Life is cheap

[RDJ]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/69623051/arun-kumar-trial-jury-find-one-teen-guilty-of-manslaughter

My sympathies to his family. The ferals who murdered him basically get off close to scot-free... Lots of excuses as always, no responsibility. The instigator is basically being set free to kill again. The accomplice will be out in a few years.

And as always, again, the justice system = the lawyers and the judges, lets down the victims in favour of feeling good about themselves because they feel sorry for the aggressors.

[Katman]

And as always, again, the justice system = the lawyers and the judges, lets down the victims in favour of feeling good about themselves because they feel sorry for the aggressors.

You seem to be forgetting that the ultimate decision came down to a jury of our peers.

The judge and the lawyers didn't hand out the verdict.

[JimO]

from what i have heard the boys parents should have been in the dock with them

[oldrider]

You seem to be forgetting that the ultimate decision comes down to a jury of our peers.

The judge and the lawyers didn't hand out the verdict.

Judges and lawyers are like rabbit boards - they depend on their charges!

Didn't see much about the make-up of the jury this time though did we? - useless jury system IMHO! :weird:

[RDJ]

You seem to be forgetting that the ultimate decision came down to a jury of our peers.

The judge and the lawyers didn't hand out the verdict.

I am not forgetting that at all. Juries take direction and cues from the judge & the lawyers. The consistent elements of the legal system are the police, the prosecutors, the judge and the lawyers. Juries come and go.

[RDJ]

I need a reality check. I am debating with Katman? what a waste of time and oxygen. I'll put it down to working a nightshift and move on. Thread, begone.

[Katman]

Juries come and go.

After discharging their duty of handing down a verdict.

[Katman]

I need a reality check. I am debating with Katman?

Hey, I'm just pointing out your mistakes.

You could learn something or you could sulk.

Your choice.

[mada]

The parents should be on trial.

Was always going to be hard for Police to prove intent to murder. Thoughts go out to the family, who would not really receive justice even if the sentence was longer.

West Auckland certainly a lot more violent than South these days and only appears to be getting worse.

[Katman]

Thoughts go out to the family, who would not really receive justice even if the sentence was longer.


What sentence?

[mada]

What sentence?

If kid had been found guilty of murder opposed to manslaughter = longer stint in jail.

[caseye]

No mention of sentence yet!
Licence to kill?
Just be young,,abused from birth and oh yeah make sure your doctor is an apologist whitey.
Fuck sake.
We are allowing children to make more children without teaching the first ones right/wrong/ good/bad, what do we expect?
Drugs, Time, motive, Greed,access to weapons of almost any sort, Attitude(they've got it!, I/we want it) and worst of all, acceptance that this has happened in our communities and the perpetrators always get away scott free ( near enough) have all combined to make these little killers believe they're beyond our Bullshit Justice system.
Tell you what, odds are that from this day forward many more dairy owners will become adept at using whatever weapons they have at their disposal. Then what?
Dairy owner fights back, innocent, poor, abused kid slaughtered on the street by enraged ( rightfully so) shop owner?
Had that been the outcome in this case my money is firmly on the poor bloody dead guy going to jail for picking on a couple of innocent nice young lads from the hood, who were just a bit P'd out and really had no idea that fronting a dairy owner with a knife was going to end in tears because they're too young to know that!
Parents and killers, brick wall.
No more wasted time effort and taxpayers money going down the toilet for the next 60 years while we look after them in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

[EJK]

Get caught at the airport with some drugs in your shoe sole and you get 15 - 18 years in jail (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/69519338/woodvillebased-nigerian-drug-smuggler-gets-18-years-in-prison).

Rob and murder someone at knife point and you get a jail free card.

New Zealand Justice #1.

[husaberg]

You seem to be forgetting that the ultimate decision came down to a jury of our peers.

The judge and the lawyers didn't hand out the verdict.

Judges decide what evidence is admissible, lawyers decide what charges will be laid and what deals will be done.
Jurors weigh up the evidence that is presented to them with instructions from the Judge as to what to consider and what to put aside.
As RDJ said though, this is Katman logic does not need apply.

[Katman]

Jurors weigh up the evidence that is presented to them with instructions from the Judge as to what to consider and what to put aside.


Judges are not permitted to 'lead' a jury.

[husaberg]

Judges are not permitted to 'lead' a jury.

Judges instruct a jury.

[Katman]

Judges instruct a jury.

They do not instruct the jury as to what their verdict should be.

They are not even allowed to 'imply' what they think the verdict should be.

[husaberg]

You seem to be forgetting that the ultimate decision came down to a jury of our peers.
The judge and the lawyers didn't hand out the verdict.

I am not forgetting that at all. Juries take direction and cues from the judge & the lawyers. The consistent elements of the legal system are the police, the prosecutors, the judge and the lawyers. Juries come and go.

I need a reality check. I am debating with Katman? what a waste of time and oxygen. .

Hey, I'm just pointing out your mistakes.
You could learn something or you could sulk.
Your choice.

Judges decide what evidence is admissible, lawyers decide what charges will be laid and what deals will be done.
Jurors weigh up the evidence that is presented to them with instructions from the Judge as to what to consider and what to put aside.
As RDJ said though, this is Katman logic does not need apply.

Judges are not permitted to 'lead' a jury.

Judges instruct a jury.

They do not instruct the jury as to what their verdict should be.
They are not even allowed to 'imply' what they think the verdict should be.

Judges decide what evidence is admissible, lawyers decide what charges will be laid and what deals will be done.
Jurors weigh up the evidence that is presented to them with instructions from the Judge as to what to consider and what to put aside.
As RDJ said though, this is Katman logic does not need apply.

Katman, You would have to be completely fucking brain dead......... each one of your posts is clear evidence that you father should have had a wank rather than a fuck.

[mada]

Get caught at the airport with some drugs in your shoe sole and you get 15 - 18 years in jail (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/69519338/woodvillebased-nigerian-drug-smuggler-gets-18-years-in-prison).

Rob and murder someone at knife point and you get a jail free card.

New Zealand Justice #1.

A lot of murders are related to meth though - which is why it should attract a stiff sentence. (not defending the low sentences dished out for manslaughter).

Problem with NZ's justice system regarding homicide is there is only three options - not guilty, manslaughter, and murder.

Manslaughter doesn't give much lee way when it comes to recognising the difference between someone who killed unintentionally thinking that their actions were unlikely to cause death/grievous bodily harm - like the naval rating who knocked out the Indian fella in town with one hit - the victim then hit his head and died, compared to those who do know their actions have high probability eg. taking a fucking knife and stabbing someone. Murder is clear in that an intention to kill needs to be proven. Sentencing will probably reflect the difference. But they really need to change the offences, and be like the States in terms of having 1st degree murder, 2nd degree etc. And there needs to be a lot more heavier sentences for premeditated violence in general - as most the time when people survive but victims are left brain damaged, handicapped, whatever, offenders get a slap on the wrist.

[Katman]

Katman, You would have to be completely fucking brain dead......... each one of your posts is clear evidence that you father should have had a wank rather than a fuck.

Don't worry cunt - we'll come face to face one day.

[husaberg]

Don't worry cunt - we'll come face to face one day.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/004108985/Talking-themselves-into-being-bigger-and-scarier-127406904007_xlarge.jpeg


313037

here's my boots..... you will note I are not quaking inside them.

Ps I don't think being able to see you, could make you appear any smarter.

[jasonu]

Don't worry cunt - we'll come face to face one day.

Bring your GoPro and post the video here.

[The Reibz]

KB Scrapz vol one. I'll organise a venue and some kegs...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10695705
My old lady knows this woman. Shot her husband and got 12 months home d.

[oldrider]

KB Scrapz vol one. I'll organise a venue and some kegs...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10695705
My old lady knows this woman. Shot her husband and got 12 months home d.

Hmmmm - mixed emotions on this one - would need to know a lot more actual fact to be able to even consider merit of judgement! :scratch:

Sounds extremely sad to live life like that - there must have been some happiness somewhere along the line surely! - Interesting post Reibz. :yes:

[Mike.Gayner]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10695705
My old lady knows this woman. Shot her husband and got 12 months home d.

That's......not quite as clear cut as you're trying to make it sound.


She killed her husband with a single shotgun blast after he threw a bottle of spirits at her, tried to throttle her and told her "I'll gut you like a fish".

[MD]

from what i have heard the boys parents should have been in the dock with them

In DomPost today it seems the father was already behind bars. He's been held in custody since 2013 for a vicious mongrel mob home invasion.

More proof that we need sterilisation of these violent crims and evil bludgers that prey on society, all the while living of the good will of the very society they attack (Tax payers for one). Dompost said the father had 10 kids all requiring CYF upbringing. Just how much money has the state wasted on this tribe so far? And the next generation, and the one after that becuase it's very unlikely they will turn out hard working law abiding good samaritans. If each spits out 10 kids we will be supporting 1000 violent budgers within 30 odd years from this one crim.

I feel for the victims family. The jury has victimised them again and should be charged with inflicting cruelty and punishment on others.

[swarfie]

In the Stuff article it stated that the grandmother of the 13 year old (that it looks like, got off scot free) had strung up a rope from a tree in her back yard and tried to commit suicide....shame the little cooont didn't succeed.
Another case of wet lettuce/slap on wrist by our "justice" system. It SUCKS :brick:
Gotta feel bloody sorry for the Kumar family for sure.

[Banditbandit]

If kid had been found guilty of murder opposed to manslaughter = longer stint in jail.

That is not necessarily true - the maximum sentence for manslaughter is Life ... Dean Wickcliffe, originally convicted of murder after the shop owner was shot and killed during a robbery, appealed his conviction, arguing he had no intention to kill, had it reduced to manslaughter (the case is quite similar) but was still sentenced to Life in Prison ...

1) The jury made the decision and brought in their verdict.

2) No-one here was in court to here ALL the evidence and arguments.

3) The Judge has yet to sentence - and he can sentence up to Life ...

As to the 13-year-old ...

Go here

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/human-rights/international-human-rights-instruments/international-human-rights-instruments-1/convention-against-torture/united-nations-convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrding-treatment-or-punishment-new-zealand-periodic-report-6/article-11/20-age-of-criminal-responsibility




The Crimes Act 1961 sets the age of criminal responsibility in New Zealand at 10 years of age. Children aged 10-14 years old are open to a very narrow range of criminal charges, and very few end up facing prosecution in a youth or adult court. Most offending by children is dealt with under the care and protection jurisdiction of the Family Court, where the welfare of the child is the main concern. Criminal Courts focus on accountability rather than welfare.

He's a child ...

[Tazz]

2) No-one here was in court to here ALL the evidence and arguments.


Hear, hear!

What's the world coming to when a citizen cannot rob another citizen without them getting in the way, causing the need for said robber citizen to have to 'defend' themselves, with a knife they just happen to have (it's for opening letters, honest). Outrageous!

If anything the dead mans family should be charged with obstructing the course of burglary. How dare they.

And what's more, stabbing is not even a big deal. It's like a 'sup' between friends. No malicious intent at all!

Pip pip!

[RDJ]

That is not necessarily true - the maximum sentence for manslaughter is Life ...

Manslaughter does not fit the crime. Killing a person with a lethal weapon during the commission of a crime is murder and should always be treated as murder. Manslaughter is, "well, your honor, I didn't intend to kill him". What was the knife for then? (Rhetorical question).

Poor Mr Kumar's family. They get victimized twice. They get a life sentence without their husband / father. The ferals who killed him will be living, and often enjoying, their lives long after Mr Kumar is a fading memory to all but his family.

Remember the RSA killer Bell? He will be out in 17 years. He "didn't intend to kill" either. He was on probation for a previous violent offence. 3 of his 4 victims are dead (one remains horribly crippled).

[husaberg]

Robbery in NZ allows for sentences up to 14 years. But cold comfort to the family of the guy who was killed though

235 Aggravated robbery
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who—
(a) robs any person and, at the time of, or immediately before or immediately after, the robbery, causes grievous bodily harm to any person; or
(b) being together with any other person or persons, robs any person; or
(c) being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument, robs any other person.
Compare: 1961 No 43 s 235
Section 235: replaced, on 1 October 2003, by section 15 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 39).

236 Assault with intent to rob
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to rob any person,—
(a) causes grievous bodily harm to that person or any other person; or
(b) being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument, assaults that person or any other person; or
(c) being together with any other person or persons, assaults that person or any other person.
(2) Every one who assaults any person with intent to rob that person or any other person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

[TheDemonLord]

Manslaughter does not fit the crime. Killing a person with a lethal weapon during the commission of a crime is murder and should always be treated as murder. Manslaughter is, "well, your honor, I didn't intend to kill him". What was the knife for then? (Rhetorical question).

Without reference to the rest of the thread - I do believe that there is a subtle difference (from a legal point of view) between the two.

The first subtle difference is intent - in order for it to be Murder, you have to have meant to kill someone.

Now for me personally - I don't always agree with this mindset, for example if you drink and drive and kill someone, we all agree that you may not have any intent (how can you, when it is most likely you do not know the victim) so legally, it isn't murder (I think vehicular Manslaughter is the charge?) but I don't think this should be correct - IMO it is Murder.

The next subtle difference is that the law allows for actions commited in the spur of the moment:

you go into a store with the sole intention to steal, you take a weapon to make it easier (now there is a point to be made about never pulling a weapon unless you intend to use it, but this isn't a legal principle) during the robbery you get into a scuffle with someone and in the Melee, you cut a major artery with the knife (which is possible to do when you are both struggling)

The law accepts that whilst you have killed the victim it was not your intent and nor was it something that was consciously done or something where the result was the desired one.

I'm not saying that the law is right - in some instances it is, in others I think it isn't - but at the moment it is the bench mark that we have.

[Banditbandit]

Manslaughter does not fit the crime. Killing a person with a lethal weapon during the commission of a crime is murder and should always be treated as murder. Manslaughter is, "well, your honor, I didn't intend to kill him". What was the knife for then? (Rhetorical question).

Poor Mr Kumar's family. They get victimized twice. They get a life sentence without their husband / father. The ferals who killed him will be living, and often enjoying, their lives long after Mr Kumar is a fading memory to all but his family.

Remember the RSA killer Bell? He will be out in 17 years. He "didn't intend to kill" either. He was on probation for a previous violent offence. 3 of his 4 victims are dead (one remains horribly crippled).

Yes - I agree with TDL .. the current law says that intent to kill must be present for someone to be convicted of murder ... clearly, the prosecution could not prove intent to kill.

Now, I also don't necessarily accept that either - but that is the current law.

[Daffyd]

The law is an ass... If you go on to somebody else's premises to commit a crime and you arm yourself with a lethal weapon, in my view there is intent!

[caseye]

That is not necessarily true - the maximum sentence for manslaughter is Life ... Dean Wickcliffe, originally convicted of murder after the shop owner was shot and killed during a robbery, appealed his conviction, arguing he had no intention to kill, had it reduced to manslaughter (the case is quite similar) but was still sentenced to Life in Prison ...

1) The jury made the decision and brought in their verdict.

2) No-one here was in court to here ALL the evidence and arguments.

3) The Judge has yet to sentence - and he can sentence up to Life ...

As to the 13-year-old ...

Go here

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/human-rights/international-human-rights-instruments/international-human-rights-instruments-1/convention-against-torture/united-nations-convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrding-treatment-or-punishment-new-zealand-periodic-report-6/article-11/20-age-of-criminal-responsibility



He's a child ...

BB he went with his knife armed mate, he stood at the door, as much a guilty as the stabber, sorry, I've had enough of two laws for one country. Hang em both Oh and the fucking ganster parents and the rest of their spawn.

[JimO]

The law is an ass... If you go on to somebody else's premises to commit a crime and you arm yourself with a lethal weapon, in my view there is intent!
na it was self defence bro, the indian attacked me

[98tls]

What sentence?

Indeed,fingers crossed theres one handed out but wont hold my breath eh as theres an army of otherwise unemployable doing there best to ensure the accused learns little which in turn ensures that someone else will suffer down the line.

[Banditbandit]

BB he went with his knife armed mate, he stood at the door, as much a guilty as the stabber, sorry, I've had enough of two laws for one country. Hang em both Oh and the fucking ganster parents and the rest of their spawn.

Yes he did. I fail to see how this implies two laws ... there is only one law ... nothing I have ever said here suggests I am arguing for two laws - I have never argued that anywhere.

Unfortunately, because I do not necessarily agree with it, the law says to prove murder you have to prove intent ...

These are effectively children we are talking about .. yes, I agree they should both have been found guilty of murder - to get that would require a law change - a significant change to the Crimes Act.

But having said that, how should children be punished ? (And I don't give a flying fuck what race, ethnic group or religion we are talking about ... )

Hanging children seems a bit extreme.

[caseye]

Sorry BB, was more a comment on how this has panned out than on what you said, I understand that our system is as much at fault as our stupid judicial system, but this is really starting to open up some very nasty wounds.
The Indian community has said that from now on other Indians should not report actions to the Police here in NZ but to their own well organised, armed and definitely capable groups of, for lack of a better word vigilantes.
Never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with tis sort of behaviour either, but hell we can't go on not convicting on evidence because of age, gender, race, circumstance this is all after the fact!
I'm pissed off, not unhappy at you, I believe that you know exactly what the majority of NZ'ers are feeling here and that must be hard given your love of life,whanau and respect for all.

[Winston001]

I agree with everyone else. This was an abhorrent crime and the Kumar family are right to feel let down by our justice system. I'll address various points separately but for anyone interested, Prof Mark Henaghan gives as good an explanation as you'll find, to Jim Mora on The Panel. From 4:10 on.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/201759572/manslaughter-conviction-for-14-year-old

[Winston001]

na it was self defence bro, the indian attacked me

Yeah...actually you are spot on. The boy saw Mr Kumar had a bar/stick or something and struck out with the knife to defend himself.

Which makes it manslaughter not murder even if that sounds bloody wrong to you and me. My guess is the jury saw a 14yr child with diminished responsibility (not actually a lawful defence) and reduced the conviction.

FWIW a 20yr old offender would probably have gone down for murder.

[Winston001]

Judges decide what evidence is admissible, lawyers decide what charges will be laid and what deals will be done.

Jurors weigh up the evidence that is presented to them with instructions from the Judge as to what to consider and what to put aside.


Just for clarity, a judge instructs the jury on the law only. The jury decide the facts.

For example a few years ago a jury convicted an alleged dope grower who claimed he had been growing grafted tomatoes. But there was no evidence about the special characteristics of grafted tomatoes. A couple of jury members knew quite a lot about tomatoes and he was convicted on the basis of their knowledge.

Guilty verdict overturned on appeal. A jury can't use specialist facts known to themselves.

[husaberg]

Just for clarity, a judge instructs the jury on the law only. The jury decide the facts.

For example a few years ago a jury convicted an alleged dope grower who claimed he had been growing grafted tomatoes. But there was no evidence about the special characteristics of grafted tomatoes. A couple of jury members knew quite a lot about tomatoes and he was convicted on the basis of their knowledge.

Guilty verdict overturned on appeal. A jury can't use specialist facts known to themselves.

Yes correct. Grafted tomatoes :lol:
So how is it that defence that knew they had used their own knowledge though, its interesting?

[FJRider]

These are effectively children we are talking about .. yes, I agree they should both have been found guilty of murder - to get that would require a law change - a significant change to the Crimes Act.

Needed to be proved ... to ensure that ... it must be proved the children have a famililarity with death. Seen life ended ... by human hand. Not just computer gaming killing ..


But having said that, how should children be punished ? (And I don't give a flying fuck what race, ethnic group or religion we are talking about ... )

Hanging children seems a bit extreme.

Spanking children is frowned on ... apparently ... <_<


I'd go for shooting though ... lead is cheap.

[Banditbandit]

Spanking children is frowned on ... apparently ... <_<


I'd go for shooting though ... lead is cheap.


Spanking children has always been frowned upon ... there used to be a defense called something like "reasonable force" .. what Sue Bradford's bill (now law) did was NOT make smacking illegal - it already was .. Bradford's bill removed the defense of reasonable punishment ... so parents who illegally hit their children could not claim in court that it was reasonable punishment ... just as "provocation" can no longer be used as a defense in a murder trial ..

This was the old act

59 Domestic discipline
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3), every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.

It was up to the court (probably a jury) to decide the "question of fact" in this case the "reasonableness of the force"

Here's the new act ... Notice it says "is justified in using force" - so it is still allowable to spank a child.

59 Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

What it has done is tightened and clarified the reasons for spanking a child ...

[Banditbandit]

But anyway ...

We now have a 14 year old boy who has illegally killed someone.

How should we deal with this child?

Remember he is still an impressionable child.

He has also grown up in appalling circumstances - quite likely surrounded by adults with long lists of convictions and whose sense of the law and of right and wrong are completely out of whack. Adults for whom a high level of violence is a common occurrence.

We could argue that the child should have known better - but how would he know that ??? His role models are appalling. His sense of "normal" is completely distorted.

Should we lock him up for life? (The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life in jail). That means he will possibly be out of jail in possibly 11 years (maybe 10) and he will be 25 years old, having spend 40% of his life (and all his adult life to that time) in jail. Even if he does not get life, he could spend a significant amount of time incarcerated, in a youth facility until he is old enough for adult jail.


When released he will be a very angry young man with a wealth of knowledge about crime, and plenty of criminal role models. He will quite likely have been exposed to deviant sex - the only sexual contact he will have had to that age. And he is likely to be a significant drug user (yes, drugs get into jail).


This is not a young man I want to see in our society in a few years time. We have the example of Junior Kurariki, who has been in and out of trouble since he was released. He was 12 years old when convicted of a killing (manslaughter).

So, we need to punish this kid for the killing. But if we accept the reality of his upbringing, then I would argue that he is entitled to a second chance and it would be much better in the long term for the community to NOT have an angry 25 year old in maybe 11 years time (or longer if he gets life with a specified non-parole period, or if he misses parole for a few years.)

He does need to be incarcerated, no question - partly as a punishment and partly as a safeguard - he's dangerous out there loose. But he also needs an education, he needs help to see that this type of behaviour is not acceptable, is very wrong - and all the things that children as supposed to learn - but he has clearly missed out on.

We are not going to turn this child around by giving him hard jail time (he won't get that until he is older anyway).

He needs support, education, assistance if we are not to produce yet another hardened criminal ... the best outcome is that he does his time and the NEVER reoffends. How do we achieve that??? (A serious question - I am interested in your thoughts on this).

[husaberg]

Hes only a kid give him a chance (sorry I paraphrased it).
So on account of his history and upbringing (which is no doubt heinous) just how many chances do we need to give him?
I also note plenty of kids are brought up in similar and worse circumstances, yet are honest and law abiding and productive members of society,
yet they get no such special preferential treatment on account of how they were mistreated by others when they were young so how is this fair?
Is your fresh start proposal sending the wrong messages.

[Crasherfromwayback]

So on account of his history and upbringing (which is no doubt heinous) just how many chances do we need to give him?
I also note plenty of kids are brought up in similar and worse circumstances, yet are honest and law abiding and productive members of society,
yet they get no such special preferential treatment on account of how they were mistreated by others when they were young so how is this fair?
Is your fresh start proposal sending the wrong messages.

Dude, yes what this nasty piece of work has done is heinous, but of course he deserves the chance to change his ways and become a decent member of society. He's 14, and has had the worst start in life.

[husaberg]

Dude, yes what this nasty piece of work has done is heinous, but of course he deserves the chance to change his ways and become a decent member of society. He's 14, and has had the worst start in life.

Fair enough, as the top line of what you quoted said but how many chances?

www.corrections.govt.nz/.../reconviction_rates_of_sex_offenders.html
Young offenders referred to Child, Youth and Family (CYF) by Police are a small proportion (3.8%) of the total number of New Zealand youth aged 14 to 16 years, and the number who receive a youth court order are negligible at just 0.4% of this population group1.
A very small group of persistent young offenders are responsible for over half of the crime committed by young people, estimated to be between 40% and 60%
Also, they tend to keep offending well into their twenties and beyond.
Also what message does it send to those that don't commit such offences?

[TheDemonLord]

Said some well thought out things

The real question is: do we forgive in the hopes of rehabilitation or do we resign ourselves to the fact at Age 14 he is probably now a psychopath and not fit to be a member of society?

I myself don't have enough info to make a decision either way - but there are definitely those that would say he is passed the point at which he can be rehabilitated. There are others that would say in a similar vein that our Corrections facilities aren't set up with rehabilitation in mind.

I will say this - even assuming he was rehabilitated to the best of our ability, I can't forsee him being a great and productive member of society whereas if he was never to see the light of day again, I don't see society being any poorer for it.

But that is because I am a callous cynic.

[husaberg]

The real question is: do we forgive in the hopes of rehabilitation or do we resign ourselves to the fact at Age 14 he is probably now a psychopath and not fit to be a member of society?

I myself don't have enough info to make a decision either way - but there are definitely those that would say he is passed the point at which he can be rehabilitated. There are others that would say in a similar vein that our Corrections facilities aren't set up with rehabilitation in mind.

I will say this - even assuming he was rehabilitated to the best of our ability, I can't forsee him being a great and productive member of society whereas if he was never to see the light of day again, I don't see society being any poorer for it.

But that is because I am a callous cynic.

I just had a look at the Re-imprisonment rates: "first-timers" and "recidivists.
The figures don't look great.
If we assume he is Male and a youth violence offender under 20 and if he is also Maori.(I have no idea if he is or isn't or care either way but if he is that effects the % considerably if he is)

http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/reconviction-patterns-of-released-prisoners-a-48-months-follow-up-analysis/re-imprisonment-rates-first-timers-and-recidivists.html


The first pathway is known as the life-course persistent offender. These individuals exhibit severe behaviour problems from a very early age, sometimes as young as two years old. Their lives have been marked by multiple adverse influences including family dysfunction. As children they may have exhibited subtle cognitive deficiencies, difficult temperament or hyperactivity. When compounded by adverse environmental factors such as inadequate parenting, exposure to violence or other trauma, disrupted family bonds or poverty, their brain developmental processes responsible for social behaviour have been adversely impacted6.

Life-course persistent offenders are sometimes described as having "conduct disorder". They may be aggressive, oppositional and violent. They often lack feelings of guilt, remorse, or victim empathy, and tend to be egocentric seekers of immediate gratification, who do not think about consequences. If left untreated, these behaviours escalate over the whole life span. It is apparent from the experience of the Youth Court, that 82% of this group of life-course-persistent offenders are male, at least 50% are Māori, up to 80% are not engaged with school, up to 75-80% have drug or alcohol problems. Psychological and psychiatric issues are also common.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/youth/publications-and-media/speeches/what-causes-youth-crime-and-what-can-we-do-about-it
Maybe a better use of resources is recognising the problem causing few and isolating them at a early age. Sad but maybe true.

[Banditbandit]

Fair enough, as the top line of what you quoted said but how many chances?


One chance ...



Also what message does it send to those that don't commit such offences?


What do you mean by the question? I am not suggesting he is NOT incarcerated.



The real question is: do we forgive in the hopes of rehabilitation or do we resign ourselves to the fact at Age 14 he is probably now a psychopath and not fit to be a member of society?

We can't resign ourselves YET to the possibility that he is not a fit member of society - he's only 14.

IF we put stuff in place and then he still fucks up .. then he's a lost cause .




I will say this - even assuming he was rehabilitated to the best of our ability, I can't forsee him being a great and productive member of society whereas if he was never to see the light of day again, I don't see society being any poorer for it.

But that is because I am a callous cynic.

I have seen young people turn their lives around - even older adults. A couple of my friends have done time for murder - and they have never been convicted of anything since leaving prison. One of them now runs his own butcher's shop and employs staff. But I would also add that I have other friends who have done jail time over and over again - so long that I don't even know if they are still alive today.

I have a close friend who's 'rap sheet" runs to three pages - includes significant jail time (ex-Mob Prez) - he hasn't been in court since 1988.

We can't predict the future - we can just aim for the best outcome. If that fails, then this kid is history.


I just had a look at the Re-imprisonment rates: "first-timers" and "recidivists.
The figures don't look great.
If we assume he is Male and a youth violence offender under 20 and if he is also Maori.(I have no idea if he is or isn't or care either way but if he is that effects the % considerably)

http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/reconviction-patterns-of-released-prisoners-a-48-months-follow-up-analysis/re-imprisonment-rates-first-timers-and-recidivists.html

I looked at those stats. He has about a one in three chance of going back to jail when he is released ..


The re-imprisonment rate of these first-timers is 30 percent;

For Maori offenders it's 37% - so a little worse than two out of three chances of not going back to jail - but fuck all more.

[Katman]

I myself don't have enough info to make a decision either way.....

Fuck dude, this is Kiwibiker. When has having all the info ever mattered?

Go for gold.

[husaberg]

One chance ...

We can't predict the future - we can just aim for the best outcome. If that fails, then this kid is history.

..
Happy with that, but what if he has actually already had that?




I looked at those stats. He has about a one in three chance of going back to jail when he is released ..

I don't agree with how you interrupted the stats BB, remember the figures compound with age sex offence type, ethnicity and past offending as a youth.
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/reconviction-patterns-of-released-prisoners-a-48-months-follow-up-analysis/re-imprisonment-rates-first-timers-and-recidivists.html
Its already at 50% just because he is under 20 for a start.





I have a close friend who's 'rap sheet" runs to three pages - includes significant jail time (ex-Mob Prez) - he hasn't been in court since 1988.

We can't predict the future -

.
Out of interest how old is he now?

[Katman]

A couple of my friends have done time for murder - and they have never been convicted of anything since leaving prison. One of them now runs his own butcher's shop and employs staff.

He's probably just better at disposing of the bodies now.

[TheDemonLord]

He's probably just better at disposing of the bodies now.

"You think that's Wild Pork you are eating?"

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Crasherfromwayback]

Fair enough, as the top line of what you quoted said but how many chances?

Also what message does it send to those that don't commit such offences?

Well, I guess a lot depends of how his rehabilitation goes, as far as what sort of go he's given when he gets out. My GF is a parole officer, and hearing some of her work stories makes for a sad story. A lot of these people do want to change their ways, but simply don't know how to go about it, or aren't armed with the necessary tools to be able to do so. It's a pretty fine balancing act.

[Banditbandit]

Happy with that, but what if he has actually already had that?



I don't agree with how you interrupted the stats BB, remember the figures compound with age sex offence type, ethnicity and past offending as a youth.
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/reconviction-patterns-of-released-prisoners-a-48-months-follow-up-analysis/re-imprisonment-rates-first-timers-and-recidivists.html
Its already at 50% just because he is under 20 for a start.

I'm not sure you can compound it like that ...

But that doesn't negate the idea that he needs his chance ...




Out of interest how old is he now?


I have no idea ... I suspect his late 50s ...

He used to lie about his age so many times I'm not sure he even knows ..

[Banditbandit]

He's probably just better at disposing of the bodies now.


That's a bit cynical ... and if you're in ChCh good chance you know one of my friends who did time for murder ...

[husaberg]

I'm not sure you can compound it like that ...

But that doesn't negate the idea that he needs his chance ...



Of course you can compound risk factors, As I see it, its just like insurance.

ie life insurance is age, sex, weight, ethnicity, smoking history, past health issues they factor in all the risks and weigh each one up.
Thus you need to weigh up all the factors to arrive at the probability.
I am not negating a second chance but as I said he may have already had it.


I have no idea ... I suspect his late 50s ...
He used to lie about his age so many times I'm not sure he even knows ..

So your mate could have just got smarter with age? either at coving his offending or may have just wised up that the consequences were not worth the risk.
Serious Offending does tend down with age after all.


Well, I guess a lot depends of how his rehabilitation goes, as far as what sort of go he's given when he gets out. My GF is a parole officer, and hearing some of her work stories makes for a sad story. A lot of these people do want to change their ways, but simply don't know how to go about it, or aren't armed with the necessary tools to be able to do so. It's a pretty fine balancing act.

Yes but a significant proportion of the few (that are responsible for most of the serious offending) have no intention of ever changing at all (due to antisocial disorder proclivity ie psychopathy).
These are the ones that need to be identified quickly and locked away.

[Maha]

That's a bit cynical ... and if you're in ChCh good chance you know one of my friends who did time for murder ...

He's in Taupo and has his own little band of bad ares's to talk dirty with.

[mada]

Well, I guess a lot depends of how his rehabilitation goes, as far as what sort of go he's given when he gets out. My GF is a parole officer, and hearing some of her work stories makes for a sad story. A lot of these people do want to change their ways, but simply don't know how to go about it, or aren't armed with the necessary tools to be able to do so. It's a pretty fine balancing act.

I recall hearing about Bailey Junior Kurariki not actually being able to get onto certain rehabilitation programs because he was under 18 and they were for "adults only". Hopefully this has changed. I'm sure the media hounding him after he got out, really helped with attempts to get him integrating back into the community.

There have been similar issues with 17 year old homeless teenagers not being able to get any help for shelter - as they weren't 18+ they were not allowed to stay at men's shelters, but on the flip side because they were older than 16 CYF's and Social Development didn't give a toss for helping them.

Lots of holes in NZ when it comes to appropriately responding to at risk youth.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Lots of holes in NZ when it comes to appropriately responding to at risk youth.

A lot of cracks for all sorts of down and out people to fall through here unfortunately. But hey, we'll just keep cutting funding and the help avail. She'll be right! Just as National look to sell off the services of care of such people to the banks etc etc eh.

[jasonu]

IF we put stuff in place and then he still fucks up .. then he's a lost cause .


Except if he fucks up again another dairy owner might be dead. Try explaining that to his/her family...

[MD]

But anyway ...

We now have a 14 year old boy who has illegally killed someone.

How should we deal with this child? ....

We are not going to turn this child around by giving him hard jail time (he won't get that until he is older anyway).

He needs support, education, assistance if we are not to produce yet another hardened criminal ... the best outcome is that he does his time and the NEVER reoffends. How do we achieve that??? (A serious question - I am interested in your thoughts on this).

You have to consider the purpose of imprisonment- to protect society from a harmful person AND to act as a deterrent to prevent others committing such harm. For me there can be no exceptions because that nullifies the message.
The message is most important. It's simple and shouldn't be complicated and confused by bringing in circumstances and excuses, such as alcohol or upbringing or colour or whatever.
Cut someone's throat open; they will die. You go to prison.

Once we water the sentence down, as NZ has done, the message no longer works. As our murder rate demonstrates

I see making exceptions for killers is similar to the principle of why the State should never help those that don't insure their home. The message must be clear and unwavering to work. You own something valuable, you pay for insurance. Those that choose otherwise must accept the consequences of their choice. The moment the State steps in out of best intentions and kindness, the other 98% of us that pay a bloody annoying premium year after year can all stop, we've been made fools of. The whole insurance industry collapses.

Yes this shithead might come out of prison in a worse state. But he would have learned the message; do wrong, go to prison. Letting him off lightly is not the answer and he learns the message; do wrong, and you will probably get away with it. That's not protecting the next dairy owner he comes across.

[98tls]

Dude, yes what this nasty piece of work has done is heinous, but of course he deserves the chance to change his ways and become a decent member of society. He's 14, and has had the worst start in life.
Hear ya C but theres plenty had worse starts and gone on to great things etc etc or at least lived a life without fucking up someone elses.All the talk from an endless succession of well meaning people with certificates on there office wall who have no idea but the ones they picked up in university has a very limited chance of undoing what 14 years has taught him.All the best intentions are wonderful but on numerous occasions we see it doesnt work so surely it all becomes a gamble eh...with some poor pricks life down the road.Cant say i condone as someone earlier posted "hang him" but jesus lets face it it does ensure the end of his court appearances.

[caseye]

When are e going to learn?
Have a rule, stick by it.
Waver, even once, throw out the rule and allow the criminals to run the show.

[RDJ]

You have to consider the purpose of imprisonment - to protect society from a harmful person AND to act as a deterrent to prevent others committing such harm. For me there can be no exceptions because that nullifies the message. Yes this shithead might come out of prison in a worse state. But he would have learned the message; do wrong, go to prison. Letting him off lightly is not the answer and he learns the message; do wrong, and you will probably get away with it. That's not protecting the next dairy owner he comes across.

This, repeated many times until the inhabitants of the intellectually bereft seats get it.

[TheDemonLord]

There is a quote - from Star Trek: The Next Generation that I think is very applicable to this thread:


And I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.

There are arguments for and against such a notion - but even with an infinite number of monk... I mean Lawyers on an infinite number of Type Writers - could we ever write legislation that could accurately describe every scenario, with every circumstance that may have mitigated or compounded a criminal act and subscribe an appropriate punishment for it?

To that end, I don't think it is possible and so the Law allows judgement to take into account factors in a case and in theory, assign the appropriate punishment.

I am not saying that the system is without fault or without flaws - but to those asking for the strictest interpretation of the law - contemplate the above.

[Banditbandit]

So your mate could have just got smarter with age? either at coving his offending or may have just wised up that the consequences were not worth the risk.
Serious Offending does tend down with age after all.

Yes, that's true .. Interestingly, the rate of re-offending among Māori mean drops significantly after 30 years of age .. the age of re-offending for other groups does not drop to the same extent ...




Yes but a significant proportion of the few (that are responsible for most of the serious offending) have no intention of ever changing at all (due to antisocial disorder proclivity ie psychopathy).
These are the ones that need to be identified quickly and locked away.

Yes. Also interesting - psychopathy is not confined to criminals - many very successful business people are psychopaths ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/

Psychopathy does not mean the person will be a criminal


When are e going to learn?
Have a rule, stick by it.
Waver, even once, throw out the rule and allow the criminals to run the show.

Exactly. He broke the rules - he must face the consequences.

However, what after that ?? He's 14 - in my terms at school a fourth or fifth former ... year 10 or 11 ... He's lived 14 years with likely no concept of right or wrong from his parents and wider family ... Should not the community step in and say 'we can turn him around - it's worth trying" ...

[caspernz]

Psychopathy does not mean the person will be a criminal



Very true, yet unfortunately some of the crimes committed by white collar crims are both legal and accepted by the masses.

[husaberg]

Yes, that's true .. Interestingly, the rate of re-offending among Māori mean drops significantly after 30 years of age .. the age of re-offending for other groups does not drop to the same extent ...

Yes. Also interesting - psychopathy is not confined to criminals - many very successful business people are psychopaths ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/

Psychopathy does not mean the person will be a criminal



Exactly. He broke the rules - he must face the consequences.

However, what after that ?? He's 14 - in my terms at school a fourth or fifth former ... year 10 or 11 ... He's lived 14 years with likely no concept of right or wrong from his parents and wider family ... Should not the community step in and say 'we can turn him around - it's worth trying" ...

Yes many successful people are Sociopaths as they are ruthless and manipulative personalities that have no empathy.
but most psychopaths however are not as good at maintaining relationships and lack the sociopaths greater control over their outbursts. Ie sociopaths are better actors.
Thus psychopaths are not successful for long.
As a personality disorder however the percentage of psychopaths in prison are something like 20 times the normal percentage of those not incarcerated.
I think it is between 25 percent of violent criminals, yet psychopaths are only one percent of the population.
What I am also saying is I doubt this is his first chance at all.

Also where I have trouble the defence argued that because of his brain injury he is unable to tell right from wrong, if this is the case he needs to be incarcerated does he not?

[Banditbandit]

You have to consider the purpose of imprisonment- to protect society from a harmful person AND to act as a deterrent to prevent others committing such harm. For me there can be no exceptions because that nullifies the message.

Yes - nice theory - 'protection' works but as for deterence, the practice is somewhat different. The US o A practices the death penalty in many states - these states also have some of the highest murder rates in the world .. clearly the death penalty is no deterrent to murder.

The notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, who forced inmates to wear pink clothes and live in tents, was lauded for the good work he did, in discouraging prisoners from returning to jail, had a repeat offender rate of 98%. That's a complete FAIL ! (NZ's repeat ofending rate for first timers in jail is about 33%.)

Lots of people I know who have been to jail said they didn't think about that when they committed the crime ...

The reason why the intellectuals do not accept "deterrence" is because IT DOESN"T FUCKING WORK !!!


The message is most important. It's simple and shouldn't be complicated and confused by bringing in circumstances and excuses, such as alcohol or upbringing or colour or whatever.
Cut someone's throat open; they will die. You go to prison.

The message is not getting through .. and no matter how many people you drop in prison, the message is not getting through ... why keep repeating it? It's not working - find a better solution ... why do you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. IT'S NOT FUCKING WORKING !!!





I see making exceptions for killers


Who said anything about making an exception ???


is similar to the principle of why the State should never help those that don't insure their home. The message must be clear and unwavering to work. You own something valuable, you pay for insurance. Those that choose otherwise must accept the consequences of their choice. The moment the State steps in out of best intentions and kindness, the other 98% of us that pay a bloody annoying premium year after year can all stop, we've been made fools of. The whole insurance industry collapses.

Hell yes - I was very fucked off last night watching that cunt in Chch with no insurance demanding the Government give him 100% compo for his house .. parasitic fucker ... sponging on the rest of us.


Yes this shithead might come out of prison in a worse state. But he would have learned the message; do wrong, go to prison. Letting him off lightly is not the answer and he learns the message; do wrong, and you will probably get away with it. That's not protecting the next dairy owner he comes across.

Who said anything about letting him off lightly??? Incarcerate him for sure (just in case, incarceration means lock him up ...) - If I was the judge I would give him life ... minimum parole period 12 years. Make sure he stays away from his fucked up family ... ensure he is old enough to make good decisions when he comes out ..

Put in place measures to teach him about right and wrong (just locking him up won't do that.) DO NOT drop him in Paremoremo when he turns 18 - keep him ion a safe place, give him an education - (he's in the perfect place to study) - help with his development (14 year olds are still developing - physically but more importantly mentally) Give him good role models .. give him the best chance or rejoining society as a useful and safe citizen ... monitor him when he gets out ...

If he then fucks up put him in Pare ...

[Banditbandit]

Yes many successful people are Sociopaths as they are ruthless and manipulative personalities but most psychopaths however are not as good at maintaining relationships and control over their outbursts and are thus are not successful for long.

Donald Trump perhaps ???



As a personality disorder however the percentage of psychopaths in prison are something like 10-20 times the normal percentage of those not incarcerated.
I think it is between 25 percent of violent criminals, yet psychopaths are one percent of the population.

Of course - that statistic does not surprise me .. I'm not saying that all psychopaths can be wonderful people - far from it.

I'm saying that psychopathy does not mean a criminal.



What I am saying is I doubt this is his first chance at all.

I do get what you are saying - and it may well not have been. I have also lived closely with people much like his family and I would also say that it is just as likely that this is his first chance ... If he had come to the notice of the authorities that may well have been mentioned in court .. but such groups avoid the authorities like the plague ...


Also where I have trouble the defence argued that because of his brain injury he is unable to tell right from wrong, if this is the case he needs to be incarcerated does he not?

That is often a consequence of a brain injury - and yes, there's a chance that means he should be kept in a secure facility (not necessarily a prison) However, our fucked up government and wimpy fucking liberals want mental health cases cared for in the community .. fucking doesn't always work either - so the secure facilities like Lake Alice have been closed and people dropped out into our communities ...

(Jeez wept - I'm starting to sound like the right wing ravers) ...

[husaberg]

Of course - that statistic does not surprise me .. I'm not saying that all psychopaths can be wonderful people - far from it.
I'm saying that psychopathy does not mean a criminal. ...
No but it means they has a 25 times higher rate of not changing their behaviour ever. Psychopaths and sociopaths never change, they only adapt. They will never have empathy.



That is often a consequence of a brain injury - and yes, there's a chance that means he should be kept in a secure facility (not necessarily a prison) However, our fucked up government and wimpy fucking liberals want mental health cases cared for in the community .. fucking doesn't always work either - so the secure facilities like Lake Alice have been closed and people dropped out into our communities ... ...
they need secure facilities no arguments from me.




(Jeez wept - I'm starting to sound like the right wing ravers) ...
Yes you did bring up Trump lol.

Steve Jobs
Back in the early days of Pixar when Jobs still owned it, he fired a huge chunk of the staff with no notice and outright refused any severance pay. When an employee begged for at least a two week notice, Jobs obliged, but then stated that this agreement was retroactive to two weeks ago. He did this because apparently it's okay to forego common decency if you're a sarcastic prick about it, which is a technique championed by Rush Limbaugh

[IkieBikie]

Except if he fucks up again another dairy owner might be dead. Try explaining that to his/her family...

What like this guy

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/huntly-teen-jailed-killing-man-in-street-gang-brawl-6347555

How many chances do they get - and 4 1/2 years. What a joke

[Banditbandit]

No but it means they has a 25 times higher rate of not changing their behaviour ever. Psychopaths and sociopaths never change, they only adapt. They will never have empathy.



Exactly - psychopathy (of which sociopathy is a subset) is a hard wiring of the brain ...

[husaberg]

Exactly - psychopathy (of which sociopathy is a subset) is a hard wiring of the brain ...

So that's why in my opinion they need to identified and be isolated early. They are probably 1 percent of the population but 50+% of the repeat violent criminal offenders
Funny thing is most people will try and defend them as still being human. Yet are they really human? if they have no humanity.
Unfortunately they can not ever change, Its hard for most people to accept that this is reality, because they can't fathom that people can actually exist without any form of conscience.