National’s Sentencing Policy

October 23rd, 2008 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

has now released its full sentencing, parole and bail policy. Key elements:

  • No for the worst repeat violent offenders – those sentenced at least twice to prison terms of five years or more (already announced)
  • Life without parole to be made available to Judges as a sentence for the worst murderers
  • Substantially increase penalties for causing the death of a child when there is a history of neglect
  • Makes the point that assault on a child currently has a maximum two year penalty – one year less than the maximum three years for wilfully ill-treating an animal!
  • Review whether to maintain home detention as an option for violent and sexual offenders
  • Reverse Labour’s changes to the laws that made it easier for people to get – even if they have broken conditions previously
  • Increase from $7,500 to $50,000 the maximum amount that can be in dispute and heard by the Disputes Tribunal, allowing more time in District Courts for criminal cases

I imagine there would be only one or two murders a year which are so heinous that a Judge would sentence someone to life without parole. They may be people who might never have got parole anyway, but this means the family of the victims do not have the trauma of having to submit to the Parole Board every year on why so and so should remain in jail. It truly gives the victims’ family a life sentence also.

UPDATE: A useful example from the comments:

As much as Labour try to trumpet the Sentencing Act 2002 as ‘getting tough on crime’ they fail to mention the Sentencing amendment Act 2007 which is anything but.   3 defendants appearing on their 8th, 9th and 10th drink drive charges respectively. Under the new senting guidelines of the 2007 Act, home detention and community detention are to be considered for suitability in all drink drive cases before the imposition of imprisonment. Despite one defendant having been imprisoned on both prior occasions and despite blowing 2.5 times the legal limit (Twice the level he returned at the last time he received jail) and crashing into a parked car, none of the defendants received anything more than 6 months community detention (Essentially means they are curfewed at night). Another defendant received 16 months imprisonment for his 31st burglary conviction…

So previously these repeat drink drivers were sent to prison (totally appropriate for a 8th or greater offence) but now they just get community detention which means they can carry on drink driving until they kill someone. Remember to have been convicted eight times of drink driving, you have probably driven drunk on more than 1,000 occassions as most people get checked less than 1 in 100 times they are out.

Tags: , , ,

75 Responses to “National’s Sentencing Policy”

  1. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    STILL no death penalty????

    Softcocks!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Good policies, but I’d really like to see something making Parole Boards liable for crimes committed by criminals on parole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    Accountability?

    Are you mad?????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    “No parole for the worst repeat violent offenders – those sentenced at least twice to prison terms of five years or more (already announced)”

    and as indicated, statistics show this may reduce some level of offending, but if you are going to go down for the last time, make sure it’s a biggie, and the level of violence is greater.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    At least introduce public floggings ya pussies!

    PAUL: Great insight into how the criminal mind works…we’d expect no less from someone with your experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    “STILL no death penalty” thank Fuck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    “introduce public floggings ya pussies” for Racists, don’t be too harsh on him, the feeble bugger couldn’t handle it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    Yeah much better to have 70 dead innocent people than one guilty one isn’t it paul.

    Keep quoting those statistics when its one of your own that is killed paul, I’m sure that will make you feel better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    I have no problem with the changes that are suggested in the main except for the increase in the Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction is a concern. The quality of decision making in that tribunal is not good at the best of times.

    There is an inherent assumption in the policy that civil cases take time away from criminal matters. The problem is the reverse as the DC is swamped with cases, specificaly P trials now they have been rebanded to the DC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ross Miller (1,686 comments) says:

    Sorry Murray … the death penalty is not an intelligent option. Quick … perhaps; less costly … possibly; Increased deterrent … debatable. But answer this … if you were falsely found guilty of murder would you still hold the same opnion?

    Death is pretty final and new evidence discovered after the event is hardly going to make a difference to the person.

    Life meaning life seems a pretty good compromise. The Auckland Islands a pretty good place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Brian Smaller (4,007 comments) says:

    I can hear Barry Hart and Peter Williams whinging about this already. Poor crims etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    Murray the evidence is, that in places where penalties have been exteneded to their greatest – life in prison no return or the death penalty, the statistics show that common robberies or rape tend to end up fatal more often than not, as those who are going to go down, go down for a big reason.

    Iyengar, Radha. 2008. “I’d rather be hanged for a sheep than a lamb: The unintended consequences of ‘three-strikes’ laws”. NBER Working Paper No. 13784.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Sorry Murray … the death penalty is not an intelligent option.”

    Same old socialist arrogance.

    “But answer this … if you were falsely found guilty of murder would you still hold the same opnion?”

    FFS- this is not an argument. Don’t execute where there is doubt. Easy. (Where’s the intelligence?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “the statistics show that ”

    A phrase that when used by socialists, is always the precursor to a lie or a distortion or some semantic intent to confuse and cloud any issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nigel (509 comments) says:

    I’m sure Arthur Allen Thomas is glad you don’t run the justice system Murray & therein lies the rub, if you can guarantee guilt then I can see the arguement for the death penalty, but that is not the case now.

    No Parole seems dumb, how do you have any control over them whilst in prison, it’s not like extending the sentence will help, reducing the parole periods to say 10% of the sentence, now that makes sense.

    Life in prison forever, see above, sounds good but what do you achieve with a 70 year old in a wheel chair in prison, make it say 35 years with 10% parole, minimum 31.5 years or something realistic.

    Ending up with 1 in 10 people in jail like the US is a dumb strategy & it’s unfortunate National feel the need to follow the headline hunters @ ACT down that path.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Life in prison forever, see above, sounds good but what do you achieve with a 70 year old in a wheel chair in prison,”

    Damn good argument for the firing squad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dad4justice (8,084 comments) says:

    Great to see Justice discussed in the political arena. Dear MADam speaker, how many other countries pay out huge compensation for breaches of prisoners’ human rights when the victim gets nothing but heartbreak? The Human Rights Review Tribunal is a sick joke !!

    Edit – bullet please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    Letting killers out to kill again is not the intelligent option. QED.

    Or would you prefer me to give you the full latin on that, as stupid as I am.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Lee (610 comments) says:

    Polls show that support for a return to the death penalty has been trending upwards for many years now so its really just a matter of time, but I would only support it as a rare option for exceptional crimes, not for murder in general.

    A good example of such a crime would be the scum who tortured and killed Nia Glassie. They should hang.

    “Ending up with 1 in 10 people in jail like the US is a dumb strategy”

    We wouldn’t. Comparisons between the US and NZ are meaningless because the situations of the two countries are radically different. The US has to deal with an essentially open border and with drug gangs from Mexico and Latin America that are so large and well armed they amount to small armies, and a few of them are large enough to take on the NZ defense forces and win. Just witness the violence in Mexico at the moment. The demonic spirit of Jesus Malverde is alive and well.

    Also, one of the things that critics of the US’s high rate of imprisonment always conveniently forget to point out is that the crime rate there has been going down for nearly twenty years and is now at an historic low.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    Well the socialist feel good brains trusts have clearly demonstrated to us that their principle is “better 70 dead innocent people than one muderer executed”.

    Thanks for playing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. TJAK (1 comment) says:

    As much as Labour try to trumpet the Sentencing Act 2002 as ‘getting tough on crime’ they fail to mention the Sentencing amendment Act 2007 which is anything but. by way of example in court yesterday, I prosecuted 3 defendants appearing on their 8th, 9th and 10th drink drive charges respectively. Under the new senting guidelines of the 2007 Act, home detention and community detention are to be considered for suitability in all drink drive cases before the imposition of imprisonment. Despite one defendant having been imprisoned on both prior occasions and despite blowing 2.5 times the legal limit (Twice the level he returned at the last time he received jail) and crashing into a parked car, none of the defendants received anything more than 6 months community detention (Essentially means they are curfewed at night). Another defendant received 16 months imprisonment for his 31st burglary conviction…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dime (9,792 comments) says:

    “and as indicated, statistics show this may reduce some level of offending, but if you are going to go down for the last time, make sure it’s a biggie, and the level of violence is greater.”

    youre taking the piss right??

    do you think when people commit crime they plan to get caught?

    “im gonna go off that guy that owes me 10 grand, might kill his wife too cause i know im going to get caught and spend the rest of my life in jail”

    Dime is against the dealth penalty.. incase anyone was wondering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Fisiani (1,025 comments) says:

    I regularly canvas for National’s Stephen Franks the next MP for Wellington Central. In the lower socio-economic parts of the city I ask “What do you think of National’s policy to get tough on violent criminals?” The smiles come on faces and I get a big thumbs up and cries of “Too Bloody right mate.” Most people rich or poor are decent people who share common values and detest the small number of scum who cause such mayhem. Get off your keyboards, and make a change, go knock on doors and ask the question above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    More innocent people murdered by wrongly released killers than innocent people wrongly executed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dad4justice (8,084 comments) says:

    Where do they put the criminally insane now? Oh that’s right, government puts them in communities nowadays!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. dime (9,792 comments) says:

    redbaiter – prison is meant to be about rehabilitation.. maybe we should TRY that one day..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    It’s the CRAP from the likes of Paul & the other apologist here that make me so DAMNEDANGRY!

    Don’t ever cross my path Paul as I’ll break you effin nuts (after Tasering your butt repeatly first).

    Read the nations PULSE people…here’s what’s coming: More VIGILANTE JUSTICE being dispensed!

    EYE4’NEYE works for me, if any one fucks with my family!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Dime, the truth, (rather than the propaganda put out by self interested social workers,) is that rehablitiation is a costly non productive farce. You want to rehabilitate, then set up a private charity and do it with your own damn money.

    Here’s your first candidate-

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/im-a-born-rapist-fritzl/2008/10/22/1224351335147.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    “prison is meant to be about rehabilitation.. maybe we should TRY that one day..”

    And therein lies the problem. IMHO prison is first and foremost about punishment. Remember punishment? That’s what you used to get when you broke the law, argued with your Dad or ignored your teacher.

    Punishment…. at a level that fits the crime. For ignoring or abusing your teacher, you got your arse whacked or detention, or both.

    For child murder, you forefit your right to live in society forever.

    Punishment that fits the crime. People facing the consequences of their action in direct proportion to how that action effected society.

    After your punishment, you can start working on rehabilitation i.e trying to stop you from doing it again. If you can’t, or won’t be rehabilitated i.e accept societies rules, then back you go for more punishment, again reflecting the severity of your crime. If your crime is bad enough there is no rehabilitation, only punishment.

    Why is it so hard to get this right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Turpin (342 comments) says:

    Its true we don’t do rehabilitation at all well.
    we suck at it.

    It would be helpful if we built a new prison every three years with workshops and classrooms.
    we could move first and 2nd time offenders into those as they get built.

    decommission the old crappy prisons and sell of or develop the sites to off aset the building of new.

    Make the long term offenders stay in the shit holes

    make it compulsory for a prisoner to qualify for parole that they have to achieve the next level of education every two years under a degree level.
    all have to do citizen ship classes.

    No TV or audio in cells only TV rooms
    make them all wear bracelets so we know exactly where they are in the prison.
    not allowed in certain areas for bad behaviour.
    lock up 23hrs for shit arses who misbehave.

    As we don’t allow insolvents to have bank accounts or deal financially as they have proved themselves to not be capable.
    so too should we ban ALL smoking from prisons as it is a health hazard.
    this is predicated on the fact that the prisoner doesn’t have the same rights as us to screw their body as they have proven themselves not capable to live as a normal person.
    so we have to regulate all aspects of their lives whilst they are in prson to protect them
    its a health issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dad4justice (8,084 comments) says:

    “For child murder, you forefit your right to live in society forever.”

    Totally agree CraigM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Turpin (342 comments) says:

    why not serial rape or pedophilia DFJ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Lee (610 comments) says:

    “prison is meant to be about rehabilitation.. maybe we should TRY that one day..”

    Er…no, prison is meant to be about keeping dangerous people off the streets. Rehabilitation may be a component of that but it is not the primary purpose.

    Now, that said, I agree that we need a stronger approach to rehabilitating those who have a reasonable chance of reforming themselves and a genuine desire to do so. But secular approaches will not and do not work (they HAVE been tried). We need faith-based rehabilitation programs like Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship, which has one of the most successful rehabilitation programs in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “It would be helpful if we built a new prison every three years with workshops and classrooms.
    we could move first and 2nd time offenders into those as they get built.”

    Turpin, you do realise that the current saturation levels of crime are a comparatively recent phenomenon? The root of the problem is family breakdown and fatherless children. You’re talking ambulances at cliff bottoms. Rejecting socialism as a culture is where you start to fix crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. dad4justice (8,084 comments) says:

    Fatherless youth saturate our prisons!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. dime (9,792 comments) says:

    redbaiter – or ya become a fully communist state and crime dries up HAHA

    turpin – no tv or radio in the cells? harsh!

    im not sure how many of you have visited prisons, but they arent a fun place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Usual crap from the usual bleeding hearts on this thread. Lock criminals up sooner in their career and for longer, and crime drops. End of bloody story.

    Yes, increased penalties might not be a deterrent to the type of criminal we are talking about. Yes, prison might not reform them. But that is all the MORE reason to lock them up. Society is entitled to protection. End of bloody story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    Fucks sake it doesn’t how bad things get their answer is always to be nicer to bad people.

    If they’re dead they wont do it again. Its not a deterent, its a punishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. GPT1 (2,116 comments) says:

    2 years for assault on a child is a bit misleading. This relates to what would otherwise be a common assault (1 year) but is aggravated by a child being involved. The police can always charge with more serious assaults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. big bruv (13,674 comments) says:

    Dime

    I know why you are of the silly belief that prison should be about rehabilitation and even allowing for the fact that you are a good bastard you are still 100% wrong.

    Prison is about punishment, it should be hard and it should be terrible for the scum who are in there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    Tents, barbed wire, crap food and a high country winter.

    That’ll “rehabilitate” them.

    Or prove they were silly enough to join the infantry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. big bruv (13,674 comments) says:

    I see the Police have shot and killed an armed hostage taker in Whangarei.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4737094a11.html

    Bloody good job!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. big bruv (13,674 comments) says:

    I see the Police have shot and killed an armed hostage taker in the far north.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4737094a11.html

    Good job!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. big bruv (13,674 comments) says:

    I see the Police have shot and killed an armed hostage taker in the far north.

    Bloody good job!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    “Remember to have been convicted eight times of drink driving, you have probably driven drunk on more than 1,000 occassions as most people get checked less than 1 in 100 times they are out.”

    POINT OF ORDER:

    The amount of police attention you get on the road is not random nor is it reflected by average stoppages at compulsory breath testing checkpoints. The traffic police are very good at spotting trouble, and if you look suspicious (i.e. weaving all over the road, or driving too fast, or you look like you are a boy-racer scrote) you will get pulled over a hell of a lot more. Which is good!

    For example:
    Driving my own car I never get a second glance from cops. But last year I went out one night with some mates in somebody else’s little Toyota Levin (= boy racer car) and we got pulled over and scrutinised twice within half an hour. Privately, I thought this was bloody good, as my mate’s mate was a scrote and he looked even more of a scrote in his little boy-racer car…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Ross Miller (1,686 comments) says:

    Redbaiter …. happy to debate but calling legitimately held views “socialist arrogance” is just plain dumb stupid. There is nothing ‘socialist’ in being against the death penalty and equally there is nothing socialist or fascist to be against ‘abortion on demand’. They tend to be moral positions encompassing views from across the entire political spectrum.

    Be careful in throwing darts. They can rebound and hurt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. F E Smith (3,304 comments) says:

    * No parole for the worst repeat violent offenders – those sentenced at least twice to prison terms of five years or more (already announced)

    No problems with this at all, getting a prison sentence of over 5 years says you were pretty bad in what you did. That said, these guys already serve an average about 2/3 of their sentence already.

    * Life without parole to be made available to Judges as a sentence for the worst murderers

    Potentially a bit of an issue on this one, as s104 Sentencing Act already provides for a minimum 17 year non-parole period that covers many different factors, but the Crown now seems to take the view that every case calls for such a term, notwithstanding the crirteria. For this there would need to be a fairly explicit set of criteria to define the term ‘worst murders’.

    * Substantially increase penalties for causing the death of a child when there is a history of neglect

    No problems there.

    * Makes the point that assault on a child currently has a maximum two year penalty – one year less than the maximum three years for wilfully ill-treating an animal!

    See GPT1 on this point. Perhaps at the same time we can amend the same section (s194 Crimes Act) to remove the stupid charge of Male Assaults Female. It seems wrong to have one gender subject to higher penalties simply because of being of that gender.

    * Review whether to maintain home detention as an option for violent and sexual offenders

    Depends on your definition of violent and sexual offenders. If the violence is a relatively mnor assault, or a street fight that goes wrong, do we want to lock people up for that. Also, don’t forget that an Indecent Assault, which is technically a sexual offence, can be as slight as a kiss on the check!

    * Reverse Labour’s changes to the bail laws that made it easier for people to get bail – even if they have broken bail conditions previously

    Where I practice the changes have made no difference, but that may be different elsewhere.

    * Increase from $7,500 to $50,000 the maximum amount that can be in dispute and heard by the Disputes Tribunal, allowing more time in District Courts for criminal cases

    Don’t like this at all. The Disputes Tribunal is a real Mickey Mouse court and often has some appalling results. It is wrong to put that amount of money into the hands of a court that is not required to take account of the law, and has appeal rights only for procedural unfairness. Anyway, if you take away cases up to $50 grand from the District Court then you remove a large part of its civil jurisdiction!

    And prison is about punishment, not rehab. The amount of rehab that goes on in prison is laughable and often a waste of time. Let’s just admit that it is there to punish the person and leave it at that.

    TJAK, what court are you in? That wouldn’t happen where I practice!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    DIME

    Prison is NOT about rehabilitation, that’s the latest fallacy of the wet. Prison is about punishment for committing a crime.!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. baxter (893 comments) says:

    David said”I imagine there would be only one or two murders a year which are so heinous that a Judge would sentence someone to life without parole. ”

    Well the killers of Nia Glassie and those of the deaf and dumb girl (Agnew) seem to be two to me without considering all the other killings and they are on right now….If you leave it to the Judge’s discretion you will find no-one will impose it. I mean just look at that Kid murdered rapt in a mattress and dumped in the river. The killer got a mere 13 years and his assistant two years (out in 8 months.)………..Likewise the no parole scenario you will have lawyers pleading successfully with Judges not to impose penalties in excess of 5years.

    The best policy by far is that of ACT it is well presented and simply asks for Truth in sentencing thus making Judges accountable and abolishes Parole and thus the Parole BOard. Simple , precise and un-equivocal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    If you would like rehabilitation, it should come from the probation service during any parole period that is granted, not as a right, but as a privilege, not during the punishment phase of the sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “happy to debate but calling legitimately held views “socialist arrogance” is just plain dumb stupid.”

    Take a course in comprehension and it’ll save you tripping over your own hypocrisy- You said anyone pro death penalty was unintelligent. This is what I meant when I said typical socialist arrogance. Socialists, lead by ivory tower self perceived “intellectuals”, often try to smear those who oppose their ideas as unintelligent- Reagan, Bush, Palin, Thatcher. Wake up. You’re light years behind Mr. Miller, and its why when it come to politics, you’ve had your arse handed to you on a plate by the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “we got pulled over and scrutinised twice within half an hour. Privately, I thought this was bloody good,”

    That’s because you’re a police state arsehole, a half educated ignorant of history barbarian of the kind that has been responsible for the destruction of so much that was dear to and made western civilization a superior culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. dime (9,792 comments) says:

    Bruv – im just happy that ya like me haha

    i think it should be a balance.. sure, lock em up! but if we have them in there, i think we should TRY and make them better people.. wouldnt hurt!

    i have friends on both sides..

    brother was a frontline cop for 10 years and best mate was sentenced to life when we were 19! hes now out of jail, life served and hes 31 years old. personally i think he should be in there another 15 years.. which i often tell him heh

    anyway, he had virtually zero rehabilitation in jail. was pathetic. when he did start studying – he struggled to get his work marked and couldnt get qualifications etc.. thats just fucked up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    THE BEST THING YOU’LL EVER READ on “Punishment” versus “Rehabilitation”:

    C.S. Lewis: “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”

    http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Brian Smaller (4,007 comments) says:

    :“Ending up with 1 in 10 people in jail like the US is a dumb strategy”

    That would mean there are 30 million people in prison in the States. The actual figure is 1 in about 140. That is about 0.7%, not 10%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    THE BEST THING YOU’LL EVER READ on “Punishment” versus “Rehabilitation”:

    C.S. Lewis: “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”

    Posting with Link gone into moderation. Will do excerpts below.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    “…….so long as we are thinking in terms of Desert, the propriety of the penal code, being a moral question, is a question n which every man has the right to an opinion, not because he follows this or that profession, but because he is simply a man, a rational animal enjoying the Natural Light. But all this is changed when we drop the concept of Desert. The only two questions we may now ask about a punishment are whether it deters and whether it cures. But these are not questions on which anyone is entitled to have an opinion simply because he is a man. He is not entitled to an opinion even if, in addition to being a man, he should happen also to be a jurist, a Christian, and a moral theologian. For they are not question about principle but about matter of fact; and for such cuiquam in sua arte credendum. Only the expert ‘penologist’ (let barbarous things have barbarous names), in the light of previous experiment, can tell us what is likely to deter: only the psychotherapist can tell us what is likely to cure. It will be in vain for the rest of us, speaking simply as men, to say, ‘but this punishment is hideously unjust, hideously disproportionate to the criminal’s deserts’. The experts with perfect logic will reply, ‘but nobody was talking about deserts. No one was talking about punishment in your archaic vindictive sense of the word. Here are the statistics proving that this treatment deters. Here are the statistics proving that this other treatment cures. What is your trouble?

    The Humanitarian theory, then, removes sentences from the hands of jurists whom the public conscience is entitled to criticize and places them in the hands of technical experts whose special sciences do not even employ such categories as rights or justice. It might be argued that since this transference results from an abandonment of the old idea of punishment, and, therefore, of all vindictive motives, it will be safe to leave our criminals in such hands. I will not pause to comment on the simple-minded view of fallen human nature which such a belief implies. Let us rather remember that the ‘cure’ of criminals is to be compulsory; and let us then watch how the theory actually works in the mind or the Humanitarian. The immediate starting point of this article was a letter I read in one of our Leftist weeklies. The author was pleading that a certain sin, now treated by our laws as a crime, should henceforward be treated as a disease. And he complained that under the present system the offender, after a term in gaol, was simply let out to return to his original environment where he would probably relapse. What he complained of was not the shutting up but the letting out. On his remedial view of punishment the offender should, of course, be detained until he was cured. And or course the official straighteners are the only people who can say when that is. The first result of the Humanitarian theory is, therefore, to substitute for a definite sentence (reflecting to some extent the community’s moral judgment on the degree of ill-desert involved) an indefinite sentence terminable only by the word of those experts—and they are not experts in moral theology nor even in the Law of Nature—who inflict it. Which of us, if he stood in the dock, would not prefer to be tried by the old system?

    It may be said that by the continued use of the word punishment and the use of the verb ‘inflict’ I am misrepresenting Humanitarians. They are not punishing, not inflicting, only healing. But do not let us be deceived by a name. To be taken without consent from my home and friends; to lose my liberty; to undergo all those assaults on my personality which modern psychotherapy knows how to deliver; to be re-made after some pattern of ‘normality’ hatched in a Viennese laboratory to which I never professed allegiance; to know that this process will never end until either my captors have succeeded or I grown wise enough to cheat them with apparent success—who cares whether this is called Punishment or not? That it includes most of the elements for which any punishment is feared—shame, exile, bondage, and years eaten by the locust—is obvious. Only enormous ill-desert could justify it; but ill-desert is the very conception which the Humanitarian theory has thrown overboard…….”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    “…..The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment. Once we have abandoned that criterion, all punishments have to be justified, if at all, on other grounds that have nothing to do with desert. Where the punishment of the innocent can be justified on those grounds (and it could in some cases be justified as a deterrent) it will be no less moral than any other punishment. Any distaste for it on the part of the Humanitarian will be merely a hang-over from the Retributive theory.

    It is, indeed, important to notice that my argument so far supposes no evil intentions on the part of the Humanitarian and considers only what is involved in the logic of his position. My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.

    In reality, however, we must face the possibility of bad rulers armed with a Humanitarian theory of punishment……”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Brian Smaller (4,007 comments) says:

    “I see the Police have shot and killed an armed hostage taker in the far north.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4737094a11.html

    Good job!

    Wait for the law suits. I am sure Peter Williams will be right on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. big bruv (13,674 comments) says:

    Dime

    Your mate seems to have had a hard time of it.

    Tell me, how many qualifications has the person he murdered managed to obtain in the last few years?

    He should still be in Jail Dime and that is where he should stay for the rest of his life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    “…….Even if the treatment is painful, even if it is life-long, even if it is fatal, that will be only a regrettable accident; the intention was purely therapeutic. In ordinary medicine there were painful operations and fatal operations; so in this. But because they are ‘treatment’, not punishment, they can be criticized only by fellow-experts and on technical grounds, never by men as men and on grounds of justice.

    This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. That is how it can deceive men of good will. The error began, with Shelley’s statement that the distinction between mercy and justice was invented in the courts of tyrants. It sounds noble, and was indeed the error of a noble mind. But the distinction is essential. The older view was that mercy ‘tempered’ justice, or (on the highest level of all) that mercy and justice had met and kissed. The essential act of mercy was to pardon; and pardon in its very essence involves the recognition of guilt and ill-desert in the recipient. If crime is only a disease which needs cure, not sin which deserves punishment, it cannot be pardoned. How can you pardon a man for having a gumboil or a club foot? But the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. This means that you start being ‘kind’ to people before you have considered their rights, and then force upon them supposed kindnesses which no on but you will recognize as kindnesses and which the recipient will feel as abominable cruelties. You have overshot the mark…….”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Turpin (342 comments) says:

    RedBaiter and Big Bruv
    the reality is first time offenders are usually educationaly disadvantaged.
    Word vocab of hard core at para is 350 words, less than a 7 year old.

    I posted on only one of the options I think should be followed.
    working with the families is another, rather holding the families to account is one.
    that was one of my arguements in my submission against repeal of sec59.
    the authorities know who the 7% at risk are as they are dealing with them.
    data sharing will highlight them even more so.

    that is who we should be walking alongside and from them come our first timers.
    which is a bullshit term as you know very few get nicked their first time!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Charles Murray has been writing on the social breakdown/crime phenomenon for decades. He has warned all along that there is a problem with children being brought up without a father, by an irresponsible mother, that would result in crime increases that could only be tackled in 3 ways:

    Political denial and massaging of the statistics. Let society live in fear.

    A Police State, where all citizens suffer curtailments of their liberties so as to control the criminal few.

    Lock the criminals up.

    He says that the USA has adopted the last option, which he describes as “Custodial Democracy”: it was the democratic will of the people not to tackle the moral causes of social breakdown, and it was the democratic will of the people that criminals be locked up so that society is protected. Britain and Sweden and NZ are going the other route; denial and/or a police state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Turpin (342 comments) says:

    dave strings
    I think parole is too late.
    maybe the idea is have different levels of prison based on the rehabilitation offered and the expectation/contract signed.
    some have posited that the sentence should be punishment – education – parole.
    so if someone screwed around and didn’t hold up his end then he gets dropped and transfered out to a harder prison.
    what do you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Something more to make you chunder:

    To Protect a Burglar
    By Theodore Dalrymple
    City Journal | Wednesday, October 22, 2008

    “In Britain, there is a long and honorable tradition of local councils’ leasing small plots of land, called allotments, to people without gardens of their own who may grow fruit, vegetables, and flowers upon them. The tenants also receive small sheds on their plots for storing tools, fertilizers, garden furniture, and so forth. Unfortunately, another, less honorable, tradition has recently developed: stealing from allotments. Seventeen of the 50 allotments in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire have been robbed recently, for example, and the shed of one tenant, Bill Malcolm, has been broken into three times.

    So Malcolm put a barbed-wire fence around his patch of land to discourage further depredations. The fence, however, did not meet with the approval of the local council, which worried about the risk of injury—to future burglars. Injured burglars might then sue the council. Another council, in Bristol, told allotment holders not to lock their sheds, in case burglars damaged them while breaking into them.

    Needless to say, I am replacing the glass in the windows of my house with tissue paper, so that burglars—poor lambs—will not cut themselves while breaking and entering.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    The Standard and G.blog have found a stellar example of National’s law & order stance in action:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/transport-policy-clarified/
    http://greenvoices.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/zero-tolerance-this-time-in-christchurch-east/

    “Oh, the hypocrisy” you would all be crying if this was a labour MP :-P

    (Or perhaps laws don’t apply to well-heeled righties picking up their children in 4x4s?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    Redbaiter: “That’s because you’re a police state arsehole, a half educated ignorant of history barbarian…”

    Why thank you for your kind feedback old chump. You for your part are a well-mannered, reasonable individual. Well worthy of posting rights around here.

    keep up the excellent work old buddy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Ross Miller (1,686 comments) says:

    Redbaiter … your own arrogance is breathtaking. Reminds me that there is not too much difference between the hard left and the hard right. Both are contemptious of the views of others.

    Get a life and at if you want to attack me at least have the guts to do it under your real name … but I’m not holding by breath.

    You refer to Reagan and Thatcher ……. they were ‘right’ for their times and I respect them …… you??????????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Vote MP, and vote for hot tumble dryers!

    But never smack your children!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “You refer to Reagan and Thatcher ……. they were ‘right’ for their times and I respect them …… you??????????”

    Guess what Mr. Miller. I don’t come here to pal around with socialists. I come here to confront them on their bullshit. You and the rest of the Nats could learn something from the right wingers on Kiwiblog. We shoot the left down in flames every day. Make them look like the idiots they are all day every day of the week. Meanwhile, the Nats flounder around like beached whales and in terms of removing socialists from their politically ascendant position, achieve practically nothing. You have allowed socialism to dominate now for too long. You refuse to confront their ideology. When the fuck are you going to stop giving ground and actually win some back???

    BTW- are you sober? Your response suggests my point went right over your head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    The fucking left have got their paws everywhere, including the RIGHT!

    That’s how bad it’s gotten…getting hard to tell the difference between LABOUR/NATS anymore.

    Keep up the excellent work Redbaiter…you tell it like it is and I like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Ross Miller (1,686 comments) says:

    Redbaiter … I am butting out of this argument as its not going anywhere but I repeat … the similarities between the extreme right and the extreme left are striking. Both are intolerant of the views of others.

    And the real stupid thing about all of this is that it started from my taking on Murray over his call for the introduction of the death penalty (and after your post endorsing National’s policy … “Good policies” – your words).

    And I note that your political masters in ACT aren’t calling for the introduction of the death penalty either. Kinda makes your frothing look all the more ???????????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Ross Miller (667) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating1 Says:
    October 24th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    “Redbaiter … I am butting out of this argument as its not going anywhere but I repeat … the similarities between the extreme right and the extreme left are striking. Both are intolerant of the views of others….”

    If you regard both Communism as “the extreme left” and Fascism as “the extreme right”, where do you fit Ayn Rand and Peter Cresswell, Ross Miller?

    Truth is, it is not a case of “similarity” between Hitler and Stalin; they were BOTH of the “extreme left”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    Redbaiter: “We shoot the left down in flames every day. Make them look like the idiots they are all day every day of the week.”

    A hero in his own mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.