Why are we still wasting time with this loser?

[Spearfish]

Is "Corrections" an oxymoron when used to name our prison system?

or
I'm absolutely unsure about the abundant poverty and benign neglect he grew up in that could have contributed to him turning into a boring court jester and thinking he is a blameless culprit but then corrections is consistently inconsistent at correcting.

[Banditbandit]

Agreed with most of the posts above. The link between becoming a criminal and a bad childhood is far too strong. Even with psychopaths, it's a mental condition. Though I think usually with psychopaths we put them in prison instead of mental institutions because they're normal people except without emotions. And that to us is exactly what we find criminals to be, no matter if they actually have faulty receptors in their brain.

How about gladiator but with criminals. Then at least you can profit off their deaths.

Hmm .. while I may express "liberal" opinions about crime and justice I do support the death penalty - and I think psychopaths should get a bullet through the brain .. and I'd happily pull the trigger ...

The only way we are safe from such people is if they are DEAD ... faulty hardwiring in the brain is a reason - not an excuse ...

Kiddiefuckers? - bullet in the brain ...
Rapists? - bullet in the brain ...

Once the link has been made between rape and orgasim or kiddies and orgasim they are gone ..no cure ...

Murderers? Hmm ... depends on the circumstances ... killing kids? Bullet in the brain ... Others .. depends ...

[Banditbandit]

Please don't try and lay the blame on my doorstep. I've never meet the prick. Not his father, not his cuzzie, not his neighbour, not his friend, not his employer etc...

I'm sick of this lets 'blame the collective 'we' or 'society'.

If I get a speeding ticket tomorrow can I blame you and you will pay the fine?

You missunderstand. I'm not suggesting "blame" as you seem to think.

There are reasons why crime occurs and there are excuses ... I don't accept excuses for crime .. people are responsible for their own behaviours ...

I do look at reasons ..and these are well known ... poverty, lack of education, poor parenting (in many ways) ...

We are all responsible for our societies ... for poverty ... for poor education ... for poor parenting .. (we CAN help our neighbours become better) ... and we can, in small ways, admitedly, do somethign about those. But the small ways of each of us become the big ways of society ..

Do I have a responsibility for your speeding? Well, you opened the throttle .. so that's your responsibility .. . BUT I certainly help create the environnment in which speeding is acceptable (Hell, I speed every day ... who the fuck asked me if I'd obey the laws?). I could help create the environment in which speeding was socially unacceptable ... but I don't ... so yes, I have some responsibility - and I accept that - but you opened the throttle - you pay your fine ...

[superman]

Hmm .. while I may express "liberal" opinions about crime and justice I do support the death penalty - and I think psychopaths should get a bullet through the brain .. and I'd happily pull the trigger ...

The only way we are safe from such people is if they are DEAD ... faulty hardwiring in the brain is a reason - not an excuse ...

Kiddiefuckers? - bullet in the brain ...
Rapists? - bullet in the brain ...

Once the link has been made between rape and orgasim or kiddies and orgasim they are gone ..no cure ...

Murderers? Hmm ... depends on the circumstances ... killing kids? Bullet in the brain ... Others .. depends ...

Hmm, I just couldn't find a justification if it is a mental issue. It's not their fault they were born with a shitty brain, and it's not their fault if being brought up in a shitty way turns even a normal brain shitty. Consistency should be the key though, if killing psychopaths is ok then we should kill all people who commit crimes due to having mental problems. I agree about the kiddyfuckers/rapists etc, they at least need to be locked up for life.

Jail is really good in that we don't kill and we are safe. What I don't agree with is the rehabilitation and short sentences. If someone has the capacity or mental derangement to kill/rape then I highly doubt rehabilitation is possible.

However considering say a man killing another man for raping his wife. It's easy to see his reasoning and I would say he was morally justified. Not that he has a mental problem, would be perfectly normal to commit such acts on someone who hurts people you love in such a way. For the state to kill people however, is not as justified. Emotionless murder through justification, it somehow sounds like the thought process of a psychopath, dehumanises our society and makes me very uneasy.

Though I'm still young and bet as I see more and more crap in the years to come my view will most likely change.

[Number One]

No matter how 'GOOD' society is, deranged narcissistic psychopaths will still be thrown up every now and then, its a numbers game

However, the media attention pumped this guy up and he aint gonna go down that slowly. He is already rotting in hell, and the only thing that can release him at this stage is sobriety and good company.

Why not give him a lobotomy and introduce him to some Hare Krishnas?

Hari hari hari....best idea yet! Perhaps I could suggest this tomorrow at court?! LMAO

[shrub]

A 12-year-old child who went along with older peers has been dropped into the corrections system for killing another human being ...

The result is what we see today ....

Kurariki will now be a problem all his life - and will probably be in and out of jail all his life ... and I agree, he probably should be.

I ask: what role did our society play in creating this person? At 12 years old we dropped him into a situation where he was surrounded by criminals - and wonder why he is the way he is?

Could we have done any better? He was 12 years old for God's Sake!!! If he was lead by his slightly older criminal peers, why didn't we remove him from that situation and give him better examples? Instead we dropped him in with even worse criminal associates. And we expected him to change? Get real ...

(And why is he taking up your time? Only because the news media think he's important - but he's just like many many others - who you don't hear about)

Bloody hell, that's not a very PC opinion - don't you know that we (society) have no responsibility for how other people turn out and that it's their fault, even if they are 12 years old?

[Bald Eagle]

Bloody hell, that's not a very PC opinion - don't you know that we (society) have no responsibility for how other people turn out and that it's their fault, even if they are 12 years old?

No the current trend is they haven't got responsibility for themselves. , they've just got rights we have to protect.

[shrub]

No the current trend is they haven't got responsibility for themselves. , they've just got rights we have to protect.

Oh, I always thought that these days our social obligations were simply to complain about people who did things we didn't like and not to be part of a social system that prevents them from doing bad shit or protects their victims. Silly me.

[Banditbandit]

Hmm, I just couldn't find a justification if it is a mental issue. It's not their fault they were born with a shitty brain, and it's not their fault if being brought up in a shitty way turns even a normal brain shitty. Consistency should be the key though, if killing psychopaths is ok then we should kill all people who commit crimes due to having mental problems. I agree about the kiddyfuckers/rapists etc, they at least need to be locked up for life.

Jail is really good in that we don't kill and we are safe. What I don't agree with is the rehabilitation and short sentences. If someone has the capacity or mental derangement to kill/rape then I highly doubt rehabilitation is possible.

However considering say a man killing another man for raping his wife. It's easy to see his reasoning and I would say he was morally justified. Not that he has a mental problem, would be perfectly normal to commit such acts on someone who hurts people you love in such a way. For the state to kill people however, is not as justified. Emotionless murder through justification, it somehow sounds like the thought process of a psychopath, dehumanises our society and makes me very uneasy.

Though I'm still young and bet as I see more and more crap in the years to come my view will most likely change.

I largely agree with you. And your example of a man killing his wife's rapist is one senario I was thinking of ... unfortunately, New ZEaland has removed the "provocation" argument from the law .. and this is a case when juries would probably agree with "provocation" ..

As far as killing the mentally ill ... I sat through the trial of a man accused of brutally murdering a six-year-old boy. His lawyer argued "not guilty on the grounds of insanity" .. The jury disagreed and found him guilty .. I thought he was insane .. but he should have been shot. He's a danger to everyone else .. and is not rehabilitatable .. shoot him now. Removes the danger. I don't care what the excuse is ... he will kill again ... but not if he's dead ... I don't care that it's not their "fault" ... bullet in the brain removes the danger to all of us ..

This is not about legalised or state murder ... this is about protection ... in the same way we would fight and kill to protect our country from invaders ... I'm quite happy for you to feel uneasy .. I'll pull the trigger for you ....

Once I agreed with you - then I got older .. I won't say wiser .. but certainly my opinions changed ...

[jasonu]

Naaa .. he may be Māori, but he's not innocent ...



I do not disagree with you in a specific sense. I agree that his parents are directly responsible.

Society became involved at the point he was convicted ... (I could argue that we all have some responsiblity - but I'll leave that one) .... and our response was to "lock him up". That's just got to be the worst response to a 12-year-old ... almost gaurantees he'll be a career criminal ... We did not do our best for him ...

I believe that we all have some responsibility for each other ... if you're really the libertarian that you seem to be, then you probably won't accept that position ..

Kurariki's clearly had some poor role models and a poor childhood - how about providing him better role models (instead of other criminals) .. how about addressing his likely lack of education (like that's going to be improved by locking him up) ... I refuse to accept that a 12-year-old boy is a hopeless case (unless he's a psychopath) ...

Surely we could have had a better response .. which would have meant he would not become a career criminal ... better for him, better for us all ... as we ceate fewer criminals.

He's not 12-years-old any more - and he's a career criminal ... I agree the best place for him now, in terms of the best for all of us, is in jail. It's too late for Junior Kurariki ... it's not too late for other 12-year-olds in the same place he once was.

There is thar 'we' word again.
Here's a thought, when he was 12 why didn't you get him to live in your home with your wife and your kids and home school him and mentor him and be a role model to him and teach him right from wrong (ie it is bad to kill another person for $20 no matter what your mates say) and teach him to be a better citizen?
Also, I don't think you could ever successfully argue that we all have some responsibility for the pickle he has put himself in. (except at a green party meeting at Aunty Helens place that is...)

[oneofsix]

There is thar 'we' ord again.
Here's a thought, when he was 12 why didn't you get him to live in your home with your wife and your kids and home school him and mentor him and be a role model to him and teach him right from wrong (ie it is bad to kill another person for $20 no matter what your mates say) and teach him to be a better citizen.
Also, I don't think you could ever successfully argue that we all have some responsibility for the ickle he has put himself in. (except at a green party meeting at Aunty Helens place that is...)

Here's a thought then. At age 13 society said, via the legal system, we are pissed off you killed that guy so we are sending you to time out (prison). We agreed to educate the little fucker and try to rehabilitate him, NB this doesn't mean wiping his nose for him. Like when he was 12 he decided not to co-operate, he has demonstrated this multiple times. Guess that means more timeout then.

[Banditbandit]

Bloody hell, that's not a very PC opinion

Yeah .. that will probably shock a lot of people here who possibly think I'm the ultimate in PC - as well as my opinion on the death penalty.

[Banditbandit]

There is thar 'we' word again.
Here's a thought, when he was 12 why didn't you get him to live in your home with your wife and your kids and home school him and mentor him and be a role model to him and teach him right from wrong (ie it is bad to kill another person for $20 no matter what your mates say) and teach him to be a better citizen?
Also, I don't think you could ever successfully argue that we all have some responsibility for the pickle he has put himself in. (except at a green party meeting at Aunty Helens place that is...)

New Zealand's theories of Justice are based on we" . It's based on the concept that once a person has offended, they have offended against society "Us". Society "Us" "we" take over the trial and punishment ... This is why there is an outcry because victims are left out. I agree, yes, they are. But we can't tinker with the system. We have to change it's fundamental assumptions - which leave out the victim. So the4 use of "we" is completely in line with the current theory of justice which locks up people like Junior Kurariki.

I happen to like the Sharia law approach. (Yeah - I know, now someone's going to scheme abiut Islamization). If a person is convicted of murder, the victim's family can ask for the death penalty. If they ask for the death penalty, the court can ask the family to carry out the sentence. If the family refuse the courts can disregard the family's wishes and impose a prison sentence. But that's direct justice for the family and takes the remaining victims's wishes into account. And then they get to take their own, very direct, justice.

Aas far as adopting JK? Don't think the thought of that type of action has not crossed my mind ...

I'd be pretty bad at it ... I have no kids .. never wanted any - can't stand the little ankle biters ... But I'd be a pretty bad example ... I was onced asked to take that kind of role .. my response was that I smoke too much and when I was needed I may well be too stoned ... so I would not provide the likes of Junior Kurariki with good role models ... and I'm too rebellious and defiant. I just fly under the radar ...

I'm not suggesting we are responsible for the pickle he put himself in ... My arguments are not at an individual level - and if you read the rest of my posts you'll see I support the death penalty (Definitely not in Auntie Helen's camp) .. and I think criminals need to be locked up ... but at a societal level. You are right. If you reduce my arguments to an individual level, they fail.

I'm arguing that the social climate of our entire society is partly (note PARTLY not entirely) responsible for producing people like Junior Kurariki. And we are all responsible for the social climate ...

[shrub]

Yeah .. that will probably shock a lot of people here who possibly think I'm the ultimate in PC - as well as my opinion on the death penalty.

i have often wondered what the hell PC actually means, and from asking around I gather in the days of Helen Clark's nominally left leaning government it meant "anything that the left leaning majority believe that I disagree with". Now we have a nominally right leaning government PC must logically mean anything that right wing majority think that I disagree with.

However I think a better meaning that won't change depending on who is in the majority should be "anything I disagree with". I'm quite happy to use that meaning.

As for the death penalty my very un-PC opinion is that if you look at all the evidence from every place where the death penalty is used it does absolutely nothing to prevent crime and is actually extremely expensive - the numbers vary, but generally most studies from the US find that it usually costs more than life without parole. It's also really hard to undoe when you get it wrong, and that happens all too often. On the plus side it makes some people really happy and makes good news.

On balance I think it is a mechanism that has few benefits and many drawbacks and is probably not worth the effort, but having said that I believe some people are better completely removed from society forever - Graham Burton is a good example, and for them the benefits outweight the costs.

But who decides who should live and who should die?

[Banditbandit]

i have often wondered what the hell PC actually means, and from asking around I gather in the days of Helen Clark's nominally left leaning government it meant "anything that the left leaning majority believe that I disagree with". Now we have a nominally right leaning government PC must logically mean anything that right wing majority think that I disagree with.

However I think a better meaning that won't change depending on who is in the majority should be "anything I disagree with". I'm quite happy to use that meaning.

As for the death penalty my very un-PC opinion is that if you look at all the evidence from every place where the death penalty is used it does absolutely nothing to prevent crime and is actually extremely expensive - the numbers vary, but generally most studies from the US find that it usually costs more than life without parole. It's also really hard to undoe when you get it wrong, and that happens all too often. On the plus side it makes some people really happy and makes good news.

On balance I think it is a mechanism that has few benefits and many drawbacks and is probably not worth the effort, but having said that I believe some people are better completely removed from society forever - Graham Burton is a good example, and for them the benefits outweight the costs.

But who decides who should live and who should die?

Basically, I agree. The benefit of the death penalty is that it removes any future problems .. i.e. they can't kill again.

Who decides? I'm happy to do that. I will take full responsiblity for my actions - including removing someone else from this life ... as long as the consequences to not involve me going to jail ...