Tougher Sentencing

[spudchucka]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.