Sensible Sentencing Trust ranks MPs
July 30th, 2007 at 11:21 am by David FarrarThe Sensible Sentencing Trust advocates for longer sentences for repeat violent criminals. It’s website includes a database of MPs and an assessment of how sympathetic each MP is to their goals and policies. Only 42 of the MPs are assessed, but still interesting to look at how the SST assesses each MP. Their ratings, in order from lowest to highest are:
Very Low
- Turia, Tariana
Low
- Turei, Metira
Likely Low
- Anderton, Jim
- Bradford, Sue
- Locke, Keith
- Tanczos, Nandor
- Wilson, Margaret
Low to Middling
- Barker, Rick
- Cosgrove, Clayton
- Fairbrother, Russell
- Hartley, Ann
- Pettis, Jill
Middling
- Clark, Helen
Moderate
- Goff, Phil
- Key, John
- Worth, Richard
Fairly High
- Williamson, Maurice
Medium High
- Borrows,
- Brownlee, Gerry
- Carter, John
- Goudie, Sandra
High
- Brash, Don
- Brown, Peter
- Clarkson, Bob
- Copeland, Gordon
- Donnelly, Brian
- Dunne, Peter
- English, Bill
- Hide, Rodney
- Mapp, Wayne
- Paraone, Pita
- Peters, Winston
- Roy, Heather
- Ryall, Tonu
- Smith, Nick
- Stewart, Barbara
- Tremain, Chris
- Turner, Judy
- Woolerton, Doug
Very High
- Collins, Judith
- Mark, Ron
- Wong, Pansy
July 30th, 2007 at 11:40 am
And let’s bring hanging back too.
What kind of MP would even want to be ranked highly by an organisation like the Sensible Sentencing Trust?
And they haven’t even caught up with Don Brash’s departure from parliament.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Good idea dave, thats coming up on the agenda. Personally I would rate goff that high.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Remove Turia, and you’ve basically ranked the MP’s from left to right (with a few exceptions). I agree with Dave – I don’t know if any MP would want to get a high ranking on a list with rates Gordon Copeland…
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Although, it’s strange that they rank Brian Donnally as high – of all the NZ First MP’s, I would have thought he would be pretty low in the opinion of the SST…
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“What kind of MP would even want to be ranked highly by an organisation like the Sensible Sentencing Trust?”
Maybe the kind that puts the interests of the victims of crimes before the interests of the criminals? Just a thought…
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Take everything witha grain of salt – These scumbags (yes allof them) are just as likely to be seen at opposite ends of the debate if they thought there was an ounce of political gain to be made.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
The SST is a very caring organisation that does a lot of work with the victims of crime and their families – work that the government shirks its responsibility for. They work closely with victim support, the police and other community groups and have a large amount of support across the political spectrum. I think MPs would be wise to have a high profile with them. They have a spokeperson on Maori affairs as well with some interesting points of view:
http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Press/2007askaustpm.htm
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
You need to talk to Garth for about 20 seconds before you realise there’s not a lot of activity going on upstairs. Hey, being dumb ain’t a crime. And he’s obviously got an emotional view on crime and punishment. And, I don’t mind someone being the self-appointed lighter of torches for the village mob. But I do get irked when said rabble-rouser attempts to intellectualise their position. I am sorry, but the Sensible Sentencing Trust does not have a considered or intelligent opinion on anything. Good for them for being so visceral in an age of intellectual analyses and evidence…but don’t for fuck sake ever take their ramblings as being serious.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
NZ actually has one of the harshest punishment systems in the west, with very long sentences being handed out regularly. We have a bizarrely large number of prison inmates for a country this size, and a really disproportionate number of Maori inmates.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Michael S, a disproportionate number of inmates are men. Does that indicate that men are oppressed?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Satisfactory
Atiila the Hun
Adolf Hitler
Judge Jeffries
Marshall Lynch
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
MichaelS
Have you ever considered that we have a bizarrely high level of violence for such a non-sectarian, politically benign country?
Something is very very wrong.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
DDD you dumbass there is more to SST than that. We have too many intellectuals like Kiro comming up with pathetic namby pamby ideas and pushing them on the whilte wellington liberal cocktail circuit, expounding moral exhibitionismand scoring brownie points for their careers. And nothing ever changes.
Michael it is nothing compared to the sentence the muder victim and their family get handed. While there are people who have killed woaking around free then there is injustice, right?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Garth McVicar is a very passionate indivdual for the cause and I for one commend him for giving a shit. He felt necessary to devote his time voluntarily to try and make a difference and help victims of heinous crimes – something the government should be doing
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Groan! Is that honestly the best you can do, Porc?
I love the way you appropriate advocacy on behalf of victims to try and delineate the discussion as if any one who suggests that our current over-reliance on prisons is wrong as being against victims. Well, sorry to bust your bubble, Porc, but there are victims who actually understand that scraping a pound of flesh off of the perpetrator is not actually going to change things. Don’t try the intellectually dishonest wank of attempting to put the burden of proof on the likes of Michael. Michael and others derided in this thread are challenging the conventional “lock em up” approach. An approach that costs lots of money and potentially has no real long-term benefits in terms of reducing criminality or re-offending. I know some here advocate state-sanctioned murder as the solution to this problem. But, I don’t think even the dumbest contributor (and there are many here today vying for that bottom spot) would seriously advocate killing first time burglers or those in prison for non-payment of fine (yes, it does happen), or any other minor offence. So, putting aside the high-profile cases, any serious discussion needs to focus on the efficacy of the prison experience. Fuck your cheap shots, I notice there’s little by way of argument back on constructive arguments for prison. I believe prison serves only one useful purpose and that’s incapacitating further offending. But, given the ethical and financial arguments countering permanent incarceration, you have to contemplate there being some sort of release process. Once you have prisoners being released back into the community, the nature of the prison experience becomes very, very pertinent. Surely, if you’re going to have prisons you try and make them as constructive to the purpose of reducing re-offending as possible. Or, alternatively, you make them so truly awful and horrible, that incarceration experience has a powerful effect on not only the prisoner but also those contemplating crime. You could argue for this latter approach, but I don’t think you’ll find many takers supporting this – knowing that their little Jimmy might one day get hauled into prison for some minor, victimless offence. You play these stupid games, Porc, but deep down you’re smarter than that. You know that Michael is not uncaring about vicitms. You understand that the SST operates on pure emotion and has about as much intellectual rigour as a Buggs Bunny cartoon. You know this, but you and others on this thread continue to play this strawman shit with people who challenge the status quo on the use of imprisonment and make out that they’re arguing from a morally weak point (in terms of victims). I think we can reverse this whole argument. Those of you advocating long, harsh prison sentences…why not explain to the future victims of crime the “logic” of your approach. Explain how dehumanising prisoners and treating them like animals is supposed to help prevent future crime. While you’re at it, why not explain to future taxpayers why you advocate locking up people for piss-arse crappy little crimes for long periods of time when it all costs money and there’s no benefit in terms of criminality in fact all evidence shows a negative impact on offending rates.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
DDD and what is a piss arse crappy little crime pray tell One thats not committed against you or your nearest and dearest One that only happens to those who deserve it?
And to other apologists whats your solution? We never get to hear this And in detail Not a 5 second sound bite.How would you fix the problem Or maybet there isnt a problem. that thopse of us who dont want to victims or crime are expecting too much that we should just take and shut up thats its all our fault anyway because we didnt give the criminals all that we earn only some of it.
Vote:Waiting
July 30th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
WTF?? Ever heard of paragraphs Duck?
Long as we leave the solution in the hands of those 42 (mostly) idiots listed above and their mates, the more fucked up we’ll get. What the fuck have those losers ever been able to solve? When are NZers going to drift away from this infantile reliance on gummint to solve every problem when its so fucken obvious they can never solve any damn thing??????? All they can ever accomplish is to make any problem worse.
Dispense with undemocratic laws anti-freedom preventing law abiding people from carrying concealed weapons. That’ll solve the lauranorder problem.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Correction:
Dispense with undemocratic anti-freedom laws preventing law abiding people from carrying concealed weapons. That’ll solve the lauranorder problem.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
You are the one playing the game hard out DDD – No one here is suggesting that we kill burglars or petty offenders. You and the apologists for violent crime (the government and judges) are the status quo and you don’t like anyone questioning you. They are the ones that have made jails a home away from home. They are the ones who shirk their responsibilities to the victims. That has been the “establishment” way for the past 50 years and look where it has got us.
The SST does a lot of work in the community and makes a lot of submissions and is certainly not always acting emotionally all the time.
But I see no problem with preventative detention, for life if necessary for repeat violent offenders. For example, in some cases the violence is caused by mentally ill people that should be looked after in an institution, but they should never be let out. And I am proposing early intervention with both kid gloves and an iron fist to prevent the type of abuse that we are seeing now.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
GD: Back at you bro’, why not explain how the current system manages to reduce offending? While you’re at, why not explain how making things tougher on prisoners is going to help? In Wellington speak: Walk me through your intervention logic…how do you think prisons reduces offending one iota.
Red: Yeah, I was in a rush. I forget to hit the enter key when I am in a rush. Mind you, it’s not helped by the absence of a preview feature in Kiwiblog (grrr DPF!).
But to the substantive point: you’re advocating adopting an American style model where access to guns is more open??? Seriously??? You’re advocating that??? You don’t want law enforcement – just when people have a dispute they settle it with weaponary? And you think that will “solve” law and order issues?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
There’s one main reason for NZ’s lawlessness and high levels of violent crime and that is the destruction of community moral standards.
..and who has engineered this state of affairs?
The left Duck, you and your commie mates, who wouldn’t see sense if they were choking on it.
I’m not going to argue with you about gun ownership, you obviously have even more infantile and uninformed ideas on this issue than usual, and that’s fucken saying something.
Guns prevent crime. Socialists cause it.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
The simple answer is that you cannot legislate for lack of personal responsibility.
Unless people know right from wrong (as accepted by mainstream society) and are prepared to act accordingly, crime will continue ….
In regards to crime/criminals/prisoners, I see two situations in NZ that need addresssing. Current criminals and future criminals.
Future: catch them young and rehabilitate as if your life depended on it. Because it might. Spend the money on them to keep them out of prison, it is a good investment. Lots of ways in whcih to achieve this depending on the level of crime, but in the end any rehabilitation has to be strong, disciplined and finite.
Do you know how the NY Police force cut subway crime to virtually nil from the horrendous violence that used to be perpetrated there? They stopped minor crimes in their tracks. Zero tolerance of “crimes” such as not paying for tickets, graffiti, alcohol abuse, drunk & disordely etc…simple stuff that dropped the crime rate through the floor.
Early intervention works, but no namby pamby intervention like diversion or famly conferences. Punishment that fits the crime. It worked. Shame they didn’t carry it on and apply the same principles in other areas, but the city is a hell of a lot safer than it used to be. (and yes, I lived there)
Current; too late for many. It’s sad but lets face the truth. Grown adults know the difference between right & wrong. Prison is for punishment and for the safety of law abiding citizens. Prove you are prepared to be, and committed to being, a law abiding citizen , take responsibility for your actions and you get another chance.
3 strikes, gone for life.
Let’s concentrate on the kids. We may have a realistic chance of turning this around in a generation, no sooner. Act now or we will be having the same discussion in another decade.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Reading these left wing bloggers makes me realise just how sick this country has become. They can’t all be legal aid lawyers. Maybe some are intending to be new blood Liabor MPS.The amount of sickening crime just this ordinary last week demands firm attention and Garth and his team are the only ones who keep the matter to the forefront, and yes I am proud to be a longtime member and supporter of his organisation
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Good post GraigM
” Walk me through your intervention logic…how do you think prisons reduces offending one iota. ”
If they’re in prison they can’t kill, maim or rape again, duh.
“But to the substantive point: you’re advocating adopting an American style model where access to guns is more open???”
Blame where blame is due:
The Wellington liberal moral exhibitionism brigade is forcing it upon us – the current liberal wank that causes crime and instability in our society is making it a breeding ground for fascism.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
” they’re in prison they can’t kill, maim or rape again, duh.”
Ok, maybe pork – but don’t you think it’s better for us to identify these people early, when they’re “at-risk youths” – offer them work and hope, don’t condemn them to a life of crime and prison.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Roger…perhaps read the posts and you’ll see the answer to your question.
porc says:”I am proposing early intervention with both kid gloves and an iron fist to prevent the type of abuse that we are seeing now.”
and my comment: “Let’s concentrate on the kids. We may have a realistic chance of turning this around in a generation, no sooner.”
Seems as if there is agreement there to me!
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“offer them work and hope”
Bloody funny coming from a commie. You can’t offer them either. Try slavery and despair.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I’m talking about the repat violent offenders. But often unfortunately the only hope is to get them out and keep them out of the environment they are being brough up in.
For the intergenerational criminal profile you need to add
- have produced multiple babies with multipple partners
This seems to be becoming a common theme also.
So in these families a solo mum collecting a beneficiary (living with a boyfriend who is not the father) is often one of 3 some guy has porked and she will often have one or two children elsewhere or in foster care. It is this type of situation we are dealing with.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
with that jail thing what you talk about farra,
Vote:well i went to see this dude tim selwyn in jail and i looked around, and well it it turn out that jail de-socialise people, and the longer you leave them there the worser
well i thought to myself this careacter tim selwyn in jail for sedition which not even a crime any more should be release on own recognition and rehabilitation
July 30th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
no getting porked in jail as far as i could see porcupine,
Vote:some themn girlfriends came to visit of the boys inside good looking though dude, a man could getisself killed, even for thinking about themn girls in thinmg porcupine
July 30th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I’m curious as to how they rank peoples views on victimless crimes.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I kinda agree with DDD. Why lock people up for petty crimes. I reckon we should make then we bright, dayglo pink overalls with their crime spelled out in big letters on the front and back. Then make them (yes actually FORCE them) to do appropriate community service. Make car theives wash peoples cars for free in the middle of Queens street or Lambton quay so everyone can see them and know what their crime was. Make idiots who get convicted of tagging clean graffitti off walls where everyine can see them. A bit of public humiliation might do wonders for some of the drop kicks that come up before the courts. It would certainly cost a shit load less – of course Liarbour will find a way to make it cost more and more by employing large numbers of administrators, supervisors and managers to oversee it all.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I am concerned at the mistreatment of prisoners by giving them excessive calories. Excessive calorie intake is shortening their lives while they are forcibly removed from normal society. I propose a healthy but low calorie diet. This should be compulsary (no exceptions).
http://www.calorierestriction.org/
Vote:jh
July 30th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I am opposed to capital punishment; instead I would have a personal noose in the cells of the worst offenders (plus a stool).
Vote:jh
July 30th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
JH: Corrections feeds prisoners on a few bucks a day (breakfast, lunch, dinner and post lock-up snack) – a few bucks. The menu is approved by the Ministry of Health as having all the nutrients, fibre, and calories required for the healthy maintenance of life. If prisoners get fat it’s because of private purchasing of sweets. And, before the more rabid commentators get too choked up, just consider the earning potential of prisoners – it’s a few dollars a day. So, I wouldn’t worry too much about the delicate little dears’ health.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“If they’re in prison they can’t kill, maim or rape again, duh.”
Funny that the nations with the most people in prison still manage to create more and more victims of violent crime, in spite of the large numbers in prison.
So that quote should be qualified to read: “If they’re in prison they can’t kill, maim or rape again, but our society will still produce enough violent pricks from those not in prison to keep the violent crime rate right up there.”
A society that has consistently failed its poorest 20% over the last 25 years.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
James, I repeat ad infinitum we are talking about recidivist violent offenders. If these people were not in prison our crime rate would be even worse than it shockingly is now.
Who are the bottom 20% we have failed? I assume you are not talking about the unemployed earning more than the minum wage and solo parents earning more than the average wage with only a feeble attempt to recover the money from the other birth parent.
jh
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
The poorest 20% of New Zealanders are poorer now than the poorest 20% were in 1984.
That is social failure, and with it comes social problems.
And it seems that your increased prison populace has not delivered decreased violent offending. The simple reason is that how we deal with violent offenders *after the offence* has very little effect on preventing future crime, it has everything to do with punishment, and very little to do with prevention.
I have no issue with tough punishment for violent offenders. What I do have a problem with is people pretending it is a large part of ‘the answer’ to the problem of violent offending.
Violent offending is a social problem. It will not be ‘fixed’ with sentencing.
Many nations with harsher penalties and higher prison numbers have much higher violent offending rates. In the reverse many nations with more lenient punishments and much fewer in prison have much lower offending rates. The reason being that prevention is not synonymous punishment, in the context of violence. They are two different beasts.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Thats all I’m arguing for James. I know that harsh prison sentences are not the only answer. Harsh apporiate non-prison punishment is the obvious answer for non-violent offending. Country comparisons are not all that useful because of the different social climate in each country.
But the simple fact remains that with many many of the worst violent crimes, if they had been still in jail for no 3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9 previous vioplent crimes then the latest one would have been prevent.
We need to target the children that are starting their first run in with the law at 8 or 9 years old, but their 20 – 30 something parents with 56 previous convictions are the difficult beast to know what to do with.
For the victims sake punishment of the real psychopaths has a place and for societies sake their incaceration has a preventative role, provide you are targeting the next generation simultaneously.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 12:43 am
The poorest 20% of New Zealanders are poorer now than the poorest 20% were in 1984. Where’s your source for that?
The more the prison system has tried to rehabilitate prisoners, the worse the reoffending rate has become. So if all that caring makes no difference then we may as well make prison less of a holiday camp – and not bother with parole.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 7:09 am
Thank you for putting this up David…. and drawing attention to the fact I haven’t managed to update this list for a while :-S . It’ll have to be added to the stack of pending work which rather blew out after the recent hoohaa about the Offender database and all the extra incoming requests for additions etc that created
These assessments are not precise ratings as such but are based on the experiences of our people with these MP’s in their dealings with them, plus whatever statements they make on relevant issues in the media. I won’t pretend that they are 100% accurate or up to date! So if any of you think that any of these ratings aren’t accurate, please let me know on here and I’ll do my best to update them. And if you have a fair idea where some of the unrated MP’s stand on the relevant issues, I’d appreciate your views on that too.
As for comments by DDD etc I will address these seperately when I can get around to it, although I may say that Porcupine and CraigM have already provided most of the answers I would have. Thanks guys, much appreciated. Thank you also those others that made positive comments about the Trust’s efforts
Regards
Vote:Peter Jenkins
Webmaster for Sensibles Sentencing Trust
July 31st, 2007 at 8:14 am
Here’s a documentary about the Japanese prison system. I have read how bad they are but I have also read a comment such as “at least the other prisoners didn’t get to you, and the guards were “fair and honest”.
It could be that the reason that prisons “desocialise” is that we concentrate the worst together and then ensure their bad behaviour by not having the moral courage to use control, (as we extend most of the human rights we offer the whole population).
http://www.documen.tv/asset/Japan_form_inside_film.html
Vote:jh
July 31st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Roger said:
“but don’t you think it’s better for us to identify these people early, when they’re “at-risk youths” – offer them work and hope,”
A liberal society has no “hope” to give them, and many people who work still commit crimes. So…no. At least not in the way your meaning.
James is still trying to blame welfare reform but for the last eight years Labour has thrown millions of dollars at welfare and it has changed nothing. In fact things are getting worse. If the Left’s mantra of more money for health, education and welfare was the answer we would currently live in a paradise.
Crime has been rising in NZ since the late 1960′s. About the same time that secular liberal extremism became the dominant social and political ideology.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Where do we start with the “Sensible” Sentencing Trust?
1. Their hearts are in the right place.
2. There is at least one intelligent person in their ranks, they’re just led by someone who chooses heart over head every time.
3. They do good work in the area of victim support – which I think should be their focus.
Peter J is a smart guy, even if he is influenced too much by (what I think is) a misreading of Steen Pinker’s “Blank Slate”. However, you don’t ever see the research that he does making up part of one of Garth’s rants, rather, Garth creates his own graphs based on completely false information in an attempt to intellectualise his position. Have a look at this graph if you get a chance – it’s worth a chuckle.
IMHO, SST should start engaging in the debate about crime in the areas that actually affect most of us. Violent crime is a very small part of crime in NZ, yet it leads the debate. Why doesn’t SST lead the way in getting smart about crime debate?
Peter J?
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
The “sensible” sentencing trust are a bunch of self serving brain dear religious freaks that’s why. They lie and scaremonger over violent crime because fear of crime is their bread and butter. the more fear of crime they create, the more support they have.
Take the jack Nicolas case for example, that was mcvicars baby, until the perpetrator was caught. Consider the situation, middle class white Christian farmer (almost the most superior type of person for a SST type supporter), shot by who was most likely to be a poor maori on the dole in the area to grow dope, as soon as it comes out that it was another middle class white Christian farmer, who’s into hunting (the only type of person superior to jack Nicolas, from a sst supporters view), and over a disagreement about hunting in the area. And do we hear another peep in the papers on the subject from mcviccar, no.
Spreading fear of crime, fundamentalist Christianity and racism are the key goals of the ‘sensible’ sentencing trust. If they really cared about victims they would drop their out dated eye for an eye dogma and promote effective policies that reduce reoffending and first instance offenders.
I urge you all to write to them and support their plan to make a documentary on the tent city prison, where torture is wide spread and common, then perhaps the ‘sensible’ sentencing trust can be exposed to the public for what they really are, liars, Christian fundamentalists and scaremongers.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Hey you two pathetic lying wankers – its pussy liberals like you that are the problem. SST has no fundy christian base you freaks. And violent crime is the one that effects the victims most. You should be bloody ashamed, all I can hope is that violent crime happens to your family and the crim gets off with a slap on the hand, only to charge the afficer and get compo and then kill or rape again.
you fucktards.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Hey I thought of a really good compromise for roger.
I’ll agree to the news blackout on sensational crime reporting,
Vote:He agrees to a new blackout on how we treat prisoners,
Put me in charge of the prisons for 3 months,
and then he’ll have all the money he wants for social spending targeting at risk youth!
July 31st, 2007 at 7:24 pm
You fucktards only care about your political philosophy and massaging your moral superiority, and don’t give a shit for anyone else.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Of course I care about the victims, how ever the sensible sentencing trust and their out dated biblical view of crime and punishment is making things worse.
Ask any family who has lost someone to violent crime and I’m sure they would much rather have their loved one back than take revenge.
It is a self serving policy they promote. Starts with promoting mass hysteria, which puts pressure on the government to implement populist penal policy, which fails and increases crime, which is then blown out of proportion, leading back to the start of the cycle until eventually crime does get to the epidemic levels that they have been pretending its at in the first place.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Its the namby pamby liberal claptrap from the 60s dopeheads running the country that we’ve had to put up with for the last 40 years that have caused the problem. The SST consisently says that harsher penalties are not the only answer but for multiple repeat violent sociopaths there is no alternative at present. Look at the statistics – repeat violent offenders. Your just lucky you don’t get out and about.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Peter J: Well, I thought I might have been a bit harsh. Like I say, I don’t mean to belittle the emotion the SST brings to the table…it’s the attempts at pseudo-intellectualism that grates.
But, given I do actually have an open mind on these things I followed the link to your website. Hmmmm.
Firstly, let me just say that, if you’re the webmaster, you might want to try viewing your site in Firefox 2.0+ it renders pretty poorly. Not trying to be rude – I am sure you didn’t design it that way but a lot of the menu and other frames crowds out your information or squishes menu wording.
Anyway, the first thing I looked at was the graph entitled “The Rising Tide of Murder and Mayhem”. Great title. Very hysterical. Anyway,the stats on the graph just looked pretty odd to me. I’ve always thought the rate of murder convictions was usually between 20-30. But your graph has murders running at nigh on 100 per year??? So, I dutifully checked the official conviction stats and found I wasn’t losing my marbles – these data confirm convictions for murders has, for the past decade, run around 20 to 30 or so (see http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2006/conviction-sentencing-1996-2005/prosecutions.html#2.5) .
So, what gives? Your stats are much, much higher? So who’s right? The official conviction stats or the SST? I think I know where I will be placing my money.
Then I looked at the top page and saw the staggering figure of 48,337 violent offences. I thought, 48,337 sounded pretty high. So I looked again at the official figures for violence convictions and found it was 16,685 (see http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2006/conviction-sentencing-1996-2005/prosecutions.html#2.3), which is about a third the figure you have emblazoned on the front of your site.
Now I don’t want to pedantically go through all of your site’s figures for you – but how come the two figures I decide to fact check (mainly because they’re given such prominence on your site), turn out to be wrong? I could accuse the SST of abusing statistics to create a misleading impression – I could accuse you of intellectual fraud. But I won’t. Because I subscribe to my original thesis, which is that the SST just ain’t that smart.
You kinda have two choices: Either (a) you’re deliberately misleading the public with bogus claims about crime or (b) you simply don’t understand statistics. I prefer to think of you in the latter category – but hey, I might be a woeful misjudge of character.
By the way, I sort of anticipate you to point to the Police stats as being your source for these data…but why in the world would anyone claim that recorded crime equates to actual crime? People lay complaints to the Police all the time – it doesn’t make the incident a fact! The only authoratitive source of crime and criminality should be based on convictions (i.e. a court has found a crime has occurred). And if your going to stick with this misuse of Police stats, why doesn’t your site make this pertinent fact clear (i.e. “these figures represent crimes recorded by the Police and does not reflect proven offences”).
Hell, I could on about the holes in your analyses – such as the increase in violent crime going up in the nineties once domestic violence started to be enforced more rigorously. But that kind of subtlety is probably a little beyond the SST if the measure of your intellectual rigour is to ignore actual hard data in favour of dodgy recorded crime.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Two other things: Where’s the evidence the SST is based on Christian ethics. I would be really interested in that. Misguided, emotional, intellectually-challenged – maybe. But I’ve not heard that they had fundy links. Can anyone making those allegations substantiate those claims?
Second: I see a lot of references to SST and victims…what?? What the hell does the SST have to do with victims? The SST is NOT a victims’ advocacy group. If you want that, go to Victims’ Support. The SST self-professed mission is:
“To obtain a large base of community support, and ensure safety for all New Zealanders from violent and criminal offending, through education, development of effective penal policies, and the promotion of responsible behaviour, accountable parenting, and respect for each other at all levels of society.”
Umm, I don’t see anything in this Mission Statement about promoting victims’ interests.
I am not saying the SST isn’t interested in victims. Of course it is. I am sure a lot of its members are victims of crime. What I am suggesting is that victim advocacy is not the SST’s modus operandi. So, let’s cut the whole, “they do a lot of good work for victims” crap. The SST may do something for those victims who, in their most human state, understandably want a pound of flesh. But a lot of the SST’s stated policy aims is likely to make crime and criminality worse not better. So, by helping exercise a few current victims’ blood lust, they’re willing to create new victims. That, my friends, does not make this organisation “victim friendly”.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Interesting DDD. So if a murder is committed but the murderer is not convicted then the murder never happened? If that is your “rational” argument then I think its you that are spinning the statistics for your own ends eh?
And who gives a rats arse about some theoretical distinction between murder and manslaughter – I’d still be happy to give them the blue juice.
Here are the killings (murder + manslaughter):
Year Recorded Resolved
1996 63 43
1997 89 75
1998 64 43
1999 61 47
2000 66 45
2001 62 52
2002 77 60
2003 65 61
2004 60 53
2005 73 63
2006 63 59
If you add in attempted murder, which is basically just as bad then you are up over 100 pa.
There are approximately 40000 crimes of violence each year of which about 30000 are resolved although in the last couple of years this has been nearer 50K and 40K respectively.
But even the 16000 convictions is one shit load of violent crime. It IS TOTALLY abysmal and out of control to any rational observer.
Small increases in crime due to better reporting are a secondary factor only.
I think it is you that needs to learn how to analyse data mate.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I just checked that out too
http://wdmzpub01.stats.govt.nz/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx
Left,left,…left,right,left…left,left,…left,right,left….. Imagine our prisoners doing this> [check out the preview]
Vote:http://www.documen.tv/asset/Japan_form_inside_film.html
jh
July 31st, 2007 at 10:57 pm
At Fuchu, Arnett lived in a 9-by-5-foot cell furnished with a hard, narrow bed, a sink that also was his desk and a toilet that he could flush only when permitted by the guards. His mail was censored, and he was not allowed writing materials. The books he read were the few approved by his guards. Gifts from home were kept from him until his release. Despite his diabetes, Arnett’s diet was dominated by seaweed, fish and rice. He lost 55 pounds in 18 months. Fourteen of those months were spent in solitary, in a room where a camera recorded his every move. His scalp was shaved every two weeks. He was forbidden to look out the window or to communicate with other inmates. He worked eight hours a day, even in solitary, making paper bags in his cell. He could not touch his bunk during the day, but when the lights went out at night, if he was not lying down, he was punished. On his release, due to improper treatment of his diabetes, an doctor called him “a walking dead man.”
Arnett’s experiences were not unusual for Japanese prison inmates, about 100 of whom at any time are Americans serving sentences for crimes ranging from minor drug offenses to murder. But, surprisingly, Arnett, home in Omaha, Neb., says he prefers Japan’s legal system to ours. Why? “Because it’s fair,” he says. “The never tried to trick me, even in interrogation. They were always trustworthy. 1 could have got five years and they gave me two. The Americans who were helping them wanted me to get 20. The guards at Fuchu were hard, but they never messed with you unless there was a reason. You didn’t have to worry about the other prisoners coming after you, either. And the laws of Japan are for everybody. That’s the main thing. The laws in this country depend on how much you can pay. I’d rather live under a hard system that’s fair.”
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/parade/japanprison.htm
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Porc. That’s a big giggle, Bro’. Keep it up. “It’s not murder it manslaughter and murder. No hang on, that’s not enough, it must be murder, manslaughter and reckless driving resulting in death…no wait…that’s not enough, it’s murder, manslaughter, reckless driving and anyone cut off by a power company…no wait, it’s….”
Oh, and the classic “even the 16000 convictions is one shit load of violent crime” – even though that’s one third of what the SST claimed; ONE THIRD! But, yeah, I guess I agree with your minor point, one violent crime is too many, really.
But I am not advocating that this country is a crime free paradise. As well you know. My point is the SST has a big entry on its site saying there are 48+ thousand violent offences. But there aren’t? My point is that the SST are either stupid or deliberately disingeneous. You take your pick. I’m erring on stupid – but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
And suggesting counting convictions rather than reported crime is “spinning statistics” is just crazy. Reported crime is just that, reported, it may or may not have happened. Who knows…well, after hearing all the evidence and carefully hearing all of the arguments, a court probably knows better than anyone else. That’s kind of the way our system works.
As well you know, the only true indicator of criminality in a society (which is what the SST is trying to represent) is convictions data. But you know as well as I do, the SST is not trying to show how publicly motivated the NZ public is in reporting crime – it’s trying to show how scared we should be because of all this offending.
C’mon, Porc. Don’t defend this sloppy shit.
Vote:August 1st, 2007 at 5:33 am
Anyone else experiencing the problems DDD described in Firefox 2+? I use FF2 at home on two machines plus I have seen the site on a range of Windows, Mac and Linux machines ranging from a ten year old laptop to a monster gaming rig with a 24 in widescreen LCD, and never seen what you describe. The only time I have is on a 486 with a 14 in 640×480 monitor, and there aren’t many of those left any more.
As for the statistics and the graphs, these were provided to me to put up some years back and are frankly out of date now. To be perfectly honest I have never much liked the second graph either. I will raise the points about the statistics with Garth. I’d like to revamp these pages… another job on the pile :-S
Regards
Vote:Peter Jenkins
Webmaster for Sensibles Sentencing Trust
August 1st, 2007 at 7:09 am
I use a high res monitor…so…
Peter, the figures are not just “out of date” they’re dishonest. Don’t use recorded data – unless you specifically declare it and explain why it’s doesn’t actually represent crime per se. It’s more honest to use conviction data. As Porc said, even at 16,000+, the rate of violent offending is unacceptable. Don’t conflate murder with other forms of unnatural death and call it “murder” and I don’t think having it referred to as “homicide” is the solution. Most people do not differentiate the strict meaning of homicide from murder (particularly if your graph is titled “murder”. It’s misleading.
If you’re genuine about addressing the figure issues, then good on you. It’s refreshing to see a lobby group willing to take on board criticism and it kind of backs my theory that this was done out of ignorance rather than deliberate under-hand motives.
Finally, and I am not being smart here…but both times you’ve referred to yourself as the Webmaster for the SensibleS Sentencing Trust. When the thread has taken on the flavour of the intellectual rigour of an organisation – misspelling that organisation’s name consistently is, you know, not a great sign.
Vote:August 1st, 2007 at 8:26 am
Excuse me DDD you make a couple of good minor points but
1. Peter – in high level statistical reporting dont distinguish manslaughter from murder – the distinction is not made rigorously by the courts anyway. Many a time a murderer has got away with “manslaughter” in new Zealand.
So invent a name and combine manslaughter and murder. I do have a bit of a problem including attempted murder in “homicide” though.
2. Yes I did wonder about the discrepency between 48K and 16K but found the answer. Of course it is
a) Youth court and family group conferences are probably not included in the “convictions”
b) After the “youths” have played the youth court system like a strativarius (ie they get too old) they get pre-diversion for the first adult offence and diversion for the 2nd adult offence.
So now the wet wooolly white wellington liberal system as set them squarely on the path to a life of crime (without ever having a real punishment, deterrent or intervention) – only then – do they start to show up in the “convictions”
Peter, keep up the good work yelling for us, the victims of crime, no-one else will. they’re too busy appeasing the crims.
Vote:August 1st, 2007 at 8:32 am
Maybe SST is under resourced DD. They may have a good point to make but not be good at making it. Sir Geoffrey Palmer decided prison shouldn’t be for punishment…. The liberal West assumes that there is a circle around everyone that protects their human rights.. as a consequence prisoners can’t be manhandled. In Japan prisoners march, here they swagger and give the public the ‘bird’.
[In 1981, Japan, with about half our population, had only 922 homicides; we had 1832 in New York City alone. An American is 12 times more likely to be murdered than a Japanese, 14 times more likely to be raped and 20 times more likely to be the victim of a property crime. Although recidivism rates are similar-50 percent in Japan, 64 percent here-our problem with criminal repeaters is actually nine times greater than Japan's because our crime rate is so much higher.
A defendant's lack of counsel during interrogation and the absence of a jury trial, a U.S. Constitutional right, raises no hackles. "There are scholars who criticize this, but they have no social or political support," notes Kotaro Ohno of Japan's Ministry of Justice, who studied law at Harvard. "A Japanese believes the judge is more knowledgeable about his situation than a collection of citizens." Ohno defends Japan's very narrow use of the exclusionary rule and says the U.S. "goes too far" in excluding illegally obtained evidence.
Japan' has a low crime rate without either a police state or excessive litigation. Only 50,000 prisoners, including pretrial detention inmates, are presently con- fined in Japan, and fewer than 4 percent of the prisoners are sentenced for longer than three years. In the U.S., there are 580,000 adult inmates, and 80 percent of those in state institutions have been sentenced for longer than five years.
Observes Yoshio Suzuki, until recently director general of the Correction Bureau in Japan's Ministry of Justice: "The law in Japan is severe in the attitude toward offenders as a whole. This allows it to be lenient in the punishment of an individual. We involve the victim in the criminal process. If the accused has shown proper penance to the victim through repayment or an expression of grief, and the victim tells this to the court, it will go much easier on the accused."
Japan brings 70 percent of its crimes to conviction. The U.S. brings only 19.8 percent of its crimes to arrest. But the contrast in prisons themselves is most startling. Americans familiar with the horrors of Attica and New Mexico and the routine tales of brutality and homosexual rape would find the orderly corridors of a Japanese prison mind-boggling.
"They don't coddle them, but they don't abuse them, either," says U.S. Navy Capt. Everette Stumbaugh, a lawyer for the commander of U.S. forces in Japan. "Japan plays it aboveboard all the way."
There never has been a hostage crisis in a Japanese prison. There has been only one "prison disturbance" -30 years ago. There never has been a reported case of homosexual rape, or of prisoner gang wars. No guard ever has been killed by inmates; there has been only one inmate death in the last 10 years at the hands of another. There have been only 35 escapes from Japanese prisons in the last seven years (the U.S. average is more than 8000 escapes a year). Almost 94 percent of Japan's prisoners perform labor that is geared to their aptitude and rehabilitative potential, rather than based on the crime committed. Guards typically are unarmed. There are 58 major prisons in Japan. In addition ~o Fuchu, I toured prisons in Yokosuka and Okinawa. Only Fuchu had armed guards. There, fewer than 10 percent carry weapons-police sticks.
"What about the guard in the tower?" I asked Kaoru Kayaba, Yokosuka's warden, as I stared at the juncture of two walls on the far side of a large athletic field. "Doesn't he carry a rifle?"
Kayaba smiled. "We don't keep a guard in the tower. Except when the prisoners play softball."]
Vote:August 1st, 2007 at 8:49 am
that is great stuff jh!
Peter J, so the bottom line is you can’t rely on the Jastice department statistics either – so you need to get stats for the family court, diversion and whatever that pre-diversion thing is as well. This is how the govt spins statistics. Here is an interesting article from Redbaiter about how the government spins statistics:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2267/print
A couple of quotes:
“British citizens pay obscenely large amounts of taxes, but get less and less in return for this, except an increasingly hostile state”
‘ Dalrymple states that “We have come to expect dishonesty – of which this little lie was an example – at every level of society. The dishonesty is intellectual, moral and financial, and its root is self-interest conceived in the narrowest possible way. In modern Britain, probity is foolishness or, worse still, naivety.” He believes this corrupts the entire fabric of society: “When dignity requires illegality, there is something rotten in the state.” ‘
Anything sound familiar here?
Vote:August 1st, 2007 at 9:11 pm
This from SST website: “5% of New Zealand families produce 90% of our criminals”
Does anyone know how one would determine this to be fact?
aladin
Vote:August 2nd, 2007 at 8:02 am
OK, DDD, so what ARE you using to view the site? And is anyone else experiencing this problem DDD described?….
jh makes a number of extremely good points, especially about the Japanese system.
And yes, SST is under resourced. However a couple of people have offered their welcome assistance partly as a result of the debate on this blog.
There is a difference between lack of intellectual rigour and typos DDD. I cut and pasted this particular one from my previous post, something I often do to save time and lifted the typo with it. Don’t tell me you’ve never made a typo!
Regards
Vote:Peter Jenkins
Webmaster for Sensible Sentencing Trust
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:56 am
Well I’ve updated the MP List… sort of. No claims made as to it’s 100% accuracy but at least it’s a bit more up to date. Anyone got anything to add in the way of ratings (not how good you think they are, just how much sympathy you think they have for SST)?
I’ve got someone working on the Stats pages. As Porcupine said, the government ones aren’t entirely reliable… and whoever produces those gets bloody PAID for it!!
I’m sure there’s other cockups out there on the site. If I didn’t have a (paid) job to do as well I’d go through and find them all and correct them today
Regards
Vote:Peter Jenkins
Webmaster for Sensible Sentencing Trust
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Hey PJ, can you tell us where this info came from:
This from SST website: “5% of New Zealand families produce 90% of our criminals”
aladin
Vote:August 4th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Garth supplied the info to me. I seem to recall it came from a news article a few years back and originated with the Police. I will ask if you like. Cant promise a quick answer
Regards
Vote:Peter Jenkins
Webmaster for Sensible Sentencing Trust
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Great 2 talk, what about action!!! victims need help, WAIT a minute– prehaps we should give them the $70,000 (base cost per person, per year for an prison ),
Vote: