Ticket culkture / safety culture?

[scumdog]

You were saying...

Crime is the breach of a rule or law for which a punishment may ultimately be prescribed by some governing authority or force. The word crime originates from the Latin crimen (genitive criminis), from the Latin root cernō and Greek κρινω = "I judge". Originally it meant "charge (in law), guilt, accusation."

Hmm, you might struggle to get any NZ court to accept THAT explanation...

[Grahameeboy]

Hmm, you might struggle to get any NZ court to accept THAT explanation...

A bit too much for the Judge d'yreckon then...

[scumdog]

A bit too much for the Judge d'yreckon then...

Check out legislation - it doesn't follow your dictionary definition of 'crime'.

[Grahameeboy]

Check out legislation - it doesn't follow your dictionary definition of 'crime'.

What does legislation know eh...

Breaking the law is a crime to me....although having said that someone else owning a 1098 is a crime too

[spudchucka]

Check out legislation - it doesn't follow your dictionary definition of 'crime'.

It seems that the same old shite gets thrashed out at least on an annual basis.

From the Crimes Act 1961, interpretation section:

Crime means an offence for which the offender may be proceeded against by indictment

Summary Proceedings Act 1957, Interpretation section:

Indictable offence means any offence for which the defendant may be proceeded against by indictment

Provided that an offence shall not be deemed to be an indictable offence solely because under section 66 of this Act the defendant could elect to be tried by a jury:

From the Crimes Act 1961, interpretation section:

Offence means any act or omission for which any one can be punished under this Act or under any other enactment, whether on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction

Summary Proceedings Act 1957, Interpretation section:

Summary offence means any offence for which the defendant may not, except pursuant to an election made under section 66 of this Act, be proceeded against by indictment; and, where the enactment creating an offence expressly provides that it may be dealt with either summarily or on indictment, includes such an offence that is dealt with summarily

Also from the Crimes Act 1961, interpretation section, just in case anyone out there wasn't sure:

penis includes a surgically constructed or reconstructed organ analogous to a naturally occurring penis (whether the person concerned is male. female, or of indeterminate sex)
penis: this definition was inserted, as from 20 May 2005, by section 3(1) Crimes Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 41). See sections 12 and 13 of that Act for the transitional provisions.

Happy St Paddy's day.

[Goblin]

Also from the Crimes Act 1961, interpretation section, just in case anyone out there wasn't sure:
penis includes a surgically constructed or reconstructed organ analogous to a naturally occurring penis (whether the person concerned is male. female, or of indeterminate sex)
penis: this definition was inserted, as from 20 May 2005, by section 3(1) Crimes Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 41). See sections 12 and 13 of that Act for the transitional provisions.

Happy St Paddy's day.

WTF??? You trying to tell us it's a now crime to have a penis??

[Ixion]

Also from the Crimes Act 1961, interpretation section, just in case anyone out there wasn't sure:
Quote:
penis includes a surgically constructed or reconstructed organ analogous to a naturally occurring penis (whether the person concerned is male. female, or of indeterminate sex)
penis: this definition was inserted, as from 20 May 2005, by section 3(1) Crimes Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 41). See sections 12 and 13 of that Act for the transitional provisions.

I misssed something. Where was that penis inserted ? And into who ?

As to crimes. If you are charged with something under the Crimes Act (duh) it's a crime. Otherwise an offence, which covers all other naughty stuff, from speeding to parking on the footpath to moving pigs without a permit.

[Swoop]

WTF??? You trying to tell us it's a now crime to have a penis??

Do the guilty have to do hard labour?

[Goblin]

Do the guilty have to do hard labour?

I hope so!

[Swoop]

I hope so!

"Must spread rep..." yada, yada, yada...

[Skyryder]

WTF??? You trying to tell us it's a now crime to have a penis??

Only if you sit down.


Skyryder

[Goblin]

I misssed something. Where was that penis inserted ? And into who ?

Or what??

....moving pigs without a permit.

Moving pigs without a permit?? I musta missed it too.

Only if you sit down.


Skyryder

To pee??

[Banesto John]

Or what??

Moving pigs without a permit?? I musta missed it too.

To pee??

Moving pigs without a permit is an infringement. Any enforcement of it is clearly revenue collecting.

[Aa7]

If Traffic Policing was wiped so would about 1/2 of Police positions as they wouldn't be justified.

So those burgs etc wouldn't be getting attended any quicker.

Can't seem to get that through to people.

so why did the Police force and the Traffic force merge originally then? if half the jobs are taken by cops that are doing traffic duty then surely it would make more sense to still have a dedicated Police Force and a dedicated Traffic Force.

If somehow anyone can explain logically why it was needed to have both forces combined in the first place then maybe more people would understand why there is a need to have a singular Police force? i surely would like to know why? if so much effort is being put into making our roads safer by the police why is there no reduction in road toll and such yet there is a doubling of hours spent doing traffic enforcement? I'm sure there are cops that hate doing traffic duty and would rather be doing criminal justice work as much as there are cops that hate dealing with criminal and domestic violence and would rather be trying to make our roads safer. If there was a traffic force still rather than a combined Police force maybe people woul dwant to join the cops as a job and there wouldn't be so many drives pushing for new cops. rant over…

[candor]

If somehow anyone can explain logically why it was needed to have both forces combined in the first place then maybe more people would understand why there is a need to have a singular Police force? i surely would like to know why? if so much effort is being put into making our roads safer by the police why is there no reduction in road toll and such yet there is a doubling of hours spent doing traffic enforcement?

The use of the word "justified" is interesting - does that speak (financially) of half the force or the entire force then. It seems all the new cops touted as crimefighters are really being employed as defacto IRD staff who are more than covering costs, making enough to subsidise the general duty staffs existence.

"Effective and Efficient Road Policing in NZ discussion document 2005" obtained from Trentham library says "the model grants opportunities to disrupt criminal activities because a large proportion of criminals drive car" - which suggests it aint about road safety.

It goes on to say "any linkage between issue of offence notices as productivity measures and reduced road trauma are merely suggested".

Adequate law enforcement is obtainable if there is an Officer per 5000 vehicles, as an Officers salary is subsumed by 5-10 freelance tickets daily.

On quick calc I hink we have a road cop per 2,500 and that they are issuing 4 tickets and hour (as per quota benchmarks for 2005 mentioned in the discussion document) not 5-10 a day.

It's a get rich quick scheme the like of which has been seen in no other country. Who wants to be a millionaire - whilst sustaining a relatively high toll?

The latest proposal to extend this regime is ticketing anyone with a kid in the front seat. Don't reduce the crash events - just the bruises, or is it kill adults not kids as our kid stats are the worst? And line the pockets while a it. Chills