Tougher Sentencing

**Big Dog** · 23rd June 2004, 16:43

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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

Originally Posted by Hitcher

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

**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

Originally Posted by scumdog

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

Originally Posted by jrandom

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

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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=Fluffy Cat]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by Hitcher

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

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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

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.

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

**jrandom** · 24th June 2004, 09:13

Originally Posted by spudchucka

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

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.

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.