Tougher Sentencing [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Deano

20th June 2004, 19:04

I think that we should be more liberal and consider the perpertrator and the poor life that they have had that contributed to the way that they make personal decisions.

And for goodness sake do not state that anti-liberal thought of personal responsibility and be accountable for your own actions.

Harsher sentences are not the solution as the Judiciary are the individuals that decide what the sentence is. I favour "minimum" sentences, sort of like the CONSEQUENCES when indivuduals are caught drunk driving.

Dismounts hobby horse

Anti liberalism ?

How many people who have also had a 'poor life', :crybaby: make a conscious decision to make good of themselves and do so ?

Personal responsibility and accountability is bad ? FFS.

Minimum sentences first first offences perhaps and where there are mitigating circumstances, sure, but what about the guy with 22 drink driving convictions who has no sense of remorse or repentance ? Should they be allowed to continue driving or remain free under the premise of 'liberalism' until they kill someone on the road ?

Deano

20th June 2004, 19:07

But then try telling to the victims.

Good call - under the premise of so called 'liberalism', would victims be free to seek their revenge on the perpetrator Mangell ?

Her_C4

20th June 2004, 19:17

I think tougher sentences are good but then again prisons don't have the resources to rehabilitate......

Difficult and very costly to rehabilitate people who have never been habilitated in the first instance...

....... or possibly don't want to.

The Dept of Corrections do some very good work that often goes unseen and unrecognised by the majority of the taxpayers in targetting a reduction in reoffending rates, and have continued to introduce a number of intervention strategies ......

Magua

20th June 2004, 19:29

I think life should mean life, what did Daniel Bell get, 30 years for 3 murders? (correct me if I'm wrong).

What?

20th June 2004, 19:29

I think there are definite cases for tougher sentences, but also some for lighter. On the surface, capital punishment sounds right for murder, but then consider the case of one Arthur Thomas. It seems that the police prosecuters MAY not have improved much since then if you remember the tv doco about Scott Watson. It SEEMED obvious that he could not have done what he was jailed for. The prosecution case rested totally on discrediting the witnesses; the prosecution had it sussed while the people who were there all had false memories... Got to wonder a bit about the David Bain case as well.
One thing I got out of a week of jury service was a total lack of confidence in our "justice" system. Combine that with a low level of confidence in the police (the big boys more than the front-liners), it's a scary world.
So I don't know what the hell I want.

Jackrat

20th June 2004, 20:08

Ok serious this time.
I come from the type of family that breeds crim's.
Education is a wonderfull idea apart from for the kids that are to busy worrying about what the next hiding is going to be for or why the old lady packed her bags a couple of years ago and hasn't been heard from since.
Belive me it's not easy learning anything in a place like that.Fear kind'a gets in the way.From seven years of age I lived in a sucsession of boys homes,foster homes,and then on to borstal and eventualy prison.ALL of those places were better than where I had been, prison included.Back then there was no name for bleeding heart lib's but my mates and I knew them well anyway.We just called them suckers is all.The cycle starts in the home and our system of welfare and punitive justice only reinforces it, nothing else.
Something like 90% of our old borstal inmates would be back within two years.
Most of the kids I met in boys homes I met again years later in borstal and then again in prison.Some of these guys names still regularly appear in our news papers today.ALL of them came from the same backgrouds as me.If a person doesn't work it out for themselfs no amount of prison time will make them do it.I never met a single inmate that didn't know they were shit heads, including myself.For this reason I think our system should change so that after a set age,say 20yrs old,then a three strikes and your out should apply.
That would give those that would change a chance to do so and save a lot of victim grief later on.Rehab' is a nice word but in the real world that's all it is.The same applys to education,more so when the guy realises
no matter what he achives he will still never be allowed the same opertunitys as other people due to his early life.My own way to address this was to leave
NZ and settle in Australia.While I lived there I entered into a profession I would never have even been allowed to think about here.
The main reason our prison system doesn't work is that our prisons are actualy nice places.I spent 18 months in Rangipo before I chose to change my own ways.Three squares a day,easy going staff,comfortable lodgings,free medical care,plenty of drugs,plenty of sex if ya' don't mind having ya' knob polished by an ugly tranny for a chocolate bar,Sure beats working if you weren't going anywhere else anyway.The violence is no worse than were a lot of the inmates already come from and you get to know your place real fast.Those guys that continue the same old cycle do so by choise,not because they had hard up bringings or any other bleeding heart reasons,so fuck em,throw away the key and let the rest of us get on with life without the worry of on going and ever increasing,Rapes,murders,gang violence,ect,ect,ect.Because other than the odd murder most of these crimes are being commited by the same people time and time again.
If nothing else it would stop the pricks breeding and continuing the cycle through their own off spring.
If you look at the worst of our own small biker communtiy,hells angels,highway 61,filthyfew,ect,ect, They simply wouldn't exist with a three strikes system.Then think about all the repeat rapists running free today.Hope none of them are wandering your street right now huh.
How about all the drug dealers that will get out this week or maybe even tomorrrow,reckon they won't sell to your kids.
Nah fuck it,a small bullet would be cheaper.

Posh Tourer :P

20th June 2004, 20:11

Harsher sentences are not the solution as the Judiciary are the individuals that decide what the sentence is. I favour "minimum" sentences, sort of like the CONSEQUENCES when indivuduals are caught drunk driving.

I dont understand the link between the premise that harsher sentences are not the solution and the reason you put forward. The judiciary are limited in what they can sentence a person to for a set crime. The jury decides what they are (or arent) guilty of, and the judge then has to decide which end of the bracket the sentence is going to be. You can legislate in capacity for harsher sentences, this doesnt mean that it will happen, except if you raise the minimum sentence.
Minimum sentences seem to be a good idea, set consequences no matter what the circumstances. The three strikes and you are out rule also seems to have merit, as it gives a firm guideline as to what will happen when, and discourages testing the limits of getting away with crimes...

spudchucka

20th June 2004, 20:24

How about all the drug dealers that will get out this week or maybe even tomorrrow,reckon they won't sell to your kids.
Nah fuck it,a small bullet would be cheaper.
The old 180 grain sleeping pill trick. Needless to say i would support harsher sentences.

Jackrat,

Thats a compelling story, good on you for having the guts to change. What you have said is the truth as I have seen it over and over again. The home is the start or the end of bloody near all budding criminals. Social services can throw any amount of $$$ and support at fledgling crims but if the support aint there at home the efforts are so often fruitless. I admire anyone that has grown up rough and had the opportunity to take the wrong road but found the guts and determination to turn back. RESPECT!!

Jinx3d

20th June 2004, 20:34

Yeah - tougher sentancing eh? Three strikes and a bullet.

Does that apply to speeding. Dohh - we are all dead.

MadDuck

20th June 2004, 20:37

Insteresting and thanks Jack for opening up and telling us about your past. Having met you I think you a damn fine bloke !

I cant say I have been anywhere near where Jack has but I was dragged up in a neighborhood where survival of the fittest was paramount. Family was non existent so how the hell do you educate kids in an environment like that - YOU CANT. Take a 13 year old that kills a pizza delivery boy for fun.

I was in truble with Mr Plod on numerous occassion - I wont go into details cos you all know me as such a nice gal :msn-wink: There was a life changing moment in my life that stopped me going too far and it was out of the blue....it was just good luck. Now I too follow the papers and watch people from the old hood convicted or killed.

As for Jurys. They supposedly are picked from a random sample of NZ society. BUT if you female with and education you will not serve on a jury! The process is soooo selective.

My conclusion is yes harsher sentencing. And not such a cushy life in our jails. Damn they eat better than some of our old folk and have more company.

Skyryder

20th June 2004, 21:02

So some snotty nosed arsehole from a bad home thinks he/she has the right to abuse spit, and intimidate all those that happend just to be in their way. Most of the shits that I see get around in groups. The trouble in this county there's a whole bloody industry out there making excuses for them. Oh they don't understand or they come from a bad home or they don't know better. They bloody well know when to run that's for sure. I simply do not except excuses for criminal behavour.

Not long a ago I was invited to the Family Court as the victim of assault. The letter of invitation listed all those that were to be present. There were six yes six from the Justice Department. Councellors, probation people, Youth Aid etc. Christ what a bloody joke. It would be cheaaper to bang the arsehole in the slammer for a fortnight just to keep him off the streets. The little shit got 60 hours community and since he was not working, that would be done in a little over two weeks.

Like I said what a bloody joke. :killingme :killingme :killingme

Skyryder

Ms Piggy

20th June 2004, 23:18

Difficult and very costly to rehabilitate people who have never been habilitated in the first instance...

The Dept of Corrections do some very good work that often goes unseen and unrecognised by the majority of the taxpayers in targetting a reduction in reoffending rates, and have continued to introduce a number of intervention strategies ......

Thanks Her_B4 I wasn't sure to be honest b/c it's not an area I know anything about. Totally agree with ya about it being difficult to help those who don't or can't be helped.

mangell6

20th June 2004, 23:18

Well done Deano, you interpreted my smartarse statement correctly.

I dont understand the link between the premise that harsher sentences are not the solution and the reason you put forward.

I put forward a reason? :whistle: All I know is that even though the law allows for considerable penalties, read harsh, the judges consider what has previously been imposed by other judicial personages, read not harsh.

The judiciary are limited in what they can sentence a person to for a set crime. The jury decides what they are (or arent) guilty of, and the judge then has to decide which end of the bracket the sentence is going to be. You can legislate in capacity for harsher sentences, this doesnt mean that it will happen, except if you raise the minimum sentence.

Totally agree with you. The law is interpreted in many and varied ways.

Minimum sentences seem to be a good idea, set consequences no matter what the circumstances. The three strikes and you are out rule also seems to have merit, as it gives a firm guideline as to what will happen when, and discourages testing the limits of getting away with crimes...

If I hit my thumb with a hammer, I know that I am going to feel pain.

Now to read what Jackrat wrote.

Mike

Ms Piggy

20th June 2004, 23:30

Education is a wonderfull idea apart from for the kids that are to busy worrying about what the next hiding is going to be for or why the old lady packed her bags a couple of years ago and hasn't been heard from since...Belive me it's not easy learning anything in a place like that.Fear kind'a gets in the way...The cycle starts in the home and our system of welfare and punitive justice only reinforces it, nothing else...If a person doesn't work it out for themselfs no amount of prison time will make them do it.I never met a single inmate that didn't know they were shit heads, including myself.

That's exactly it mate. It starts in the home, so if you come from a home of hatred & fear where a bashing is normal etc, etc how would ya know different?

I mean I don't know anything about this sorta life but I totally agree that a person has to want to sort their shit out. I was talking to a guy recently who is now a drug & alcohol counsellor and a former criminal and he said he just had a kinda relisation that his life was gonna go nowhere if he staye din that scene. So in th end no-one except that person can change themselves, ya know from the inside out.

For me becoimg a social worker is b/c I'd like to be part of the help at the top of the cliff rather then the ambulance at the bottom but I'm not sure realistically how that can happen.

mangell6

20th June 2004, 23:42

Back then there was no name for bleeding heart lib's but my mates and I knew them well anyway.We just called them suckers is all.
:niceone:

The cycle starts in the home and our system of welfare and punitive justice only reinforces it, nothing else.

I think that this statement sums up the real problem.

It is regretable to see the Government encouraging the continuation of the cycle by the break up of the family by the latest round of budget giveaways.
:argh:

I know exactly what Jackrat is saying as I was the white kid on the black block ergo I could do no wrong in the eyes of the blue boys. I got out, left the town/city I hate to think what I would have been like or ended up if I had stayed.

A number of individuals consider prison "home" as there is a commoraderie (sp) there that is missing in their so called "normal" family life.

Apologies to the 'liberals' if you are offended by anything that I have said, but there are a group of people who believe that someone else is always to blame. And if those people only looked in the mirror they would see that person. :done:

well almost.

CSL - Remember that a person has to want to change, you can never make them change. And as my life has shown me sometimes there are individuals that you cannot help and in the end you have to walk away. Thus letting them fall off the cliff. Sorry.

And I won't mention the perils or benefits of association. Damn I did!!
Mike

Ms Piggy

20th June 2004, 23:48

CSL - Remember that a person has to want to change, you can never make them change. And as my life has shown me sometimes there are individuals that you cannot help and in the end you have to walk away. Thus letting them fall off the cliff. Sorry.

And I won't mention the perils or benefits of association. Damn I did!!
Mike
Yup I agree with ya Mike, sad but true & that for me will be my BIGGEST challenge, I don't like that bleeding heart liberal shit but some of it I agree with.

I think people should definitely be held accountable for their own actions but sometimes I'm pretty sure that if the same child were bought up in a different family they wouldn't turn into a crim, don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying that at all justifies the crime.

moko

21st June 2004, 04:17

I think that we should be more liberal and consider the perpertrator and the poor life that they have had that contributed to the way that they make personal decisions.

Yes,we should do that.........then shoot the bastards.

scumdog

21st June 2004, 09:10

Couple of comments after reading the other messages - time and time again I hear the comment dirrected at Police/Court staff "YOU have stuffed up my life" or "It's all YOUR fault I've got to go to court/will lose my licence/am going to jail" etc. - nothing about taking personal responsibility for action though. A suggestion that a look in the mirror would show who was to blame for their problem normally brings the intelligent response of "Eh?"

Most of the poor Bozos think where they are in life right now is at the top of the heap, they don't know they COULD do better, they think that those with a steady job/nicer car etc are "lucky" but don't seem to realise they could get there too.

Some are too tied up with their drug scene to notice they are getting nowhere and that the rest of the world is better off than them.

Some DO change and they get my respect - and I've told them that.

Tougher sentencing - everybody knows (they do don't they?) that maximum fine for drink-driving first time is $4,500, - when was the last time you saw a first or second time drink driver get fined over $1,000? - just an indication that the POSSIBLE penalties could be tougher but are not being used.

MikeL

21st June 2004, 09:31

Needless to say i would support harsher sentences.

The home is the start or the end of bloody near all budding criminals. Social services can throw any amount of $$$ and support at fledgling crims but if the support aint there at home the efforts are so often fruitless.

So, Spud, from your perspective is harsher sentencing the ONLY practical solution? It's the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff...
Any practical suggestions for the fence at the top? Or given the dismal vicious circle of poor parenting, abuse, low self-esteem and crime that you must meet all the time (and no doubt try to avoid becoming too cynical about), is there any hope?
Jackrat, I admire and respect you for what you have done. But you and Spud
would have to admit that you are exceptional. The fact that you were able to break the cycle isn't necessarily proof that we as a whole don't need to address social issues because all that's needed is to take personal responsibility for our actions.
It reminds me a bit of the debate Zed and I had about free will. We have a system in which the powerful make rules and set up structures and establish values based on greed and exploitation, and they call it democracy or freedom; and when the weak protest that these structures and values are inherently unfair, because they lock large numbers of people into cycles of poverty, ignorance and crime, they are reminded that they have free will and can choose good or bad and must take responsibility for their own actions...

Surely, Spud, there are times when confronted with some vicious mindless thug who you know will just go on offending, a person utterly devoid of any redeeming features, a complete waste of space for whom a bullet in the head would be the best solution, you begin to wonder whether there was ever any real choice possible in his life, or whether it wasn't somehow all mapped out for him before he had a chance to develop a conscience, or an idea of free will...?

jrandom

21st June 2004, 09:47

you begin to wonder whether there was ever any real choice possible in his life, or whether it wasn't somehow all mapped out for him before he had a chance to develop a conscience, or an idea of free will...?

Hmmmph.

The fact that a minority *do* break the cycle indicates that the mapping is not necessarily deterministic or predictable. Sometimes people hop right out of the bell curve.

I think most of the guys that Jack and Spud talk about couldn't be described as completely anarchic and sociopathic. They're (sometimes) nice to their kids and girlfriends, they (when they get around to it) do favours for mates, etc.

So they *do* have consciences, of a sort. And free will does exist, enough for some people to occasionally break the mold.

I don't think it's valid to conceptually smooth over large chunks of humanity in an argument and use the resulting (apparent) uniformity to claim an absence of free will. It only takes one counter-example to disprove...

Are we getting back to the 'consciousness as automaton' argument here?

mangell6

21st June 2004, 11:25

Tougher sentencing - everybody knows (they do don't they?) that maximum fine for drink-driving first time is $4,500, - when was the last time you saw a first or second time drink driver get fined over $1,000? - just an indication that the POSSIBLE penalties could be tougher but are not being used.

And who is the single individual that makes the decision on how much the penalty will be?

We have a system in which the powerful make rules and set up structures and establish values based on greed and exploitation, and they call it democracy or freedom; and when the weak protest that these structures and values are inherently unfair, because they lock large numbers of people into cycles of poverty, ignorance and crime, they are reminded that they have free will and can choose good or bad and must take responsibility for their own actions...
Any system that encourages people to depend on their own efforts and provides associated support has my support (vote). I do not agree with any system that encourages people to depend on others (the state) and also provides the associated support. An additional 300,000 people (Budget night figure) in NZ are to be dependant on the state! Where is the personal responsibility or accountability for ones own actions - gone with the wind I reckon.

Socialism rules! :bleh:

Back onto the topic

Does anyone know what the impact was to offences when DIC was changed to have a minimum penalty of loose of licence?? I know that with the people

I remember reading how murders/mans laughter increased in NZ when the death penalty was removed.

In NZ the 'cause' and 'effect' principle does not seem to be promoted (can't find the right word), ah, explained or demonstrated to children, let alone adults.

Are prisons too soft? If they meet the basic humanitarium needs and are also better than being on the outside, what does that say about our society and the so called minimum standard of living.

Better go and do some work as it is wet and windy outside and I can't be bothered going for a ride so I will check the bike over, if I feel like it, but its warm inside, so I don't know if I can really be bothered going outside . . . .

scumdog

21st June 2004, 11:45

Further to my last comments, I just remembered that back in the '70s three of my mates got picked up for drunk driving, first time for all three - they got prison for it, how often does a first time drunk-driver get THAT nowadays?

Judges (as some would say, they reflect society) are too soft too often and to the wrong people,never mind, Justice Dept. has put in for permision to build a new 300 bed prison near Milton, now they have pretty much got approval they suddenly say "ah, ahem, it's actually going to be a 600 bed prison" WTF!!!! - still now there is likely to be a cell available (when they get it built) the judges might be a bit quicker to send low-lifes to jail.

I don't believe that jail is for rehabilitation - it's just there to take them out of society for a bit, rehabilitation is up to the individual, after all he would have had enough clues earlier that if he didn't mend his ways he would be in prison :brick:

rettun

21st June 2004, 13:27

I think before they go making sentences harsher they should get their shit together and rank sentences in accordance to the severity of the crime.

and work from there :Pokey:

spudchucka

21st June 2004, 13:57

So, Spud, from your perspective is harsher sentencing the ONLY practical solution? It's the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff...
Any practical suggestions for the fence at the top? Or given the dismal vicious circle of poor parenting, abuse, low self-esteem and crime that you must meet all the time (and no doubt try to avoid becoming too cynical about), is there any hope?

Harsher sentencing is not the only solution but its a good place to start. The law allows for 10 years in prison for burglary but Judges just don't seem to want to put people in jail for burglary??

Unfortuneately when police are dealing with people on matters of serious crimes that person has already slipped through all the safety nets and is firmly planted at the bottom of the cliff. However for first time offenders a brush with the law can be the required catalyst to help re-focus their lives.

There is youth aid and youth education to help the little rough diamonds that will later become fully fledged criminals. These can help when the family of the little darlings are pro police and want to help their child. If the families aren't behind it then its a waste of time.

Example: I know of a family that is responsible for a large % of crime in the area I work. Every member of the family from great grand parents to the youngest child recieves some form of benefit. The total cost in benefits to the tax payer for this family is in the vacinity of $13,000 per week. Members of the family are constantly in trouble with the law, all age groups from the very young to the very old. None of them has any regard for the law or rules of any kind. They breed at an alarming rate and know how to play the systems to their advantage. They teach their kids to expect nothing more than a life of crime and living off a benefit as the best they will ever do.

There is no hope for this lot.

Surely, Spud, there are times when confronted with some vicious mindless thug who you know will just go on offending, a person utterly devoid of any redeeming features, a complete waste of space for whom a bullet in the head would be the best solution, you begin to wonder whether there was ever any real choice possible in his life, or whether it wasn't somehow all mapped out for him before he had a chance to develop a conscience, or an idea of free will...?

Its the nature versus nurture arguement. Are criminals born bad or are they made bad because of their circumstances?? I don't think it is definately one or the other but probably a bit of both in most cases. Some people are definately the victims of their upbringings as in the family mentioned above but I don't accept that this takes away an individuals ability to make their own rational decisions. There are plenty of people who have hit rock bottom and still been able to make a conscious decision to change their lives.

Hitcher

21st June 2004, 14:03

Ask yourself another couple of questions:

1. As a taxpayer, am I paying too much tax already? (No? Really, you surprise me!)
2. Of the hard-earned money I currently pay in taxes, how much of that should go building prisons? (OK, so your Mum can go another couple of years with her stuffed old hip so another couple of burglars can be locked up...)

MikeL

21st June 2004, 15:13

Some people are definately the victims of their upbringings as in the family mentioned above but I don't accept that this takes away an individuals ability to make their own rational decisions.

On what basis do we make decisions? What to you or me is a totally unacceptable choice may well be to a criminal a perfectly rational decision. We decide according to our past experiences. I don't believe anyone is born good or bad. We are a clean slate: even conscience and our understanding of right and wrong are learned behaviour. It is pointless to expect people who have never acquired this understanding to make "good" choices.

By all means lock people up and throw away the key, but let's be perfectly clear why: it's partly vengeance and partly self-preservation: to keep them out of society for own own well-being. Deterrence and rehabilitation give respectability to our judicial system but if they are anything other than a shallow pretext where are the results?

Emphasizing free choices and individual responsibility is fine but not if it's an excuse to avoid having to think about ways in which our society could be structured differently and perhaps more equitably...

Just a hypothetical question, not directly related to the above: if you could reduce all crime in this country by 75%, reduce poverty by the same amount, and provide a decent standard of living and future for all NZers, and to do this you had to pay an extra 15% tax and do 10 hours of voluntary community work each week, would you agree?

riffer

21st June 2004, 15:50

Just a hypothetical question, not directly related to the above: if you could reduce all crime in this country by 75%, reduce poverty by the same amount, and provide a decent standard of living and future for all NZers, and to do this you had to pay an extra 15% tax and do 10 hours of voluntary community work each week, would you agree?
I guess, but does the 10 hours a week entail burying the bodies of all those who would not comply? <_<

spudchucka

21st June 2004, 17:21

On what basis do we make decisions? What to you or me is a totally unacceptable choice may well be to a criminal a perfectly rational decision. We decide according to our past experiences. I don't believe anyone is born good or bad. We are a clean slate: even conscience and our understanding of right and wrong are learned behaviour. It is pointless to expect people who have never acquired this understanding to make "good" choices.

Well I'm afraid that I've met a number of people that I would consider were born bad so I'll have to disagree on that point.

As for decisions, I accept that a persons judgement is tainted by their upbringing / circumstances but I don't accept, (in all but a few cases anyway), that because of this they are incapable of understanding right from wrong. Their ability to make choices is still functioning perfectly, they just make the wrong choices.

By all means lock people up and throw away the key, but let's be perfectly clear why: it's partly vengeance and partly self-preservation: to keep them out of society for own own well-being. Deterrence and rehabilitation give respectability to our judicial system but if they are anything other than a shallow pretext where are the results?

Vengence might be a motivating factor for some victims but on the whole I believe most victims only seek justice and prison is the form of justice that our judicial system advocates. Deterrence is a factor but to truely rehabilitate a person has to CHOOSE to change before any intervention strategy will work.

Emphasizing free choices and individual responsibility is fine but not if it's an excuse to avoid having to think about ways in which our society could be structured differently and perhaps more equitably...

I agree, we should never stop thinking about possible solutions to problems. Just locking people away and not trying to offer re-education would be ridiculas. However the person has to choose to take on board what is being taught. It comes back to individual choices everytime.

Just a hypothetical question, not directly related to the above: if you could reduce all crime in this country by 75%, reduce poverty by the same amount, and provide a decent standard of living and future for all NZers, and to do this you had to pay an extra 15% tax and do 10 hours of voluntary community work each week, would you agree?

On the face of it, No.

Big Dog

21st June 2004, 18:50

Lets face it, it sucks when a killer gets off with a fine because he used his car to do the killing.

I am not talking Joe / Joelene Bloggs who kills a family of 4 when her brakes failed and her warrant was two days expired.

I am talking about the repeat drunk / careless / reckless driver whoes license was impounded for the third time last month but still chose to drive dagerously. then gets his sentence suspended in recognition of a donation made to a local charity.

I don't support blanket harsher sentencing, who knows one day it may be me in the dock - I am human after all - but where there is intent and or lack of remorse the sentence must reflect that.

Recidivist offenders deserve no mercy, nor IMHO humane treatment. I support the idea that every conviction for the same crime should carry a penalty twice that of the last conviction + any time you had reduced for good behavior.

I don't think Prison is a deterrent to carreer criminals, it is more of a finishing school, to sharpen their skills. Nor do I think it is a deterrent to crimes of passion. When your pumped full of rage the last thing going through your head is "gee, I wonder how long I will get for this."

Prison is however the only method we have of keeping the real "bad bastards" in captivity where they can do as little harm as possible.

Big Dog

21st June 2004, 18:55

Who in this thread thinks what about businesses doing criminal history checks before deciding whether to hire someone or not?

Should they be allowed?
Should they be allowed to make a difference?

Mongoose

21st June 2004, 19:43

Who in this thread thinks what about businesses doing criminal history checks before deciding whether to hire someone or not?

Should they be allowed?
Should they be allowed to make a difference?

Depends on the business and the trust that that person would be given as part of the job. But on the whole I suspect employers would want honest people over people with previous proof of dishonesty.

Lou Girardin

21st June 2004, 19:52

Depends on the business and the trust that that person would be given as part of the job. But on the whole I suspect employers would want honest people over people with previous proof of dishonesty.

Over what time span should previous convictions be available?
When should someones past no longer be held against them?

Mongoose

21st June 2004, 20:24

Over what time span should previous convictions be available?
When should someones past no longer be held against them?

That unfortunately brings in so many variables, like the job, the crime, frequency and sort of crime,time since last crime etc

Hitcher

21st June 2004, 20:33

Who in this thread thinks what about businesses doing criminal history checks before deciding whether to hire someone or not?

Should they be allowed?
Should they be allowed to make a difference?

I depends what they were convicted for and what role you want to fill.

I wouldn't hire an embezzler in a role that involved handling money, but a murderer might be OK.
I wouldn't hire a paedophile as a childcare worker but that embezzler may have a shot...

Jackrat

21st June 2004, 21:04

Over what time span should previous convictions be available?
When should someones past no longer be held against them?

My last conviction was 26yrs ago,but any employer cheaking my back ground could refuse to employ me as a result.
I find that a bit irritating yet at the same time I would fully understand their decision even if I didn't agree with it.The flip side of this is that my local police found me suitable to hold a firearms licence.
I do feel that the day I was issued with an arms licence my history should of no longer been public record.I think 10 years would be a fair time if it was to happen at all, but I'm never going to lose any sleep over it.

SPman

22nd June 2004, 07:43

I depends what they were convicted for and what role you want to fill.

I wouldn't hire an embezzler in a role that involved handling money, but a murderer might be OK.
I wouldn't hire a paedophile as a childcare worker but that embezzler may have a shot...
Preferably at the paedophile with a 308!

Deano

22nd June 2004, 07:58

Over what time span should previous convictions be available?
When should someones past no longer be held against them?

This has recently been highlighted by the boxer going to Athens. He was convicted in 1994 (I think 94) for manslaughter of his baby daughter - crucial factor there was his evidence of an accident that was disputed by the coronor's findings of multiple injuries.

Then he had a further 7 convictions for assaulting women.

He says he has changed his ways, so I guess the question is how long should he "stand down" from representing a country in sport (particularly boxing in light of the nature of convictions), and should he ever represent a country in this way. The NZ Olympic Committee have stipulated in the contract that he must be a good role model, but has that already lost credibility by his past actions ? Conversely, they are past actions, but still relatively recent.

Perhaps a revue in front of psychologists, sociologists, criminologists ?

What thoughts on this one?

James Deuce

22nd June 2004, 09:10

With respect Spud, anybody seeking justice from the justice system is unlikely to get it. There is no such thing as justice, natural or otherwise. It is modern civilisation's sugar coating of the vengeance impulse, and given that life isn't fair, no one should expect an outcome from the justice "system" that brings a measure of closure or satisfaction.

The definition of "Justice" is entirely dependant of a culture's judiciary ethos. "Victims" in NZ are thoroughly ignored by the justice system. The court system is totally about making sure that it appears that the Government is doing "something", not about ensuring that the rights of the victim are upheld. A victim in NZ is merely a witness, and a biased one at that, often not allowed to participate in presenting the case against a perpetrator of a crime.

Stuff happens. Get over it. It is the only way to deal realistically with the current justice process.

spudchucka

22nd June 2004, 19:23

Who in this thread thinks what about businesses doing criminal history checks before deciding whether to hire someone or not?

Should they be allowed?
Should they be allowed to make a difference?

No problem with this from my point of view. I should however be structured so that minor offences that aren't relevant don't affect a persons career. The threshold to me should start with any dishonesty offences and offences that carry 3 or more years of imprisonment.

spudchucka

22nd June 2004, 19:28

moko

23rd June 2004, 07:09

[QUOTE=Jackrat]My last conviction was 26yrs ago,but any employer cheaking my back ground could refuse to employ me as a result.
I find that a bit irritating yet at the same time I would fully understand their decision even if I didn't agree with it.[QUOTE]

In the U.K. there`s a 5 year "cut-off",except for serious offences your conviction is considered "spent" after that time,i.e. you can sign an employment application after that time saying that you have no record and it`s o.k.Exceptions are made in the case of certain proffessions when you cant hide anything.
On the car-killing front we used to have the same problem,drunks killing people in cars would get 6 months and a driving ban(seriously),now the law`s changed and some arsehole got 11 years only yesterday for killing 3 people while drunk and high.

FzerozeroT

23rd June 2004, 12:29

I would support paying extra tax if I knew it was going to make a difference to the standard of living. however it gives me th eshits to see people in high ranking public positions giving themselves huge bonuses etc because they managed to cut costs on public spending this year.

another option that is still used in some asian countries is compulsory military service. Maybe that would give the career crims more of a sense of belonging than prison family life, hell, I wouldn't mind paying more tax to fund a civil corp that does community work. remember the old days of railways and post office (before the telecom breakaway), it kept a lot of people who were 'unemployable' in employment

Bandito

23rd June 2004, 13:09

Judges are a pretty fair reflection of NZ society and also hand out what the law says they should. There is little evidence to suggest that unnecessarily harsher sentences make a jot of difference in reducing offending or assisting the rehabilitation of those convicted. Sentencing shouldn't be about revenge or punitive punishment. Those who think otherwise should move to Texas or Iraq.

I disagree again Hitcher you say there is little evidence of harsher penalties reducing offending-that is a subjective matter. What is factual is that most convicted criminals do reoffend which would be impossible if they are locked up. therefore giving others a safer community.

Hitcher

23rd June 2004, 13:40

I disagree again Hitcher you say there is little evidence of harsher penalties reducing offending-that is a subjective matter. What is factual is that most convicted criminals do reoffend which would be impossible if they are locked up. therefore giving others a safer community.

So much for rehabilitation! Let's lock everybody up and throw away the keys. What the heck, let's go all the way and just lock anybody up who looks potentially dodgy, that way saving all of those costs involved in Court proceedings. What a wonderfully safe community we'd have then...

jrandom

23rd June 2004, 13:55

So much for rehabilitation! Let's lock everybody up and throw away the keys.

Well, the "three strikes and you're out" concept does seem like a reasonable answer to that. Obviously one would want to give rehabilitation a chance, and an offender only proves that they're *not* rehabilitated by offending again.

Presumably you'd be happy to keep people in jail until they received a hypothetical and entirely trustworthy Certificate Of Rehabilitation issued by the Magical Mind-Reading Machine, were such a thing in existence.

So... in the absence of our MMRM, TSAYO sets a limit on pathological re-offending while continuing efforts to rehabilitate first and second-time crooks.

Spud may like to comment (if he hasn't already... I don't recall...) on the proportion of NZ crime committed by offenders who, under a TSAYO system, would have been consigned in perpetuity long ago.

Fluffy Cat

23rd June 2004, 15:25

Hey i've just finished reading all the threads but what about justice.We are talking about serious crimes here,not theft minor assaults etc.NZ is run by people who have no idear about justice and whinge on about the poor crims and how are they going to cope.So you kill someone here 10 to 15 years bah thats crap!.You kill some one without good reason its murder,life.Thats it.For me people who murder have no place in my world you give up your rights when you choose to do it same for other serious crimes.So its not about harsher sentences,its about justice,justice for the dead and for the ones left behind.Do we in NZ condone murder?,is it ok to kill,cause it sure seems that way to me here in NZ.It ain't about the sentence its about the crime.

jrandom

23rd June 2004, 15:41

So its not about harsher sentences,its about justice,justice for the dead and for the ones left behind.

If I were you, I'd step aside carefully, right about now, in expectation of a howling whirlwind of MikeL and Hitcher-flavoured expositions on the subjectivity of your position and the impossibility of provably absolute moral content in your ideas of 'justice'.

This *is* an internet forum, remember.

Hitcher

23rd June 2004, 16:03

It ain't about the sentence its about the crime.

No, it's about the sentence. In the words of Lord Poo Bah from The Mikado, "the punishment should fit the crime".

And, at the risk of sounding like a wishy-washy, trendy, pinko, liberal with hand-knitted organic hemp underwear and a longdrop dunny [shudders visibly], murder is not murder. There is a big difference between a crime of passion, a tragic event in the heat of the moment, versus a cold calculated premeditated slaying. In some cases the "crime of passion" murderer realises that they've done bad, and the sentence they place on themselves for their own actions is more severe than what society may level. They will probably never offend again. There are degrees of murder, and the sentencing should recognise this.

jrandom

23rd June 2004, 16:08

In the words of Yum-Yum, Peep-Bo and Pitti-Sing from The Mikado, "Three little maids from school are we".

See? SEE? What did I tell you, eh?

Hitcher

23rd June 2004, 16:25

See? SEE? What did I tell you, eh?

Talk about putting words in my mouth... "Filled to the brim with girlish glee" indeed!

Skyryder

23rd June 2004, 16:27

There are degrees of murder, and the sentencing should recognise this. Yes you are right. But these degrees are legal excuses, nothing more. There are no degrees of death and sentencing should reflect this.

Skyryder

Big Dog

23rd June 2004, 16:37

Recidivists deserve the death penalty or at the very least lets get some roads cleaned / maintained for our tax dollars.

But IMHO if someone has done their time and through a time of good behaviour proven themselves to be reformed it should no longer be held against them. I did a lot of things in my youth that would prevent me from holding my current position if I had been caught. None involve dishonesty, not since I had 2 didgits in my age anyway.

I think it sucks that co's can refuse a person a the oportunity to further themselves after 26 years of good behaviour because of what can amount to 1 poor decision.

jrandom

23rd June 2004, 16:37

There are no degrees of death and sentencing should reflect this.

Oh, come on, if this is your genuine opinion then you're just being a hidebound prat. I will restrain myself from making any counter-arguments, however, because if it was a troll, it was good enough to get even MY fingers twitching, and I refuse to bite.

Unfortunately I do suspect that you're serious.

Big Dog

23rd June 2004, 16:43

Yes you are right. But these degrees are legal excuses, nothing more. There are no degrees of death and sentencing should reflect this.

Skyryder

I agree on the surface. The victim is dead, or not. But there are definately degrees of intent and culpability.

Drink drivers are culpable as they are aware of the increased risk they pose to the public.

But is a sober driver driving a warranted, well maintained car whose brakes fail responsible? Given that they took all reasonable steps to ensure they did not pose a hazard?

scumdog

23rd June 2004, 16:47

The trouble with "degrees' of killing is that you end up with long drawn out plea bargaining and appeals - even more so than now.

Having said that I appreciate the distinction between somebody accidently shooting a mate and somebody stalking his ex- and her new man and shooting them. <_<

scumdog

23rd June 2004, 16:51

No, it's about the sentence. In the words of Lord Poo Bah from The Mikado, "the punishment should fit the crime".

And, at the risk of sounding like a wishy-washy, trendy, pinko, liberal with hand-knitted organic hemp underwear and a longdrop dunny [shudders visibly], murder is not murder. There is a big difference between a crime of passion, a tragic event in the heat of the moment, versus a cold calculated premeditated slaying. In some cases the "crime of passion" murderer realises that they've done bad, and the sentence they place on themselves for their own actions is more severe than what society may level. They will probably never offend again. There are degrees of murder, and the sentencing should recognise this.

Heaven help us if we ever bumped into you riding in your organic hemp underwear :bleh:

scumdog

23rd June 2004, 16:56

Why does nobody speed as much as they use to? is it the "harsher penalty" or is it the increased likelihood of a lot more of the same penalty? Hmmmm :sneaky2:

Big Dog

23rd June 2004, 18:06

Why does nobody speed as much as they use to? is it the "harsher penalty" or is it the increased likelihood of a lot more of the same penalty? Hmmmm :sneaky2:
For me this is because the possibility of a death penalty for speeding would harm my children without punishing me.

It has nothing to do with fines, I use fines as a yard stick because you have to have a guideline. As long as most of the other mobile chicaines are sticking to under 120, even errant police supers, if I'm doing 200 kmph the last thing i need is to encounter a car at 80kmph on a blinder.

It is human nature to extend your boundaries so the law knew when they wrote them that they were laying down a challenge, did they foresee the revenue potential perhaps?

It is also human nature to attempt to profit from leverage.... so why shouldn't they charge people cash fro breaking the rules if they want to continue to have the priveledge of driving?

When did we become so American that we honestly beleive that operating heavy machinery at high speed should be a right and the license just a formality?

Too many demerits? Lost license? Harden up poofter it's not like the dog died.
Total sypathy because I know how hard it is to go a weekend let alone a month without a ride, because you now own a vehicle you are still paying all the appropriate taxes. But dude! Don't cry to me cos you lost your license.

Be grateful you didn't get the death penalty, via a clueless cage or school bus.

Got all of those points for 1km over the limit because the cops were persecuting you personally? Now you got my attention. Until then count your blessings and keep your high speeds where they belong, on the track.

Fluffy Cat

23rd June 2004, 18:54

[QUOTE=Hitcher]No, it's about the sentence. In the words of Lord Poo Bah from The Mikado, "the punishment should fit the crime".

Hey not fair,I read your thread why don't you read mine,then reply?.

mangell6

23rd June 2004, 19:34

It is good to see that the "Legal System" that we all participate in has no real relevance to a "Justice System" that we all want.

And aren't forums a wonderful place to express ones opinion and say, There were/are cultures where if you "killed" an individual your "sentence" was to serve the family for the rest of your natural life.

Interesting.

spudchucka

23rd June 2004, 19:46

Well, the "three strikes and you're out" concept does seem like a reasonable answer to that. Obviously one would want to give rehabilitation a chance, and an offender only proves that they're *not* rehabilitated by offending again.

Presumably you'd be happy to keep people in jail until they received a hypothetical and entirely trustworthy Certificate Of Rehabilitation issued by the Magical Mind-Reading Machine, were such a thing in existence.

So... in the absence of our MMRM, TSAYO sets a limit on pathological re-offending while continuing efforts to rehabilitate first and second-time crooks.

Spud may like to comment (if he hasn't already... I don't recall...) on the proportion of NZ crime committed by offenders who, under a TSAYO system, would have been consigned in perpetuity long ago.
I recall recently a case in California where a woman was jailed for life under the TSAYO law. She had some serious past offending but on this occassion she had kept out of trouble for some time but then stole a tool box or something like that worth about$40 USD. She got life imprisonment and life means life over there. It seems somewhat harsh in relation to the offending but she knew the consequences of getting a third conviction.

On the other hand we have criminals in this country that have collected hundreds of convictions for all manor of offending and the justice sysytem just keeps dishing out the same penalties. The criminal does his time and then just goes about collecting more victims. I often wonder with people who have histories like that just how many crimes have they committed and not been prosecuted for?

Maybe three strikes and your'e out is a bit too harsh for NZ but why not 10 strikes perhaps? What would ordinary NZ consider to be reasonable?

Hitcher

23rd June 2004, 19:49

Yes you are right. But these degrees are legal excuses, nothing more. There are no degrees of death and sentencing should reflect this.

Skyryder

I hope this is just an attempt to wind me up... I presume by this definition there are no degrees of theft either??

Hitcher

23rd June 2004, 19:53

[QUOTE=Hitcher]No, it's about the sentence. In the words of Lord Poo Bah from The Mikado, "the punishment should fit the crime".

Hey not fair,I read your thread why don't you read mine,then reply?.

Que???????

spudchucka

23rd June 2004, 23:24

I hope this is just an attempt to wind me up... I presume by this definition there are no degrees of theft either??
There are degrees of theft based on the value of the property stolen.

Dead is dead. You can't be partly dead or half dead, (some people give you that impression though) same as you can't be only slightly pregnant. You either are or you aren't.

Lou Girardin

24th June 2004, 06:58

Yes you are right. But these degrees are legal excuses, nothing more. There are no degrees of death and sentencing should reflect this.
Skyryder

So the perpetrator of a fatal accident ( just an accident, no aggravating factors) should receive the same sentence as William Bell. (The RSA murderer)

Better drive really carefully, Skyrider. There, but for the grace of God, go you.

spudchucka

24th June 2004, 09:04

jrandom

24th June 2004, 09:13

Your'e a fool to even suggest that as a joke. No one has suggested that but you.

No, Lou's point was a good refutation of Skyryder's la-la-land post. Skyryder made a blanket statement that degrees of culpability in homicide are just "legal excuses", and that sentencing should reflect the fact that there are no "degrees of death". This was unjustifiable.

James Deuce

24th June 2004, 09:16

So the perpetrator of a fatal accident ( just an accident, no aggravating factors) should receive the same sentence as William Bell. (The RSA murderer)

Better drive really carefully, Skyrider. There, but for the grace of God, go you.

I'm intrigued. I've never seen an "accident" on the road. I've been in what other people call accidents, but they were all combinations of me not doing the right thing, combined with someone else not doing the right thing.

I still think that the dancing around the issue of using manslaughter as the charge when someone has killed someone on the roads is cowardly behaviour, both at a societal level and a judicial level.

spudchucka

24th June 2004, 10:05

No, Lou's point was a good refutation of Skyryder's la-la-land post. Skyryder made a blanket statement that degrees of culpability in homicide are just "legal excuses", and that sentencing should reflect the fact that there are no "degrees of death". This was unjustifiable.

It may not be totally justifiable but he makes a valid point in the context of the arguement. Dead is dead, nothing can change that.

The Sentencing Act provides for degrees of culpability, section 8 says:

8.Principles of sentencing or otherwise dealing with offenders—

In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court—

(a)must take into account the gravity of the offending in the particular case, including the degree of culpability of the offender; and

(b)must take into account the seriousness of the type of offence in comparison with other types of offences, as indicated by the maximum penalties prescribed for the offences; and

(c)must impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate; and

(d)must impose a penalty near to the maximum prescribed for the offence if the offending is near to the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate; and

(e)must take into account the general desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing levels and other means of dealing with offenders in respect of similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances; and

(f)must take into account any information provided to the court concerning the effect of the offending on the victim; and

(g)must impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances; and

(h)must take into account any particular circumstances of the offender that mean that a sentence or other means of dealing with the offender that would otherwise be appropriate would, in the particular instance, be disproportionately severe; and

(i)must take into account the offender's personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background in imposing a sentence or other means of dealing with the offender with a partly or wholly rehabilitative purpose; and

(j)must take into account any outcomes of restorative justice processes that have occurred, or that the court is satisfied are likely to occur, in relation to the particular case (including, without limitation, anything referred to in section 10).

Section 102 of the Act relates to sentencing convicted murderers.

102.Presumption in favour of life imprisonment for murder—

(1)An offender who is convicted of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust.

(2)If a court does not impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on an offender convicted of murder, it must give written reasons for not doing so.

Other relevant sections are 7, 9, 86, 103, 104, 105.

After you have read all of the above you will see that in NZ we do have degrees of murder. Its up to the Court in each particular case to determine the degree of culpability of an offender.

Go have read yourself at http://www.legislation.co.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes

Scroll down on the left hand side, click on the "S" and then go to "Sentencing Act 2002".

Also check out the Crimes Act 1961 sections 158 - 177, which relate to culpable homicide, murder and manslaughter.

So the perpetrator of a fatal accident ( just an accident, no aggravating factors) should receive the same sentence as William Bell. (The RSA murderer)

Better drive really carefully, Skyrider. There, but for the grace of God, go you.
Lou, go read the above and you will answer your own stupid question!

riffer

24th June 2004, 10:36

Maybe three strikes and your'e out is a bit too harsh for NZ but why not 10 strikes perhaps? What would ordinary NZ consider to be reasonable?
I think this is reasonable:

For violent crimes, ie manslaughter, rape, murder, GBH, armed robbery:

1st offence should be as is now
2nd offence should be preventive detention until proved rehabilitated
3rd offence if they get out after pd it should be pd without parole.

There is no excuse for repeat offending. It shows an unwillingness to rehabilitate.

I also think if you are convicted for a further manslaughter with motor vehicle offence, like the guy from the Wairarapa recently it should be treated just like any violent offence, ie preventive detention.

riffer

24th June 2004, 10:41

White trash

24th June 2004, 10:49

Agreed. When I first heard the story, I thought "manslaughter charge"/road accident/killed his mate, let him go.

Then I heard about the kid and went "Fuck off!" The prick should still be behind bars!

Then, after seeing his interview on TV, he seems genuinly remorsefull and he has served his time. Boxing is his way of working towards something positive.

I have a sneaking suspicion he wont be allowed into Athens though, Olympic competitor or not.

riffer

24th June 2004, 10:56

It's funny how when you hear about someone who killed a child you immediately think about your own children and imagine what you would do to someone who did that.

I struggled with my feelings over this one. Somehow 7 years didn't seem a long time for a child's life.

Lucky I'm not setting the sentences...

James Deuce

24th June 2004, 11:06

Continuing on from this what are everyone's opinions on the boxer, Soulan Pownceby?

My opinion is, he has served time and shown a willingness to rehabilitate. I understand there have been some assualt convictions since his release, and this is a concern, but if they have been dealt with by the legal system and he is considered to be eligible to be part of our society, then we should offer him the chance to prove his rehabilitation.

Thus giving him the opportunity to present himself as a role model for those who make mistakes when younger.

Not taking anything away from the fact that he did a very bad thing in the past, but if he is out of jail he should be eligible to represent his country.
Not. Not only did he prove himself a big tough guy by killing his 5 month old daughter, he's subsequently proved himslef a big tough guy by beating up women. I'm not happy that NZ boxing feels that it is OK to send a recidivist violent offender who meets the TSAYO criteria that people are showing some support for, to represent our country at an event that is supposed to celebrate the best that humanity has to offer.

No matter how remorseful he is, no matter how tortured, he shouldn't be representing people who would no more kill children or beat up people less physically capable than themselves, than fly to the moon in an armchair powered by Helium balloons.

He's a scumbag who's managed to turn a violent criminal career into a violent legitimate career. And his surname was Rikihana. He's too much of a coward to even keep his real name, lest people discover his past.

White trash

24th June 2004, 11:10

Not. Not only did he prove himself a big tough guy by killing his 5 month old daughter, he's subsequently proved himslef a big tough guy by beating up women. I'm not happy that NZ boxing feels that it is OK to send a recidivist violent offender who meets the TSAYO criteria that people are showing some support for, to represent our country at an event that is supposed to celebrate the best that humanity has to offer.

No matter how remorseful he is, no matter how tortured, he shouldn't be representing people who would no more kill children or beat up people less physically capable than themselves, than fly to the moon in an armchair powered by Helium balloons.

He's a scumbag who's managed to turn a violent criminal career into a violent legitimate career. And his surname was Rikihana. He's too much of a coward to even keep his real name, lest people discover his past.

Well said!

I thought your post was going to say something about tougher sentinces for skinny, white geeks who sell leathers to other people. LOL

MikeL

24th June 2004, 11:31

Yes you are right. But these degrees are legal excuses, nothing more. There are no degrees of death

Skyryder

Quite right. And I would go even further. There are no degrees of anything. Everything is either black or white.
Quite obvious, really. Take intelligence, for instance. You are either smart (proved by the fact that you agree with me) or dumb (shown by your complete inability to understand my point).

:P

riffer

24th June 2004, 11:39

No matter how remorseful he is, no matter how tortured, he shouldn't be representing people who would no more kill children or beat up people less physically capable than themselves, than fly to the moon in an armchair powered by Helium balloons.

He's a scumbag who's managed to turn a violent criminal career into a violent legitimate career. And his surname was Rikihana. He's too much of a coward to even keep his real name, lest people discover his past.
A very tough decision I reckon.

Obviously NZ Boxing believe they have a good chance with him or they wouldn't be putting their credibility on the line.

I must admit I had not heard much about this other than brief soundbites.

7 violent convictions sounds like too much on top of manslaughter to me.

Based on my own criteria this fellow would be spending the rest of his life behind bars. Is it possible to rehabilitate in such a short time?

We must also remember that the whole point of boxing is to hit the other fellow more times than he hits you, or to knock him senseless.

If the criteria are that

a) he can do the job and
b) there is no law preventing him leaving the country and entering another country

then we have to leave ethics out of it unfortunately. I don't make the laws in this country and I was commenting on it based on the legal viewpoint much as his actions disgust me personally as a father of three.

Of course, the Greek government may have the last say by denying a violent ex-criminal a visa into the country anyway.

jrandom

24th June 2004, 12:00

I'm not happy that NZ boxing feels that it is OK to send a recidivist violent offender who meets the TSAYO criteria that people are showing some support for, to represent our country at an event that is supposed to celebrate the best that humanity has to offer.

Precisely.

Now, professional boxing... if he's not in jail (whether he *should* still be is another question entirely) then he might as well get paid to do whatever people are happy to pay to watch. Nobody's arguing the applicability of moral principles there.

But the Olympian ideal, (which some would argue is already irrepairably damaged) is still alive in the minds of many of the Teeming Masses. A laurel (or was it olive? I get confused...) wreath has no place on the head of a criminal.

Are we thereby restricting participation to those who have led blameless lives? Perhaps. Tough shit.

spudchucka

24th June 2004, 13:21

Continuing on from this what are everyone's opinions on the boxer, Soulan Pownceby?

Mixed feelings, as a boxing fan I find it a little sad that a person convicted of such violent crimes is now representing the country in a sport that is by its very nature violent. Boxing gets enough bad press without the added controversy from this sort of thing.

On the other hand if he has truely changed he deserves the chance to get on with his life. He has a lot of people that are backing him so on the face of that I'll be happy for him to represent NZ.

He'll never be able to change what he did but he has total control over what he does in the future. I hope he proves that he was worthy of selection and goes on to be a worthwhile human being when he comes home.

If he f**s up again though he should be stripped of any medals he wins and chucked in the slammer for good.

spudchucka

24th June 2004, 13:22

I have a sneaking suspicion he wont be allowed into Athens though, Olympic competitor or not.
I was thinking that as well, I heard somewhere that he has to travel separately because he can't step foot inside the USA.

Jackrat

24th June 2004, 17:57

The guy can't get a pro' licence in NZ due to his convictions,He fought his conviction,he didn't own up to the deed an just do his time.
If Boxing NZ had any real talent to choose from this prick wouldn't stand a chance.This is just a weak atempt by Boxing NZ to get medals.
What he does in his own life for his own reasons is one thing but I certainly don't want a baby killer to represent our country.If he goes and does well you can bet the international press will shit all over NZ because of it.
NEW ZEALAND CHILD MURDERER WINS GOLD.
NEXT WEEK WE BRING YOU THE ALL BLACK CHILD MOLESTERS 500.
NZ BOXING HAS SCRAPED THROUGH THE BOTTEM OF THE BARREL AND COME UP WITH DIRT.FROM THE RED CORNER WE BRING YOU A FIVE MONTH OLD LITTLE GIRL AND IN THE BLACK CORNER WE BRING TO YOU THE BEST OF NEW ZEALAND.
In Texas the fucker would be siting on death row but in NZ he's set to become a national hero. :brick:

Big Dog

24th June 2004, 18:20

In Texas the fucker would be siting on death row but in NZ he's set to become a national hero. :brick:
As they said on george fm this morning, NZ has a long tradition of forgiving its sportsmen their sins.

Bandito

24th June 2004, 19:45

So much for rehabilitation! Let's lock everybody up and throw away the keys. What the heck, let's go all the way and just lock anybody up who looks potentially dodgy, that way saving all of those costs involved in Court proceedings. What a wonderfully safe community we'd have then...

That's right Hitcher Ithougt you would see it my way_ see we're not so different after all. :bleh:

Lou Girardin

25th June 2004, 06:52

spudchucka

25th June 2004, 10:50

[QUOTE=spudchucka]
On the other hand if he has truely changed he deserves the chance to get on with his life. He has a lot of people that are backing him so on the face of that I'll be happy for him to represent NZ.

He'll never be able to change what he did but he has total control over what he does in the future. I hope he proves that he was worthy of selection and goes on to be a worthwhile human being when he comes home.
QUOTE]

How many chances will you give him? He killed his kid, then had further convictions for assault, including on a female. Now he beats up people for sport.
This is remarkably liberal of you, I would have locked him up for good, years ago.

Figure out how to use the quote thing properly. Your posts are annoying at the best of times but your inability to perform that basic function is lame.

I don't know the circumstances of how the kid died, I only know what is in the media and they aint reliable. I don't know enough about this guy to form a really strong opinion either way and I'm picking that you don't either. On the face of the info presented I'll (reluctantly) agree that he can go to the games.

Some people can and do change if they have the desire to and on that basis he can have the opportunity to prove he has changed. If he f**ks up then we'll hang the prick.

Skyryder

25th June 2004, 14:46

I hope this is just an attempt to wind me up... I presume by this definition there are no degrees of theft either??

No I am not trying to wind you or anyone up. There are no degrees of theft either, just the amount that has been stolen.

Skyryder

Hitcher

25th June 2004, 14:56

No I am not trying to wind you or anyone up. There are no degrees of theft either, just the amount that has been stolen.

Skyryder

And why should the amount matter? What has been stolen has been stolen, surely??

Big Dog

25th June 2004, 14:59

And why should the amount matter? What has been stolen has been stolen, surely??
Surely there is a difference between stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family and stealing a car for a joy ride?

Big Dog

25th June 2004, 15:00

To clarify in a welfare state like NZ stealing for food is never really neccesary.

Skyryder

25th June 2004, 15:00

Oh, come on, if this is your genuine opinion then you're just being a hidebound prat. I will restrain myself from making any counter-arguments, however, because if it was a troll, it was good enough to get even MY fingers twitching, and I refuse to bite.

Unfortunately I do suspect that you're serious.

Yes I am serious. My post on this subject had to do with murder. Not manslaughter. Manslaughter is accidental death. Murder is premeditated. I stand by my post on this subject that in the case of murder degrees are just legal excuses. I can remember a getting into serious discussion with a crimnal lawyer at a party on this subject a few years ago. He ageed with my reasoning that degrees of murder reflect legal argument. Fortunately in this country we do not have 2nd or 3rd degree as they do in the USA, so in many respects our law reflects my opinion that there are no degrees of death in relation to a murder charge. However they can be found guilty of manslaughter, if premeditation is in doubt. That makes little difference to the deceased who is till just as dead......either way.

Skyryder

Skyryder

25th June 2004, 15:11

Surely there is a difference between stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family and stealing a car for a joy ride?

No there is not. In both cases that is theft. Taking something that does not belong to you. However what you may be getting confused over is the cause although I serious doubt that stealing a loaf of bread in this country is justified.

Skyryder

Skyryder

25th June 2004, 15:17

jrandom

25th June 2004, 15:17

Yes I am serious. My post on this subject had to do with murder. Not manslaughter.

Right. You didn't make that clear at the time.

Big Dog

25th June 2004, 15:19

No there is not.
Well, if you stole a loaf of bread from me I would not run you off the road to try to stop you getting away, nor would I expect the cops to.

On the other hand if you stole my pride and joy, I would sooner it was totalled by an intercept with the theif still on board than the theif got away. Yes I would be prepared to drive the intercept.

For a start it would make a much more interesting insurance claim form.

Cause aside:
$2.99 is annoying like a mosquito.

$10k is annoying like a pit bull.

If you don't see the difference you have never lost anything of value, the first is not three months hard work.

Hitcher

25th June 2004, 15:23

Surely there is a difference between stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family and stealing a car for a joy ride?

You guys argue that there's no difference between degrees of death, so on that basis why should there be a difference between degrees of theft, or damage either for that matter?

Skyryder

25th June 2004, 15:28

Well, if you stole a loaf of bread from me I would not run you off the road to try to stop you getting away, nor would I expect the cops to.

On the other hand if you stole my pride and joy, I would sooner it was totalled by an intercept with the theif still on board than the theif got away. Yes I would be prepared to drive the intercept.

For a start it would make a much more interesting insurance claim form.

Cause aside:
$2.99 is annoying like a mosquito.

$10k is annoying like a pit bull.

If you don't see the difference you have never lost anything of value, the first is not three months hard work.

Let me tell you what I have had stolen from. One of my hobbies is growing bonsai. These are small indavidual trees that take many years and a lot of work to train. Each one is different and each one unique. A few years ago I had over half my collection stolen. No insurance for me. Oh no you see each tree was priceless. And how do you put a price on something that you have grown trained and loved for a lifetime. When you have had something stolen that is pricelsess you may begin to understand that theft is theft and there are no excuses for it. Period.

Skyryder

Big Dog

25th June 2004, 15:39

Let me tell you what I have had stolen from. One of my hobbies is growing bonsai. These are small indavidual trees that take many years and a lot of work to train. Each one is different and each one unique. A few years ago I had over half my collection stolen. No insurance for me. Oh no you see each tree was priceless. And how do you put a price on something that you have grown trained and loved for a lifetime. When you have had something stolen that is pricelsess you may begin to understand that theft is theft and there are no excuses for it. Period.

Skyryder

So you do see the difference then. I measured mine in dollars = a measurment of my time and skills sold to employers. You measured yours in a Bonsai = Time and skills dedicated to a craft.

Surely you experienced more grief over this than if you made a loaf of bread and some one stole it? (a loaf of bread takes about 1/2 an hour to an hour and not a lot of skill, or you can buy one for 1/3 of an hour at minimum wage).

Big Dog

25th June 2004, 15:41

You guys argue that there's no difference between degrees of death, so on that basis why should there be a difference between degrees of theft, or damage either for that matter?
Actually I argue there is no degree of death but there has to be of murder.

I also argued there was a difference between calpability, liabilty and responsibility.

spudchucka

25th June 2004, 20:33

And why should the amount matter? What has been stolen has been stolen, surely??
The value of the property stolen determines the maximum penalty for theft.

The punishment for theft is found in Section 223 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[223.Punishment of theft—

Every one who commits theft is liable as follows:

(a)in the case of any offence against section 220, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years; or

(b)if the value of the property stolen exceeds $1,000, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years; or

(c)if the value of the property stolen exceeds $500 but does not exceed $1,000, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year; or

(d)if the value of the property stolen does not exceed $500, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months.]