3 strikes policy

[Milts]

Over a longer time frame, yes, it would reduce the numebr of runners. I think you would find that less and less people would get themselves to the 2nd strike because of the severe consequences. And some runners might get away, but if you assume on the whole the majority get caught and put away for a long time then they will not have an opportunity to do a runner for a long time.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree here. If the options are "pull over and go to jail for life, do a runner and maybe get caught and go to jail for life OR maybe get away", I think the choice is pretty clear. Once people have nothing to lose they will do all sorts of stupid shit. Obviously I'm not suggesting life sentences for doing a runner, it just seemed like a... relevant example to use to show my point. It's not only the fact that people are more inclined to run, or that more people will feel inclined to run; it's that when they do they'll be more desperate, more reckless, and more violent in there attempts to avoid arrest.

I think you would be hard pressed to come up with violent crime statistics for the period of time when there was public executions. Hell if I new I could be executed for an activity I would think twice about doing it!

Would you disagree that the wild west, where public hangings were one of the major forms of punnishment (as well as just getting shot, or beaten up by the sheriffs) would qualify as a society with strict punishments?
http://volokh.com/posts/1188076990.shtml
There are several people who disagree with this guy but none of them seem nearly as well researched. Also, if I were a crack addict, I doubt I'd think twice about anything, regardless of punishment.

Boris, I'll have to take your word for your experience with judges. All I can say is that there have been very few stories I've read and seen the punishment handed out by a judge and gone "that makes no sense at all!".

[Headbanger]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree here. If the options are "pull over and go to jail for life, do a runner and maybe get caught and go to jail for life OR maybe get away", I think the choice is pretty clear. Once people have nothing to lose they will do all sorts of stupid shit. Obviously I'm not suggesting life sentences for doing a runner, it just seemed like a... relevant example to use to show my point. It's not only the fact that people are more inclined to run, or that more people will feel inclined to run; it's that when they do they'll be more desperate, more reckless, and more violent in there attempts to avoid arrest.
.

All chases should be to the death.

[BoristheBiter]

Boris, I'll have to take your word for your experience with judges. All I can say is that there have been very few stories I've read and seen the punishment handed out by a judge and gone "that makes no sense at all!".

You must not watch the news then.
1)dog bites kid, gay owner gets 3 months jail, dog bites kid lady gets off with warning.
2) Burtin is allowed out at all WTF!

The list is endless with crap handed down by judges so put them away for ever. end of story.
if you think that going to jail for speeding or traffic offences is wrong try tell that to familys who have just lost someone to these people.

[Headbanger]

The violent offenders should be given lodgings with the Judge who sentenced them upon release, And defense lawyers should be locked up with their clients.

That will sort it, No one will waste time and money defending them, and the Judges won't ever let them out.

[Milts]

You must not watch the news then.
1)dog bites kid, gay owner gets 3 months jail, dog bites kid lady gets off with warning.
2) Burtin is allowed out at all WTF!

The list is endless with crap handed down by judges so put them away for ever. end of story.
if you think that going to jail for speeding or traffic offences is wrong try tell that to familys who have just lost someone to these people.

I'm sure there are inconsistencies with sentencing. It's next to impossible to have a completely uniform system, and some rulings won't make sense. But the only way to solve it would be to remove all the judges you disagree with and replace them with judges you think are correct. And what puts you in the position to make that call?
And I said I didn't support people going to jail FOR LIFE for traffic offences, sure some may warrant prison. But I am very strongly against laws or sentences being set on the grounds of 'but think of the families of the victims'. If someone I cared about was killed by a speeding driver, I would be the last person you should go to for advice on sentencing, because I would be emotional and irrational.
Also, here's the opinions of several legal and criminal experts on the new legislation.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...tencing-policy

Interesting to note that under this law, Burton would (now) be out of jail sooner than under the current law (preventative detention).
Sure, this could be addressed by making the third strike a mandatory life sentence, but doing so assumes that there is zero chance of rehabilitation or reform. I'm sure that sometimes that's true, but it's not always the case. Especially if you widen the list of offences which qualify; in some states in the USA, drug charges count as a strike. You can't tell me that someone who was caught selling weed to his mates three times can never be rehabilitated into society.

[mashman]

How does the current law stand in regards to past crimes? I seem to remember in the UK that previous convictions and warnings, both related to and unrelated to the crime being "tried" are not allowed to be used as evidence? I always found that was what really bound the judges hands. I know there's the odd judge that fookin useless, he read the books and is a soft arsed liberal by choice, heart of gold, just wants to please people, but in general the judges i've heard about (media and through family members) are pretty much spot on with their sentencing. Yet although a defence is allowed to bring up and use the socialisation of an individual as an excuse to plea for leniency, the common problem was that judges never got to "try" someone with a prosecution that could use a criminals prior history to get the full picture of an individual, irrespective of how good his english was. I would have thought that this would allow a judge to freely hand out much more severe sentences... there's always the way a person was socialised quelling the length of the sentence and i've never really been able to understand that. Sorry for the waffle, but on the whole i believe that judges are doing about the best that they can given what they have.

[Headbanger]

If someone I cared about was killed by a speeding driver, I would be the last person you should go to for advice on sentencing, because I would be emotional and irrational.

A person in that position would be the perfect person to have an input into sentencing.

I'd be happy to load the gun for them.

That aside, People should be charged with murder or manslaughter when they kill people with their car, I cant see much difference between driving your car on the wrong side of the road and firing a gun into a crowd.

[scumdog]

How does the current law stand in regards to past crimes? I seem to remember in the UK that previous convictions and warnings, both related to and unrelated to the crime being "tried" are not allowed to be used as evidence? I always found that was what really bound the judges hands.

Few crimes can have previous convictions used in evidence against somebody - BUT the judge bases his sentencing on the number of previous offences the idiot on front of him has. (Or is meant to take them into account)

"Ah, yes Mr Winebotle, sixth time for drink driving eh? Well I'm going to give you one final warning, you may well be putting your liberty at risk should you appear on a another drink-driving charge".

[BoristheBiter]

I'm sure there are inconsistencies with sentencing. It's next to impossible to have a completely uniform system, and some rulings won't make sense. But the only way to solve it would be to remove all the judges you disagree with and replace them with judges you think are correct. And what puts you in the position to make that call?
And I said I didn't support people going to jail FOR LIFE for traffic offences, sure some may warrant prison. But I am very strongly against laws or sentences being set on the grounds of 'but think of the families of the victims'. If someone I cared about was killed by a speeding driver, I would be the last person you should go to for advice on sentencing, because I would be emotional and irrational.
Also, here's the opinions of several legal and criminal experts on the new legislation.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...tencing-policy

Interesting to note that under this law, Burton would (now) be out of jail sooner than under the current law (preventative detention).
Sure, this could be addressed by making the third strike a mandatory life sentence, but doing so assumes that there is zero chance of rehabilitation or reform. I'm sure that sometimes that's true, but it's not always the case. Especially if you widen the list of offences which qualify; in some states in the USA, drug charges count as a strike. You can't tell me that someone who was caught selling weed to his mates three times can never be rehabilitated into society.

We will just have to agaree to disagree on this one.
I would not take into account what "legal and criminal experts" have to say as they are just looking out for them selves.
i'm not to bothered about speeders but repeat drink drivers should go away for life and if you are dumb enough to be caught three time for dope selling then that s just to bad.
as for burton preventative detention is what he should have got in the first place (again crap sentance) then he wouldn't have been out to kill that guy in Wellington.

[p.dath]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree here. If the options are "pull over and go to jail for life, do a runner and maybe get caught and go to jail for life OR maybe get away", I think the choice is pretty clear.

Your saying that if it gets to that point that will be the consequence. I'm saying with the consequence being so high that less people would get themselves into that situation, hence less runners overall. So to marry the two, I think there would be far fewer runners, but of those that do get to the third ocassion, a greater majority of them would try.

Since the overall effect is a reduction, I still support three strikes for violent crime.

[mashman]

Few crimes can have previous convictions used in evidence against somebody - BUT the judge bases his sentencing on the number of previous offences the idiot on front of him has. (Or is meant to take them into account)

"Ah, yes Mr Winebotle, sixth time for drink driving eh? Well I'm going to give you one final warning, you may well be putting your liberty at risk should you appear on a another drink-driving charge".

Tnahks for the clarification and potentially inspiration. I've had an idea... granted it may not a good idea... but... why not implement a points system for crimes... jail time apportioned by the points you accumulate, but without them ever being able to be withdrawn. Then the sentence goes up irrespective of the plea entered. A second offence in the same "genre" of crime causing the points gained for the crime you're being tried for being doubled, 3rd time trebbled etc... To me this would seem a fairer option, especially when previous crimes are not really taken into account at times.

As for what happens when you lose your licence. Personally i'm up for the hanging sidef of things. If you can accumulate that many points then you have no right to be here. It's not just the physical dammage that gets me, it's the mental stress that people are put under following a crime against them. Granted some of us will harden the fuck up and get on with life... but there are those that don't and the current system is not representing them fairly.

So a points system anyone?

[p.dath]

Tnahks for the clarification and potentially inspiration. I've had an idea... granted it may not a good idea... but... why not implement a points system for crimes... jail time apportioned by the points you accumulate, but without them ever being able to be withdrawn. Then the sentence goes up irrespective of the plea entered. A second offence in the same "genre" of crime causing the points gained for the crime you're being tried for being doubled, 3rd time trebbled etc... To me this would seem a fairer option, especially when previous crimes are not really taken into account at times.

I don't want to spend tens of millions of dollars administering a system to track those who repeat so frequently.

It's pretty simple really. If you don't want the maximum sentence, don't commit a violent offence three times.

EDIT: You speak of "fair". Consider the victims of these violent crimes. Imagine how they feel knowing if the person had been kept in jail they would not have been violently hurt. Think about the victims family. Think about their friends. Just put the repeat attackers in jail. Leave them there for the maximum sentence.

[mashman]

I don't want to spend tens of millions of dollars administering a system to track those who repeat so frequently.

It's pretty simple really. If you don't want the maximum sentence, don't commit a violent offence three times.

EDIT: You speak of "fair". Consider the victims of these violent crimes. Imagine how they feel knowing if the person had been kept in jail they would not have been violently hurt. Think about the victims family. Think about their friends. Just put the repeat attackers in jail. Leave them there for the maximum sentence.

Not tracking them as in hunting them down... I'd rather spend the money on a system that works. It'll cost you a mill to put in at most. The hardware is already there, you'd just need a VERY simple system to keep track of a person and how many points they have, nothing more nothing less... why over complicate matters by adding functionality to existing software (read fuckin expensive), it's not like a system that holds points really needs much information.

And I was thinking about the families, first and foremost. I would venture that a system that essentially rates criminals would be a much better indicator of that persons life of crime. Therefore they'll hopefully be off the streets before turning into the "mindless" criminal and promoting their activities to incorporate violence. I fully understand that there's a mental trauma involved in house breaking (just an example), where nothing is damaged, but things are taken, more than just the victims will be affected (family, friends), i kinda mentioned that in my second paragraph.

[Badjelly]

get rid of the parole period is my opinion. if they're sentanced to 20 years - make them stay for 20 years, not get released in 5 so they can re-offend.

OK, so here's an idea. Someone's committed a serious crime and deserves to spend 20 years in prison? How about making the total length of the sentence 25 years? Then, at 20 years, unless they've behaved very badly, let them out to spend the last 5 years of the sentence on supervised release, with the understanding that if they don't behave they go straight back in to serve the rest of the sentence in prison. This has a several advantages: an incentive to good behaviour while in prison; an even stronger incentive to good behaviour while out on supervised release; fewer formalities involved in putting them back in prison if necessary. A good idea, no?

We need a name for this supervised release. I know, how about "parole"?

[p.dath]

And I was thinking about the families, first and foremost. I would venture that a system that essentially rates criminals would be a much better indicator of that persons life of crime. Therefore they'll hopefully be off the streets before turning into the "mindless" criminal and promoting their activities to incorporate violence. I fully understand that there's a mental trauma involved in house breaking (just an example), where nothing is damaged, but things are taken, more than just the victims will be affected (family, friends), i kinda mentioned that in my second paragraph.

I subscribe to the "do the crime do the time" mantra. I don't want to make it easier for criminals when it comes to sentencing.