How about three hundred strikes and you’re out?
August 29th, 2005 at 8:42 am by David FarrarMany states in the US have a three strikes and you’re out law, which means that after three convictions you go to prison for most of your life.
Now this is somewhat over the top, but at the other end of the scale we have the case in NZ where Stacey Spinks has 340 convictions and has just been sentenced again to jail – but for only two years which means he may be out in eight months.
His latest crimes were committed the day he got released from prison last time.
So the question has to be asked – why is he not sent away for the maximum penalties available under the law so he is never released?
I mean surely after 300 convictions we can safely assume he is beyond redemption? Think of the misery he has caused to hundreds of families by being allowed to rob them time and time again?
Why do we tolerate a justice system that lets someone out after 300 convictions, when it it beyond doubt they will be offending again on the day of their release?
No tag for this post.
August 29th, 2005 at 9:15 am
‘cos people don’t party vote ACT
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 9:24 am
We tolerate this for the same reason we tolerate
Vote:historical convictions without corroborating evidence.
We seem to have become a country full of silly sheep, and no sheperd.
If you don’t make your vote count, and your voice heard, then this sort of pc legal nonsense will continue.
August 29th, 2005 at 10:00 am
If only he had threatened the judge. You’d see him put away for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Party Vote ACT. Do something like you mean it.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Come on David, how might Mr Spinks be out in 8 months? Let’s have a sense of perspective – he’ll serve twelve months =)
Also, I gotta say that this guy sounds pretty cool:
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=10342923
August 29th, 2005 at 10:32 am
What you seem to forget NZ is nothing more than a U.N. puppet. We have NEVER broken a UN directive, as long as we have been a member. 3 Strikes is condemned by the UN. And we always back the UN to the hilt. However the US has the power of veto.
3 strikes and your out, is nothing more the Vote buying propagander, in will never happen here in NZ.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Cadmus,
The standard US three strikes law is: third felony = life imprisonment with non-parole period of 25 years.
ACT’s policy is, third or subsequent crime, get the maximum penalty *for that crime*. The US policy would see someone committing a felony with a maximum sentence of one year in prison getting life for it, ACT’s policy would see them getting one year.
ACT’s policy may still be stupid (it would clog up the courts with a massive increase in jury trials for people who would no longer get credit for guilty pleas, for starters), but it’s like the US laws in name only.
Also, the US only has the veto over security council resolutions.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 11:15 am
I agree there is a time when the state simply has to give up on individuals and throw away the key (perhaps with some prospect of application for parole – note application not as of right – as there is always a possibility (however remote) of reform, particularly where there is a driver, such as drug addiction, that can be (albiet rarely) effectively treated).
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 11:34 am
We have a weak and pathetic Government A weak and pathetic Judicary and a weak and pathetic Police administration All out of touch with mainstream opinion.Criminals like this one are laughing their heads off at the idiots and morons who wring their hands and tut tut about how society has failed them Bollocks
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
It all seems so simple doesn’t it, as if it doesn’t cost money to keep people locked up. As if having a harsh justice system would always be infallible.
Some people think we should have sharia law and chop the hands of thieves off, some people think we should execute murderers. I myself think we actually have the balance about right in most cases with the way things are.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Does that mean you turn a blind eye to all the cases where we do not get it right? 300 convictions?
This is not a minor blip. There are many people with more than (say) 12 convictions for burglary, drunked driving etc. Consider that number in combination with actual jail time served. Does it take a death to get serious?
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Graeme… Yes well put, but I have lived and worked in “The land of the Free ? ” for some years. I’m a born & breed NZer
Vote:Are you saying NZ can bring back the Death Penalty?
The difference between NZ and the US is we ratify everything that the UN put under our noses, the yanks don’t.
I was working there when Senators Barbara Boxer & side kick DI Fi, Di Fienstien introduced this to the Califonia state statute. These two unsavory bitches, didn’t take into account of the unfortunate folk who were under supervision for disorders, but due to state cuts were out on the streets, in no time a hospital patient became became a prison inmate. Not forgetting the state could then claim Federal grants. With private companies running the prisons? Shareholders etc, Putting the whole pictue together, I will leave up to you. I’m sure you can work it out.
In my view one stinking corrupt mess!
August 29th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
What are you proposing Zentiger?
Do you think we need more people in jail for longer?
Maybe the money it would cost for more jail man-days spent on what some see as wishy-washy rehab schemes would be more effective. It certainly seems behavior management regimes are not cost effective.
I guess you want a tax cut too.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Perhaps Mr Spinks qualifies for a chalet with his own Lazyboy and Television, with weekly trips to the Supermarket. He may miss such comforts when he gets out.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
What are you saying Getalife?
Several assumptions plied into that little policy statement.
If you re-read what you said, you might notice a complete lack of empathy for the victims of repeat offenders. 300 convictions and not the merest hint of worry that the next time around “leave no witnesses” reduces chances of being identified.
Tax cuts? Try crime cuts. Now, having reminded the other readers out there that this is not all about the “society is to blame” criminal, lets discuss the situation.
Firstly, didn’t Labour just close down a successful prison with a good record in rehab?
Secondly, I was listening to a guy from a rehab program on the radio a while back. Wasn’t state sanctioned, or state funded, but they had good results. They were having a had time running even with good results. Thought they deserved a bit more. I see too many pen-pushing discussions and not enough front line action.
Third, 300 convictions! Why don’t we compromise, and fire the Minister in charge of rehab programs and get some-one that can do the job, and lock the guy up for the maximum time, and bring back the lash. The current system aint working.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
I believe the Auckland remand prison is still in operation.
Technically also as it is a remand prison the people incarcerated there were not convicted, so rehab was not really an issue.
I am not keen on being a victim of crime myself, having been burgled too many times in my life, and I am certainly in favour of reducing crime.
Not sure that locking someone up for the maximum time and bringing back the lash will do more that release a bitter person after the maximum time though.
Not sure that you really have a clear and workable idea of what will work here yet Zentiger. I am waiting to be convinced, to hear examples of policies that work.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
This worthless POS thief is a waste of oxygen!
Give him a long drop on a short rope!
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Oswald,I’m with you.All these words;so much patience;so much logic and legality .We both know it will never happen.We should drink good piss,own a large dog and get over it.Otherwise all we will do sweetheart is get high blood pressure.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
‘I am waiting to be convinced, to hear examples of policies that work.’
Work at what? Preventing Mr 300 from becoming Mr 301, or turning Mr 300 into Mr Well-adjusted, respected citizen? The question comes down to, why bother with the second option at all? Why is he worth the effort?
If I had a malfunctioning machine in my factory, if I fixed it up 300 times, do you think I would be blamed if it killed someone when it broke down for the 301st time?
Ofcourse I would. Fortunately for every person that has dealt with Mr 300 during his career, not one of them would be accountable for crime 301, not even the Mr himself.
Vote: