Susan Couch payout of $300,000

[SS90]

There are options for "payment" alright and it shouldn't be prison with a bit of rehabilitation because evidence clearly points to jail not being a deterrent to crime. I hate the idea of tax payers paying for the crims actions also.

It's true, good parenting is a start from what I've read and seen but unfortunately anyone can have kids.

The thing that sticks in my mind, is Officer Scumdog mentioning 1\2 and 1/3 term sentences, I see this disquiet among Police officers the world over, nabbing crims, they are convicted, and permitted back into society before their punishment is met.

Frustrating for sure, I think an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, and seeing as NZ spends 180 Million pesos every year on housing these buggers, there has to be room for a budget of half that again to teach kids how to be productive in society, limit alcohol intake and so on, it seems idealistic, but (mass murderer aside) countries like Norway do a fantastic job at social engineering for a better community..... And they live 3 months in complete darkenss!

[Winston001]

Im incredibly turned off on the idea of compensation (by means of cash payout) from Gvt departments for victims of crime, as it will open the flood gates for future claims, meaning that if someone is a victim of a crime perpetrated by some one that is either on parole, or released from prison, it insinuates that they are not "rehabilitated", and since it is the corrections departments fault, so..... Yea..... Give me some money.

Restorative justice is my favorite term, any monetary payouts should be recovered from the perpetrator

You make a very good point. Add to the list the Ministry of Social Development - imagine all the abused children who can claim that CYFS should have removed them from cruel parents etc etc.

Just as a matter of background, historically the Crown (government/the state) could not be sued, this remains true in other nations. The legal theory is that government becomes impossible and the floodgates open. The Crown didn't pay rates or fire service levies either (not sure if it even does today).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

Anyway Geoffrey Palmer (I think) bless his cotton socks thought this was a bit crook with the result that our law eventually reduced Crown immunity from civil claims. Otherwise Susan Couch would have had no claim at all.

Edit: oops looks like Susan's case is the first, see Couch v Attorney-General [2008] NZSC 45.

And the immunity remains strong - bugger: here's what Stuart Walker had to say -

http://www.nzlawyermagazine.co.nz/Ar...4/Default.aspx

[Zedder]

The thing that sticks in my mind, is Officer Scumdog mentioning 1\2 and 1/3 term sentences, I see this disquiet among Police officers the world over, nabbing crims, they are convicted, and permitted back into society before their punishment is met.

Frustrating for sure, I think an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, and seeing as NZ spends 180 Million pesos every year on housing these buggers, there has to be room for a budget of half that again to teach kids how to be productive in society, limit alcohol intake and so on, it seems idealistic, but (mass murderer aside) countries like Norway do a fantastic job at social engineering for a better community..... And they live 3 months in complete darkenss!

Yep, prevention is the best way but no Government has the real answer and they have tried many ways over the years. It does seem that prison is just the fall back plan. Any form of social engineering has its dangers though.

[SS90]

Add to the list the Ministry of Social Development - imagine all the abused children who can claim that CYFS should have removed them from cruel parents etc etc.

Yes, this is the exact scenario I fear, particularly given the level of both media interest, and rates of offending these days in New Zealand.
Liberals talk of "rights of the offenders", but how do we balance up the rights of the offenders vs the rights of the victims?

A slightly Owellian answer would be to remove certain rights of certain types of offenders (pedos, rapists, etc), resulting forfeiture of any legacies, future earning attachments and so on.

The easy answer is just to teach our kids the right way.....and "the right way" is in no way ambiguous, it is the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and this is the basic test of culpability.

I sometimes despair at what NZ is becoming, and to me the answer is right there.

[Winston001]

I don't believe ordering criminals to pay large sums in reparation/compensation works. Which is why it doesn't happen.

My experience of the working criminal is he/she never has much dosh and is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Their ability to ever earn enough money to pay say, $100,000 compensation is nil.

Furthermore the burden of an impossible debt crushes any possible rehabilitation; why would a released prisoner try to improve their life if every cent (which is the way they'd see it) goes to a past victim. They've already served a sentence and paid their debt to society.

[scumdog]

They've already served a sentence and paid their debt to society.

The last bit of that sentence (oooh, pun!) is laughable, from my experience generally the only one that honestly feels that way is the ding-a-ling who has just been released from jail...

[SS90]

I don't believe ordering criminals to pay large sums in reparation/compensation works. Which is why it doesn't happen.

My experience of the working criminal is he/she never has much dosh and is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Their ability to ever earn enough money to pay say, $100,000 compensation is nil.

Furthermore the burden of an impossible debt crushes any possible rehabilitation; why would a released prisoner try to improve their life if every cent (which is the way they'd see it) goes to a past victim. They've already served a sentence and paid their debt to society.

Yea, you make a valid point,but I feel it would take a few generations to become effective..... If w grow up knowing that if we do wrong, we will be financially punished, we (in my opinion) would be less likely to offend.
Add to this a resl drive to teach the next generation the concept of right and wrong, civil duty and so on, the deterrents just keep coming.

It would make it clear that the right way is the easy way.

[Zedder]

Yes, this is the exact scenario I fear, particularly given the level of both media interest, and rates of offending these days in New Zealand.
Liberals talk of "rights of the offenders", but how do we balance up the rights of the offenders vs the rights of the victims?

A slightly Owellian answer would be to remove certain rights of certain types of offenders (pedos, rapists, etc), resulting forfeiture of any legacies, future earning attachments and so on.

The easy answer is just to teach our kids the right way.....and "the right way" is in no way ambiguous, it is the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and this is the basic test of culpability.

I sometimes despair at what NZ is becoming, and to me the answer is right there.

I'm not religious, but the Ten Commandments looks to be a good set of rules to live by.

[Akzle]

Frustrating for sure, I think an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure,

an ounce of acapulco gold is better than a pound of hamiltonian indo.

i think until the government does something about THAT, there really is no hope.

historically the Crown (government/the state) could not be sued,

And the immunity remains strong - bugger: here's what Stuart Walker had to say -

well. DUH.
you have a problem with the government (crown) so you complain to the courts (crown) or police (crown) that... what? they make the rules so fuck you?

on the upside though, national is shoving through legislation that will allow american/australian corporations to sue our government if they're perceived to impact on their profit.

good fucking deal!

what ACTUALLY needs to happen, is the fucking cows wake up, stop sucking the teat, stop fucking mooing and actually stand up against this legal fiction "the crown" - abolish it.

everyone who goes into a crown court needs to turn that shit upside down, convene a court de jure (of law, which i repeat: is not legislation)

there's an attitude shift that needs to happen. but fuckit. four days till the end of the world eh?

I'm not religious, but the Ten Commandments looks to be a good set of rules to live by.

fuck ten, here's two:

1-do no harm
2- tell the truth

anything not covered?

better would be the seven pillars of islam, which is not only "dont be an asshole" law" but "be a good cunt" law.

[meteor]

Divided by the 11 years since the incident happened, it does not amount to much.
Auther Allen Thomas got $1,000,000 for some he didn't do.

Didn't he, are you sure? Think there's a review about to come out...

[Maha]

Didn't he, are you sure? Think there's a review about to come out...

Interesting that, about a year ago, I worked at a house where the bloke was a retired prison warden. Around the time of the crewe murders, he was in charge at Mt Eden.
I asked him about Thomas and he said that Thomas was the most conniving person he had ever been in contact with and wouldn't trust him as far as he could kick him.

[Bikemad]

Interesting that, about a year ago, I worked at a house where the bloke was a retired prison warden. Around the time of the crewe murders, he was in charge at Mt Eden.
I asked him about Thomas and he said that Thomas was the most conniving person he had ever been in contact with and wouldn't trust him as far as he could kick him.

well that is interesting.............the father of an old school friend of mine was convicted of attempted murder many years ago and did time with thomas.......he reckoned you couldn't have found a guiltier man in the prison

[Banditbandit]

Im incredibly turned off on the idea of compensation (by means of cash payout) from Gvt departments for victims of crime, as it will open the flood gates for future claims, meaning that if someone is a victim of a crime perpetrated by some one that is either on parole, or released from prison, it insinuates that they are not "rehabilitated", and since it is the corrections departments fault, so..... Yea..... Give me some money.

Couchman is not receiving compensation because she was a victim of a crime ... she gets compensation because the Corrections Department fucked up .. Bell was under their supervision and they encouraged him (an alchoholic) to get a job at the RSA serving in a bar ... (DOH!!!) .. and handling money (Double DOH !!! Bell has convictions for dishonesty and theft) Corrections encouraged him to work in an environment where he was surrounded by temptation ... so sure, Bell's a crim - but Corrections put him in the path of temptation ..

Maybe, just maybe it might result in fuckwits being in prison longer??

And doing full sentences - none of this 1/2 0r 2/3 shit.

Bell got a minimum parole period of 30 (count them 30) years ... the longest sentence ever handed out in Godzone ... that does not mean he gets out in a few years .. that means he is eligible for parole in 2031 ... and may not get out even then.

New Zealand's longest serving prisoner is Alfred Vicent, who was jailed in 1964 - and this year has again been refused parole ... http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...-denied-parole

Vincent has been in jail for 48 years ... so don't believe everything you read in the paper and not everyone gets to do only 1/3rd or 1/2 of their sentence .. "eligible for parole" just means they can ask the parole Board to let them out - the parole board does not have to say "Yes ..."

I hate the idea of tax payers paying for the crims actions also.

As above - the taxpayer is not paying for the crim's actions - but for the Corrections department blunders.

[Zedder]

As above - the taxpayer is not paying for the crim's actions - but for the Corrections department blunders.[/QUOTE]

My statement was about tax payers wearing the cost of crims actions in a general sense and not directly related to the Couch case. Please read it in context with SS90's post(#41) about restorative justice. Cheers.

[Banditbandit]

As above - the taxpayer is not paying for the crim's actions - but for the Corrections department blunders.

My statement was about tax payers wearing the cost of crims actions in a general sense and not directly related to the Couch case. Please read it in context with SS90's post(#41) about restorative justice. Cheers.[/QUOTE]

I did wonder if that was what you meant ... but given that the thread was about the Couchman pay out I decided that you were probably referring to the particular case.

My apologies for being wrong ...