Tougher Sentencing

**spudchucka** · 24th June 2004, 10:05

Originally Posted by jrandom

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_...t=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.

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

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

Originally Posted by spudchucka

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

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.

**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

Originally Posted by celticno6

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

Originally Posted by Jim2

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

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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

Originally Posted by Jim2

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

Originally Posted by Jim2

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

Originally Posted by celticno6

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

Originally Posted by White trash

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.

**Big Dog** · 24th June 2004, 18:20

Originally Posted by Jackrat

In Texas the fucker would be siting on death row but in NZ he's set to become a national hero.

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

Originally Posted by Hitcher

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.