Tougher Sentencing

[spudchucka]

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]

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.

Jim, I agree with your sentiments. The justice system is a contradiction of its own self. Victims are constantly shafted by the system. It can be an incredibly frustrating part of my job.

[moko]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[Skyryder]

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]

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]

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.