of crime causing the points gained for the crime you're being tried for being doubled, 3rd time trebbled etc... To me this would seem a fairer option, especially when previous crimes are not really taken into account at times.

As for what happens when you lose your licence. Personally i'm up for the hanging sidef of things. If you can accumulate that many points then you have no right to be here. It's not just the physical dammage that gets me, it's the mental stress that people are put under following a crime against them. Granted some of us will harden the fuck up and get on with life... but there are those that don't and the current system is not representing them fairly.

So a points system anyone?

[p.dath]

Tnahks for the clarification and potentially inspiration. I've had an idea... granted it may not a good idea... but... why not implement a points system for crimes... jail time apportioned by the points you accumulate, but without them ever being able to be withdrawn. Then the sentence goes up irrespective of the plea entered. A second offence in the same "genre" of crime causing the points gained for the crime you're being tried for being doubled, 3rd time trebbled etc... To me this would seem a fairer option, especially when previous crimes are not really taken into account at times.

I don't want to spend tens of millions of dollars administering a system to track those who repeat so frequently.

It's pretty simple really. If you don't want the maximum sentence, don't commit a violent offence three times.

EDIT: You speak of "fair". Consider the victims of these violent crimes. Imagine how they feel knowing if the person had been kept in jail they would not have been violently hurt. Think about the victims family. Think about their friends. Just put the repeat attackers in jail. Leave them there for the maximum sentence.

[mashman]

I don't want to spend tens of millions of dollars administering a system to track those who repeat so frequently.

It's pretty simple really. If you don't want the maximum sentence, don't commit a violent offence three times.

EDIT: You speak of "fair". Consider the victims of these violent crimes. Imagine how they feel knowing if the person had been kept in jail they would not have been violently hurt. Think about the victims family. Think about their friends. Just put the repeat attackers in jail. Leave them there for the maximum sentence.

Not tracking them as in hunting them down... I'd rather spend the money on a system that works. It'll cost you a mill to put in at most. The hardware is already there, you'd just need a VERY simple system to keep track of a person and how many points they have, nothing more nothing less... why over complicate matters by adding functionality to existing software (read fuckin expensive), it's not like a system that holds points really needs much information.

And I was thinking about the families, first and foremost. I would venture that a system that essentially rates criminals would be a much better indicator of that persons life of crime. Therefore they'll hopefully be off the streets before turning into the "mindless" criminal and promoting their activities to incorporate violence. I fully understand that there's a mental trauma involved in house breaking (just an example), where nothing is damaged, but things are taken, more than just the victims will be affected (family, friends), i kinda mentioned that in my second paragraph.

[Badjelly]

get rid of the parole period is my opinion. if they're sentanced to 20 years - make them stay for 20 years, not get released in 5 so they can re-offend.

OK, so here's an idea. Someone's committed a serious crime and deserves to spend 20 years in prison? How about making the total length of the sentence 25 years? Then, at 20 years, unless they've behaved very badly, let them out to spend the last 5 years of the sentence on supervised release, with the understanding that if they don't behave they go straight back in to serve the rest of the sentence in prison. This has a several advantages: an incentive to good behaviour while in prison; an even stronger incentive to good behaviour while out on supervised release; fewer formalities involved in putting them back in prison if necessary. A good idea, no?

We need a name for this supervised release. I know, how about "parole"?

[p.dath]

And I was thinking about the families, first and foremost. I would venture that a system that essentially rates criminals would be a much better indicator of that persons life of crime. Therefore they'll hopefully be off the streets before turning into the "mindless" criminal and promoting their activities to incorporate violence. I fully understand that there's a mental trauma involved in house breaking (just an example), where nothing is damaged, but things are taken, more than just the victims will be affected (family, friends), i kinda mentioned that in my second paragraph.

I subscribe to the "do the crime do the time" mantra. I don't want to make it easier for criminals when it comes to sentencing.

[mashman]

I subscribe to the "do the crime do the time" mantra. I don't want to make it easier for criminals when it comes to sentencing.

I subscribe to that same mantra too, which is why i'm dismayed at the thought of previous crimes not being considered when sentencing. Hence the reason i thought a points system would only help a judge in the sentencing, points being awarded and kept on your record, the more points you have, the more likely you'll get a longer sentence... it's not a fully fleshed out idea, bit hard to do that given an hours notice. Was just floating the idea, which is looking more like a Zeppelin

[scumdog]

I subscribe to that same mantra too, which is why i'm dismayed at the thought of previous crimes not being considered when sentencing.

Go back a few posts and look at my comment on that. (post #53)

Or has one of us not understood?

[mashman]

Go back a few posts and look at my comment on that. (post #53)

Or has one of us not understood?

it's probably my interpretation... I thought you were saying that not all crimes are allowed to have previous convictions brought into the current case being "tried". Apoligies if you meant something entirely different

but it gave me the inspiration for the points system. I'm trying to get around the "Few crimes can have previous convictions used in evidence against somebody" (but why the fuck should they if he's a criminal), by giving the criminal points for ALL of his crimes, and hence helping the judge out so that he doesn't just have to "base his sentencing on the number of previous offences the idiot on front of him has". Hopefully a points system will reflect the gravity of each crime commited by taking into account the other points that other judges have awarded, without having to judge those previous cases, because they've already been dealt with and rated... if ya see what i mean.

[sinfull]

The REPEAT violent offenders should be given lodgings with the Judge who sentenced them upon release, And defense lawyers should be locked up with their clients.

That will sort it, No one will waste time and money defending them, and the Judges won't ever let them out.Fixed that for ya ! But violence is violence ! I won't admit to being a saint and i have been known to be a brawler ! But i aint a violent offender, i'd hate to think i would have to live with the judge who sentanced me, after doing something as stupid as cracking some cunt who attacked me, a bit too hard and got 5 yrs for involentary manslaughter !~


We will just have to agaree to disagree on this one.
I would not take into account what "legal and criminal experts" have to say as they are just looking out for them selves.
i'm not to bothered about speeders but repeat drink drivers should go away for life and if you are dumb enough to be caught three time for dope selling then that s just to bad.
as for burton preventative detention is what he should have got in the first place (again crap sentance) then he wouldn't have been out to kill that guy in Wellington. You forget Burton wanted back in to prison, he had it so sweet in there, must be a bit harder to climb to the top with just one leg though aye !


it's probably my interpretation... I thought you were saying that not all crimes are allowed to have previous convictions brought into the current case being "tried". Apoligies if you meant something entirely different

but it gave me the inspiration for the points system. I'm trying to get around the "Few crimes can have previous convictions used in evidence against somebody" (but why the fuck should they if he's a criminal), by giving the criminal points for ALL of his crimes, and hence helping the judge out so that he doesn't just have to "base his sentencing on the number of previous offences the idiot on front of him has". Hopefully a points system will reflect the gravity of each crime commited by taking into account the other points that other judges have awarded, without having to judge those previous cases, because they've already been dealt with and rated... if ya see what i mean.
I friggin like that idea ya have with the points system, (prob cause of my squeaky clean slate) but it's a known fact offences grow in seriousness do they not ? Someone who gets a rush out of beating up a dog will prob move on to beating a defenceless old lady one day, do you not think ? (my opinion anyway)

A demerit system may just stem the tide of violent reoffending !

[SPman]

I friggin like that idea ya have with the points system, (prob cause of my squeaky clean slate) but it's a known fact offences grow in seriousness do they not ? Someone who gets a rush out of beating up a dog will prob move on to beating a defenceless old lady one day, do you not think ? (my opinion anyway)

A demerit system may just stem the tide of violent reoffending ! Sort of like a biker who offends by being 10 k over, just gets worse and worse and ends up killing Mabel and her 3 kids by acts of outrageous hoonishness........?

[Headbanger]

A Christchurch judge has taken a swing at the new "three strikes and the max'' criminal justice policy the Government is about to put in place.
Christchurch District Court Judge David Saunders had an offender with a long record in the dock on a burglary charge.
But he was concerned that the proposed law change could lead to an unavoidable 10-year jail term for what looked to be a minor offence.
The 29-year-old unemployed Northcote man was seeking bail and the judge granted it in spite of the police opposition.
They pointed out the man had 65 previous convictions including burglary, robbery, armed robbery, and wounding.
Today, the man was charged with entering Christchurch District Council's dog pound with intent to commit a crime.
Fuck me, and some would have us believe that Judges are acting in the will of the people.

65 times convicted, whats the bet he's been "caught" 100's of times, and got away with shit 1000's of times. This fuck should just be taken out the back and shot. Obvuisly this dumb fuck cock-smoking judge has no clue as to what a minor offender is.

If some filthy piece of scum enters my property, fucks with my shit, That,s a major, I'd want blood.

Lock him up with the judge and have people line up to piss on them around the clock..

[wbks]

Fuck me, and some would have us believe that Judges are acting in the will of the people.

65 times convicted, whats the bet he's been "caught" 100's of times, and got away with shit 1000's of times. This fuck should just be taken out the back and shot. Obvuisly this dumb fuck cock-smoking judge has no clue as to what a minor offender is.

If some filthy piece of scum enters my property, fucks with my shit, That,s a major, I'd want blood.

Lock him up with the judge and have people line up to piss on them around the clock..For some reason judges seem to deal out more sympathy than punishment. Maybe it's because with such a large paycheck, them (and their families) are usually pretty safe from the criminals the sentence, in their upper class housing and neighborhoods, never feeling the effects of repeat offenders. That is the only reason I can see for the plebs to be baying for blood so often while the judges are more concerned with giving them another chance or freeing up a room in the Hilton. I read in the paper today about a dude who shot his 8 year old daughter in the foot and burned her with a ciggarette and the judge gave him 4 months... That wouldn't be enough in one of those third world lock ups where prisoners fight each other for scraps of food to survive and try not to get killed, and surely not in one of NZ's prisons

[Genestho]

Haven't kept up with the news since the hol's started, some of you may, or may not know there was a push back in July? for a revisit of the original bill, but I believe this had already passed through select commitee.

I'm not sure where it got to.

It's not going to fix everything, it's not designed to, but it is designed to keep the recidivist VIOLENT offenders away from the community and maybe prevent a murder or two.

Some people just cannot be rehabilitated.

There's been quite a few bills passed this year by Simon Powers regarding Law and Order...so they are chipping away at it. Not like that other bunch, had to laugh at Goff's comments today, I know it's the usual opposition smack talk, but please - what a joke!:weird: They didn't bother coming up with much themselves in 9 years!
The onus is on the Judges and Politicians to make it work!

[Hitcher]

For some reason judges seem to deal out more sympathy than punishment. Maybe it's because with such a large paycheck, them (and their families) are usually pretty safe from the criminals the sentence, in their upper class housing and neighborhoods, never feeling the effects of repeat offenders. That is the only reason I can see for the plebs to be baying for blood so often while the judges are more concerned with giving them another chance or freeing up a room in the Hilton. I read in the paper today about a dude who shot his 8 year old daughter in the foot and burned her with a ciggarette and the judge gave him 4 months... That wouldn't be enough in one of those third world lock ups where prisoners fight each other for scraps of food to survive and try not to get killed, and surely not in one of NZ's prisons
Nonsense. Judges make sentencing decisions based on a range of issues, not just based on what the charges are. If there are extenuating circumstances, I would like judges to be able to take those into consideration. Otherwise what's the point of having them?

[wbks]

Nonsense. Judges make sentencing decisions based on a range of issues, not just based on what the charges are. If there are extenuating circumstances, I would like judges to be able to take those into consideration. Otherwise what's the point of having them?Nonsense? How? Judges constantly give out bullshit sentances to people who show no sign of rehabilitation, and go out to commit violent crime within months, and in my experience, within days. They DO make decisions based on a range of issues, but those issues aren't public safety or justice

[Headbanger]

For some reason judges seem to deal out more sympathy than punishment.

My theory is they see so much of the offenders that they get immune to the real word effects of the offenders actions ( a bit like a nurse, Some seem to view a patients extreme pain as nothing, not even there) and all they see is the person in front of them, and for some fucked up reaon instead of laying waste with some worthwhile punishment seek to give them (yet another) break.

A person has to work really hard at being a shitbag before they will lock him up.

[oldrider]

For some reason judges seem to deal out more sympathy than punishment.

Simple answer:

Without crime and criminal's, society wouldn't need judges and criminal lawyers, why would they kick their own rice bowl? :shifty:

[RocKai]

Ok, how hard is it for a two-times killer with a long criminal history to find job? A career criminal deserve a career prison terms. I wish we could hang them all. 3 times killer is bad enough, no one could have accidentally murdered 3 times in their life and to have 20 years prison term.

Hell, in Viet Nam I've seen kids who are 16 had to have life imprisonment when they first murder. The lightest I've seen is over-18 husband killer to have 12 years without parole and that's because the asshole is a demented prick who always harass and maritally-rape her in 10 years. Shoot the bastard.

[RocKai]

Can we add a poll on this one, just to see how many people support or against it.

[Badjelly]

Can we add a poll on this one, just to see how many people support or against it.

Would it be a requirement that you actually know what the proposed law says before you vote?

[BoristheBiter]

Would it be a requirement that you actually know what the proposed law says before you vote?

No, Why start now

[ukusa]

Can we add a poll on this one, just to see how many people support or against it.

Poll added

[Waxxa]

3 stikes= you go onto a chain-gang, I reckon.

dont let these guys sit around idle so they can think of what shit they can cause. Work the guts out of them and they will be too damn tired to think...

[Pascal]

3 stikes= you go onto a chain-gang, I reckon.

dont let these guys sit around idle so they can think of what shit they can cause. Work the guts out of them and they will be too damn tired to think...

First strike should do that already. By the time their first sentence is up they should be gagging to get back into normal society and be doing anything and everything to avoid prison.

[mashman]

Fixed that for ya ! But violence is violence ! I won't admit to being a saint and i have been known to be a brawler ! But i aint a violent offender, i'd hate to think i would have to live with the judge who sentanced me, after doing something as stupid as cracking some cunt who attacked me, a bit too hard and got 5 yrs for involentary manslaughter !~ :shit::shit::shit::shit::shit::shit::shit::shit::s hit::shit: that sounds plain wrong!




I friggin like that idea ya have with the points system, (prob cause of my squeaky clean slate) but it's a known fact offences grow in seriousness do they not ? Someone who gets a rush out of beating up a dog will prob move on to beating a defenceless old lady one day, do you not think ? (my opinion anyway)

A demerit system may just stem the tide of violent reoffending !

It certainly seems to be the consensus in the world of behavioural science, could be worth a go. Just need a politician to take it on... in fact fuck it, i'll set up it after afternoon tea...

[oldrider]

First strike should do that already. By the time their first sentence is up they should be gagging to get back into normal society and be doing anything and everything to avoid prison.

True! (+10 bloody charactors).

[MisterD]

Nonsense. Judges make sentencing decisions based on a range of issues, not just based on what the charges are. If there are extenuating circumstances, I would like judges to be able to take those into consideration. Otherwise what's the point of having them?

Which is a fair enough point...but what we don't need are namby pamby liberal tossers trying to thwart the clearly expressed will of parliament.