Should bike thieves be made to pay their victims' costs?

**Alive** · 21st May 2008, 12:30

After a little discussion in another thread I thought it might be interesting to have a rant about the justice system and how much victims have to pay when someone steals from them.

What's your opinion of the current system?

**Skyryder** · 21st May 2008, 12:54

Originally Posted by Alive

After a little discussion in another thread I thought it might be interesting to have a rant about the justice system and how much victims have to pay when someone steals from them.

What's your opinion of the current system?

I'm a great believer of the THREE STRIKES law. Twenty five years for the third criminal offence without parole Confiscate all assets 'of the family' to the state. This will help offset costs. Mum and the kids can stay in the house and pay rent. Work schemes that pay no more than the minimum rate to be paid to any unemployed family members. Shit I could go on and on . Thieves the leeches of society. Untill the justice system gets real and sends a clear message that [U]crime does not pay[U] we
are going to have the continual problem of crime and violence that has become endemic in NZ. Some of the Judges need sacking too.

Skyryder

**Hitcher** · 21st May 2008, 12:57

Why should thieves of motorcycles be treated any differently to thieves of other items?

**sels1** · 21st May 2008, 13:06

Originally Posted by Alive

What's your opinion of the current system?

Too many currants, not enough buns...and dont get me started about the icing...

**Mikkel** · 21st May 2008, 13:09

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Why should thieves of motorcycles be treated any differently to thieves of other items?

Indeed. IMHO anyone caught damaging or stealing another person or company's property should be made to pay back damages in full. If they can not pay I suggest work camps where they can earn that money through hard manual labour over time - no parole to be considered until reimbursement has been achieved.

And that goes for any kind of theft of property - but not intellectual, that is different.

**Skyryder** · 21st May 2008, 13:16

Originally Posted by Mikkel

And that goes for any kind of theft of property - but not intellectual, that is different.

Why is intellectual any different?

Skyryder

**Usarka** · 21st May 2008, 13:47

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Why is intellectual any different?

"I would steal a car if doing so left an exact copy for the owner" - quote from someone on the radio the other day....

**mstriumph** · 21st May 2008, 13:51

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Why should thieves of motorcycles be treated any differently to thieves of other items?

erm

.....motorcycles are special?

**ManDownUnder** · 21st May 2008, 13:56

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Why is intellectual any different?

Skyryder

because it's... ummm... yeah

**Whynot** · 21st May 2008, 14:01

Originally Posted by Usarka

"I would steal a car if doing so left an exact copy for the owner" - quote from someone on the radio the other day....

very good point that.

**ManDownUnder** · 21st May 2008, 14:02

I like the old approach of restorative justice.

Theif takes $100 worth of stuff from me, that then entitles me to take $100 of stuff from said theif. I'm happy to do it under the supervision of the courts, show up in the presence of the Police etc (for my safety too of course).

I remember seeing that done ages ago and the theif was devastated... they felt invaded after the bayliffs showed up a couple of times over the course of ... months I think it was. Each time was reasonably unannounced and the victim picked through the theif's stuff looking for anything they liked (CD's Playstations etc).

I thought it was brilliant, and all organised at the direction of Judge Brown (US judge I think he is). Now THAT's something the polly's should be promising this election.

**Mikkel** · 21st May 2008, 14:08

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Why is intellectual any different?

Skyryder

Originally Posted by Usarka

"I would steal a car if doing so left an exact copy for the owner" - quote from someone on the radio the other day....

Because when it comes to intellectual theft you can eat and have your cake at the same time...

The basis for theft is take something away from somebody else. It's the deprivation that is central when it comes to the impact of theft. I couldn't care less if everybody else had a motorcycle/tv/guitar like mine - as long as I can have my one, that I have paid for, to myself.

E.g. the argument that, by downloading an illegitimate copy of a certain piece of music, you are actually robbing the artist and publisher of something they already have is flawed. You may argue that you have taken an opportunity to make more profit away from them - but that is also flawed. Even if it was not, then I suppose I should feel guilty every time I buy my groceries in Woolworths because I have deprived Pak'n'Save of an opportunity to make profit?

**jim.cox** · 21st May 2008, 14:13

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

I like the old approach of restorative justice.

Theif takes $100 worth of stuff from me, that then entitles me to take $100 of stuff from said theif. I'm happy to do it under the supervision of the courts, show up in the presence of the Police etc (for my safety too of course).

Why not go for Sharia Law? - chop their hand off - should be an effective deterent

**inlinefour** · 21st May 2008, 14:16

Originally Posted by Skyryder

I'm a great believer of the THREE STRIKES law. Twenty five years for the third criminal offence without parole Confiscate all assets 'of the family' to the state. This will help offset costs. Mum and the kids can stay in the house and pay rent. Work schemes that pay no more than the minimum rate to be paid to any unemployed family members. Shit I could go on and on . Thieves the leeches of society. Untill the justice system gets real and sends a clear message that [U]crime does not pay[U] we
are going to have the continual problem of crime and violence that has become endemic in NZ. Some of the Judges need sacking too.

Skyryder

I agree completely and think that the problem is within the Police force as well. While I was a student we had our house broken into but a drunk from next doors party. He did not realise that on the other side of the window down stairs was a very large pile of firewood and building offcuts. Once he got inside he had alot of trouble getting off it and once he did I wacked him accross the back/sholders with a longer piece of timber which just took the wind out of him I think. At the time I had a new born baby and wife upstairs who was allready on the phone to the Police. They turned up and dealt with him and from what I understood he got a very wet bus ticket and payed the insurance cost at bugger all per week as he was on the dole. The bit that made me mad was the poooooolice wanted to charge me for assauting him, even though I was trying to protect my family and home! A decient copper stuck around until the rest had gone and helped me put a tarp over the window that was broken. He then showed me his torch and advised me there was a gap in the law that allowed me to carry a torch for security reasons and if I hit him with that then I would not get charged. Needless to say that I have got a couple of very large and heavy mag lights now and Ive even had one chance and several close calls to use it. The legal system is a fucking disgrasce and those who supports it, uphold it and work within it should be totally ashamed because its doing a piss poor job IMO.