Repeat killers

March 29th, 2009 at 10:37 am by David Farrar

The Sunday Star-Times reports that nine convicted killers are repeat killers. Very timely story as we debate whether to go with National’s two strikes and no parole law or ACT’s and life with minimum 25 years no parole law.

I got sent a while back the calculations for Rodney’s claim that 77 Kiwis would still be alive if ACT’s three strikes law had been in place previously. It is:

  • There are currently 391 offenders serving life sentences in prison. Of these, 68 had three sentence episodes for violence prior to the imposition of the current life sentence.
  • There are currently 79 sentenced offenders in prison for whom manslaughter is the major offence. Of these, nine (or 11%) had served three prior sentences for violence before imposition of the current sentence.

So 68 + 9 = 77 people who would still be alive if their killers had been given life after their third serious violent offence. And this is just for those who are still in prison.

So the murder rate would drop by 17% and the manslaughter rate by 11% if the three strikes law had been in place.

What I would find interesting is how many people (in say last 15 years) have been sentenced to three seperate jail terms for violence (and would now be serving a life sentence if the three strikes law had been in place). Also how many of those stopped offending after the third jail sentence for violence and how many carried on offending?

Tags: ,

50 Responses to “Repeat killers”

  1. Viking2 (11,574 comments) says:

    I think this is what you are looking for.

    http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=692&p=20465#p20465

    Revealed: nine killers who had killed before
    By LEIGH VAN DER STOEP – Sunday Star Times
    Last updated 05:00 29/03/2009

    Nine of the country’s convicted killers already had a death on their hands before being jailed for a second killing – a revelation that has renewed calls for such repeat offenders to be locked up for life, without parole.

    The list of two-time killers includes a 63-year-old man who executed a contract killing nine years after being convicted of manslaughter, and a murderous pair who beat to death an elderly vagrant in 1975 then went on to commit separate murders in 1986 and 1992.

    It also includes William Johansson, who masterminded a 2002 P-fuelled robbery spree in which a pizza worker and bank-teller were shot dead in execution-style killings seven years after he had received a suspended sentence for the manslaughter of a 16-year-old league player.

    Act party law and order spokesman David Garrett, who compiled the list, says the cases were prime examples of where a life sentence without parole should now be imposed.

    A spokesperson for Justice Minister Simon Power says the government has committed to introducing such a law as part of its Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill.

    Brent Webling said: “The bill will make it mandatory for a natural life sentence [without parole] if someone has murdered once and then murders again unless such a sentence is considered unjust… That includes manslaughter.”

    Act’s “three strikes you’re out” policy, which is being considered as part of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, passed its first reading in parliament this month.

    If passed, this component would mean mandatory sentences of 25 years to life for offenders who are convicted for a third time of a serious violent or sexual offence that on its own would carry a penalty of five years of more.

    The move has worried the Ministry of Foreign Affairs it was revealed last week that the ministry warned the government the bill could damage New Zealand’s reputation, and risked overstepping international obligations around torture and civil rights.

    Power has said these concerns would likely be debated once the bill reached select committee stage.

    Garrett says his list destroys the common misconception that NZ only had a couple of two-time killers.

    “You hear about Graeme Burton, but here’s a list you wouldn’t have heard… Other than in the most unusual circumstances a second killing should be mandatory life,” he says.

    Burton was on parole for murder in January 2007 when he went on a violent rampage, shooting dead Wainuiomata father-of-two Karl Kuchenbecker.

    He had been serving a life sentence after being convicted of murdering lighting technician Paul Anderson in 1992.

    Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesperson Garth McVicar says the Act policies would remove the need for victims’ families to suffer through endless parole hearings.

    “We’ve seen people try to take their own lives because of the stress and trauma the system inflicts.”

    Kim Workman, director of the prisoner-support organisation Rethinking Crime and Punishment, says there can be little argument against life sentences for repeat “psychotic, violent” killers such as the the nine on the list.

    “There are a few of those but rather than a mandatory life sentence which doesn’t allow the judiciary discretion, there should be a provision in the law to keep them there as long as it’s unsafe to let them out.”

    He says there could be cases where people are convicted of “vehicular manslaughter”, such as drink-driving causing death, in the first instance and then go on to commit murder. “And to say, `Well, that’s the second time so he should stay there for life as a rule’, and perhaps not exercising discretion, I think there are issues around that in terms of the Bill of Rights.”
    —————————————————————————————–

    Mmmmm – Kim Workman is uttering the ‘could’ and ‘should’ words – could it be that he is finally seeing the light?
    However until ‘vehicular manslaughter due to drink-driving’ appears on the pre-determined list of ‘strike offences’, his utterings on that are pure scaremongering. I think it’s unlikely it will, given that it’s not premeditated. However there will be a process to determine the Strike Offences, and that’s where he should be directing his comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. georgebolwing (1,011 comments) says:

    To me, these figures show why this policy is misdirected, popularist nonsense, playing on the fears of the public to advance the agenda of a group of intolerant fanatics.

    There would be 323 people alive today (assuming that the people without a long history of violence serving life sentences are all convicted murders) if we had stopped those crimes. That is over 4 times the number of people killed by repeat offenders, and surely thus a far larger problem.

    Or have we decided to rank the value of lives now, with some being more valuable than others?

    I would like time and effort put into stopping all crime, which means understanding the causes of crime and not just focussing of a fortunately very small group of very violent people (although wanting to stop all crime includes them too).

    [DPF: There is not a country on Earth that has got rid of crime. So suggesting one should not target repeat offenders, because one can not stop all offending is to be blunt nonsense.

    Three strikes would have stopped 77 deaths. No other initiative is known that could have such a direct link to saving people. The real debate should be on how many people who have committed three violent crimes (each sentenced to at least five years) stop offending (and would be victims of a three strikes law) against how many carry on offending (and their victims would be saved by a three strikes law)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    i think george is not reading the same article as the rest of us?

    sure stopping all murders before they occur would be nice, but hardly terribly realistic. Preventing convicted killers from getting out and killing again is a slightly different issue, or is misdirection the purpose of your comment.

    three strikes and you are out, is an ugly and nasty law. sure. but repeat offenders, and worse, repeat killers is pretty ugly too isnt it?

    It seems george’s argument is that if you cant achieve perfection don’t do the unpalatable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    But but but David, what about the rights of the rapist, murderers, paedos who the left have been trying to cuddle lately?

    Surely 25 years to life is too hard for them, we should let them out and kill more surely? Get Catherine Delahunty to sing to them….

    I mean seriously, I’m sick of the bed wetting lefties telling me that the scumbags in our society have more rights than me and my family. 3 Strikes is a good policy – but with everything it needs tweaking as nothing is simple when it comes to NZ politics.

    nigel68888 – I believe they call it “pre-crime”. Didn’t work terribly well in that Tom Cruise movie either!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    george, are you suggesting that since a problem no one has a solution to is killing more people than a problem we do have a solution to, we should not solve the smaller problem? Ever heard of recursion theory?

    Simplify the problem, solve the simpler problem(s), and assemble the results into a solution for the original problem.

    Just be honest, george. You don’t like it because it doesn’t fit with your political ideology. You are happy to have repeat offenders kill for your ideology to be upheld.

    77 people would be alive. Now imagine of those 77, all of them are from your family except you. Now imagine every house to 5 deep either side of your home is empty. Does that even remotely put it into context? What happened to the people who knew that one murdered individual? What effect did it have on them or their extended family?

    It’s not a hypothetical 77 units on a page, it’s real life, previously living breathing, laughing, sons, daughters and partners. Kinda hard to get that message across in writing and impossible to do so to politicians infected with statistical liberal mind-rott. There are no screams, gurgles or grunts on the page. No blood, no violence, no visual emotional sensual impact of the act.

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

    DPF:::::::::”What I would find interesting is how many people (in say last 15 years) have been sentenced to three seperate jail terms for violence (and would now be serving a life sentence if the three strikes law had been in place). Also how many of those stopped offending after the third jail sentence for violence and how many carried on offending?”

    Well a considerable number have committed crimes of violence punishable by more than five years imprisoment without being sentenced to imprisoment at all. Most of the Senior Gang members and some of the Juniors would have committed 3 or more such crimes. Where they have been sentenced to imprisoment they have been released (for Good Behaviour) after a half or less of their sentence…I have read hundred of rap sheets though admittedly not during the past 15 years during which time sentences have been even weaker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lindsay (149 comments) says:

    PQ 323 (2009);

    “For the period for which we have data (1980 – 2007), 4176 people have been sentenced for one of the specified offences on three or more occasions (sentence episodes), including those in prison. List of offences by section of the Crimes Act 1961. Section 128 (Sexual Violation) Section 172 (Murder) Section 173 (Attempted Murder) Section 177 (Manslaughter) Section 188 (Wounding with intent) Section 189 (Injuring with intent) Section 191 (Aggravated wounding or injury) Section 198 (Injuring by unlawful act) Section 190 (Death by unlawful act) Section 192 (Aggravated assault) Section 193 (Assault with intent to injure) Section 194 (Assault on a child) Section 194 (Male assaults female) Section 195 (Cruelty to a Child) Section 198 (Use firearm against law enforcement officer) Section 198 (Commission of crime with firearm).”

    All of these offences would not have received prison sentences of five or more years so it doesn’t follow 4176 people would all be serving life sentences under Three Strikes legislation. But it does give some indication of the kind of numbers we can expect to be affected.

    My overriding concern is that Three Strikes could unintentionally increase violence.

    “# Marvell, T., Moody, C. (2001). The lethal effects of three strikes law. Journal of Legal Studies, 30 (1): 89-106.

    Finds that Three Strikes laws have had a minimal impact on reducing the levels of crime and through deterrence or incapacitation but that they are associated with 10%-12% more homicides in the short run and 23%-29% more in the long run in almost all 24 states examined with Three Strikes laws.

    # Kovandzic, Tomislav V; John J Sloan III, Lynne M Vieraitis. “”STRIKING OUT” AS CRIME REDUCTION POLICY: THE IMPACT OF “THREE STRIKES” LAWS ON CRIME RATES IN U.S. CITIES. ” Justice Quarterly : JQ 21.2 (2004): 207-239.

    Summarizes several studies showing that homicide rates have declined at a 10-12% slower rate in jurisdictions with 3-Strikes laws.”

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

    The gormless liberal mantra-

    “if it saves one life, its worth doing”

    Unless its the execution of a clearly guilty murderer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Graeme Edgeler (3,290 comments) says:

    I got sent a while back the calculations for Rodney’s claim that 77 Kiwis would still be alive if ACT’s three strikes law had been in place previously. It is:

    * There are currently 391 offenders serving life sentences in prison. Of these, 68 had three sentence episodes for violence prior to the imposition of the current life sentence.
    * There are currently 79 sentenced offenders in prison for whom manslaughter is the major offence. Of these, nine (or 11%) had served three prior sentences for violence before imposition of the current sentence.

    So 68 + 9 = 77 people who would still be alive if their killers had been given life after their third serious violent offence.

    I’m not saying the numbers are inaccurate, but as formulated here, I don’t think the conclusion follows.

    1. You can get life sentences (with parole) for non-killings – for example for dealing with methamphetamine.

    2. ACTs three strike policy *may* have resulted in this, but the three strike policy currently before parliament is vastly different – it wouldn’t count Bruce Emery’s conviction for manslaughter as a strike, for example, as it didn’t result in a 5 year prison term. ACT’s three strike policy also included offences for which prison may be unlikely – smacking, for example, counted as a strike; and for which a sentence of five years may be impossible (injuring by unlawful act, assault with intent to injure etc.).

    3. Something in its favour this time: the consequence for second strike murder under the proposal is life without parole. This was also the consequence under ACT’s policy, for both murder and manslaughter. This might mean a few more saved.

    4. Another thing in the favour: ACT’s number shouldn’t be ‘offenders serving life sentences in prison’, but offenders serving life sentences in our outside prison. Some offenders who received life sentences who have now been paroled may have had three prior sentence episodes for violent offending.

    [edit: I see now you noted that this was just those still in prison]

    Undoubtedly there are some people who would have been killed who would not be under a three-strikes law, but this number doesn’t really work. You’d need a better analysis actually taking account how the proposal has changed from ACT’s policy to the draft bill, to have even a half-way defensible number.

    p.s. congratulations to Leigh van der Stoep and the SST for accurately explaining the current three-strikes proposal – it’s the first time I’ve seen anyone in the media get it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Let me know when they propose a death penalty.

    Till then, not serious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Sarkozygroupie (209 comments) says:

    I don’t know Murray, the way the police have monumentally screwed up some of our most famous murder cases (Thomas/Crew, Bain by the looks of the fumbling of the evidence, to name a few), I couldn’t be sure a conviction was always 100% correct all of the time. That’s a big ask for a jury.

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

    DPF,

    The figures you have are sadly out of date now. The number you will often hear David Garrett quote is 78 – Emma Agnew’s killer Liam Reid had a number of prior convictions for violence.

    [DPF: But Dixon’s death brings it back to 77]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    My argument for capitial punsihment is detailed and complex Sarkozygroupie. It rejects the premise of better 100 guilty escape justice than one innocent man hanged as being spurious logic. however I wont waste it here since it requires intelligent discourse to discuss it and this is really not that sort of venue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Then leave Murray, and make it that sort of venue. Don’t let the door slam you on the bum on your way out >>>>>>>>>>>>

    [DPF: Wow you seem determined to be back for only a short while. Murray’s comment was on topic. Yours was not]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Then get fucked billy. Its not your site.

    But thanks for demonstrating my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Sarkozygroupie (209 comments) says:

    Well Murray, on that basis I hope you never happen to end being in the position of being the unfortunate “one innocent man hanged” to ensure the other 100 guilty people get their just desserts. For the record your assumption that I think guilty people should escape having the book thrown at them is wrong.

    You don’t need to kill innocent people to ensure guilty people receive punishment. If you kill an innocent person erroneously you can’t reverse that decision. Why should an innocent person die for doing nothing wrong? If on the other hand you can prove beyond doubt (not just reasonable) that a person is guilty and you think the death penalty is a fitting response to the seriousness of the crime, then be my guest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. racer (257 comments) says:

    Murray

    My argument for capitial punsihment is detailed and complex

    Mate, your think as pig shit, so quit the lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. racer (257 comments) says:

    Murray

    My argument for capitial punsihment is detailed and complex

    Mate, your thick as pig shit, so quit the lying.

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

    “DPF: But Dixon’s death brings it back to 77″

    You miss the point – his victim is still dead.

    You had said “So 68 + 9 = 77 people who would still be alive if their killers had been given life after their third serious violent offence.”

    It is now 78 (adding in Emma Agnew); Dixon’s death is irrelevant.

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

    Watching the news, or taking a peek at the papers, or studying the Internet.

    There seem to ne some common traits in these murderers of late.

    They do have sill first, or middle, or even family names.

    Spookily look related enough for a double take.

    Drug, and especially alcohol seem prevalent.

    Poorly educated in social skills.

    Gang membership. or wannabe cadres for a gang.

    They have no respect for other folks way of life, property, or their rights to be free to go about their own business.

    Answer. Once found unquestionably guilty of a capital act, then to be placed on a lovely remote island near to Antartica, and left to fend for themselves, build their own shelters.

    We will of course provide 4 water supplies.

    Place cameras around the Island. Watch the Gangs form and kill each other. Great viewing.

    Especially if we could have an Australian edition, and even PNG and South Africa.

    Murdoch might go for it. Could have a points system, a big haul of P for every killing.

    WE could even drop in their friends and wailing families for short visits and extra drug and alcohol supplies, new gang colours etc

    Anybody else got a few obscure ideas.

    Since the Isle of Mann gave up birching due to the EU, teenage crime almost unheard of now matches that of the Mainland.

    Strange that!! However no punishment for Labour members blatantly stealing cases of Booze.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    what looks pretty interesting, and a scary phenomenon is that the underclass in NZ has always been drug, alcohol and violence ridden.

    Until recently these scum mostly preyed on each other, so most middle class white people had little idea how depraved maori and PI gangs really were.

    Unfortunately, either emboldened or driven by new drugs, the violence is spilling over into the wider community.

    Want to see people with stupid first names beat the crap out of each other in drug crazed frenzies? Normally you would head to Cannons Creek, Flaxmere, Mangare or Otara any night of the week, but double time on benefit day and Friday/Saturday.

    Now, following an accelerated decade of blame-society-first-nanny-statism, followed by the first wave of a real recession, this is coming soon to a suburb near you. Hope we’re all up for it.

    Think this is hyperbole. Which government, now sadly (sic) defunct, seriously thought that “national hoody day” would be a meaningful gesture to improve civil society?

    Probably the same one that thought teaching the values of hip-hop gangsterism would improve educational outcomes.

    Time to get real people. Guiliani’s “broken windows” policy has much going for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Michael E (274 comments) says:

    Lindsay Mitchell’s figures are a little misleading – only one strike is recorded at each imprisonment. If you are convicted of multiple crimes relating to one incident (say for Attempted Murder, Rape, Aggravated robbery and Using a firearm in commission of a crime) then you are not automatically imprisoned for life – you have to receive a written waring that your next conviction will mean no parole, and any subsequent may mean life imprisonment.

    I’m not overly in favour of automatic life sentences as this will eventually catch out someone with the penalty far exceeding the magnitude of the crime. Perhaps a chance to bring back Bill English’s “3 strikes and it’s the max” policy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    If we lock up all serious threats, then the masses won’t beg the state to assume increased general powers to ‘secure’ our safety. This is socialist dogma 101. A single serious threat behind bars is full state control of one individual. That same person on the loose offer partial [invited] state control of 1000’s. Neo-communists dress up the right of the offender to hide their naked lust for fear-derived control of the populace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    “p.s. congratulations to Leigh van der Stoep and the SST for accurately explaining the current three-strikes proposal – it’s the first time I’ve seen anyone in the media get it right.”

    And that is precisely the thing wrong with the MSM in this country.

    Congratulations to you to Graeme for your work on this over @ Public Address.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. adc (595 comments) says:

    what about all the extra people who would have been killed (as has happened in the US because of this) because someone on their 3rd strike decides not to chance it by leaving a witness around.

    I think there has been some evidence in the US that the 3 strikes law actually makes it more likely for these people to kill.

    That’s why they should just have their head on a pole after the 1st one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. adc (595 comments) says:

    actually that’s why I prefer the 2 strikes rule rather than the 3.

    By offering 3, we are saying we’ll give you 2 more chances after the first one. There are serious moral issues with this. We are saying that the next one is ok but not the 3rd?

    But by offering 2, we’re saying we will give you just one more chance. That makes much more sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Lindsay (149 comments) says:

    Mike E, I’m not quite sure what you are saying but I understand that a strike only denotes to the crime that receives a five year + prison sentence. The rest of the answer to 323 was;

    For the purposes of the data a sentence episode is defined as the group of charges against a single person resolved at the same time. The most serious charge (with the most serious outcome or penalty) is used to denote the characteristics of that case. Convictions are counted for the most serious charge in a case. In some cases this may mean that a specified offence has not been identified, as a person has been convicted in the same case of a more serious charge than one of the ones listed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. tvb (4,517 comments) says:

    I think perhaps the sentence of preventive detention should be used more for seriously anti-social people, be it chronic property offenders, seriously violent people and people who are persistently dangerous road users (and there are a few of those). On a more low level the use of electronic bracelets could be imposed for similar people for longish periods to monitor their movements and have control over them. There will be breaches of course but people can then be incarcerated. There needs to be much tighter control of people who are chronically anti-social and the worst kind should be locked up for good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Lindsay (149 comments) says:

    And, if it isn’t clear, they aren’t my figures. They are figures supplied by Simon Power to David Garrett.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Graeme Edgeler (3,290 comments) says:

    Lindsay – I note that the answer to the Parliamentary Question you provide is based on ACT’s draft list of specified offences (which includes things like simple domestic assault and smacking, and didn’t include things like attempted rape or aggravated robbery), and not the newer list included in the bill. The numbers would be somewhat different following the change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Thanks for your input racer, my deep and abiding concern for your opinion is of course the reason I exist.

    Shame you’re irony impaired. BTW I’m mildly dyslexic and sometimes misspell words. Whats your excuse dickhead?

    The left ladies and gentlemen, demonstrating my point one again. I would attempt rational reasoned debate here because..?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Lindsay (149 comments) says:

    Graeme. Thanks. I will look out for a rephrased question/answer. Do you have an opinion about David Garrett’s suggestion to submitters ; “It may be sensible to suggest that there be two lists in the Bill – the current list for strikes one and two, and a shorter list of only the most serious offences for which the sentence can be 25 years to life,” ? And my apologies if you have covered this elsewhere, but what is the justification, if you are aware of any, for including offences in the new list that may be non-violent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. David Garrett (7,562 comments) says:

    Just to clarify a number of points…the number of victims killed by persons who had served three prior sentences for serious violence is 78, as Andrew Falloon pointed out. It is irrelevant that the number of KILLERS presently in jail has been reduced back to 77 after Antonie Dixon exercised his personal choice to kill himself.

    Secondly, sadly, the number of murderers currently in jail has increased from the 391 figure I obtained in November 2007 to 419 now. I am presently trying to obtain from Corrections (it’s like drawing teeth) the number of murderers currently in jail who killed spouses or relatives. 40 or 50 years ago they were the vast majority of murders – about 75 or 80%. In other words only about 20% were random killings where the victim was unrelated or unknown to the killer. When I last obtained those figures, the percentage of random killings had increased to about 40% – in other words a 100% increase.

    This is important, because many lefties try to argue that all or at least the vast majority of murders are in fact domestic violence taken a step too far. That was formerly undoubtedly the case, and it probably still is – just – but the point is that the percentage of random killings has hugely increased in a generation. I suspect that now only just over 50% will be in that category, meaning the remainder – perhaps 45% – are victims killed by a person completely unrelated and unknown to them.

    Leigh van der Stoep’s story in this Sunday’s SST will have shocked a few…there AT LEAST nine second time killers; Corrections would not supply that information (they are notoriously reluctant to reveal information which shows failings in the present system). The nine second killers come from my own research and personal knowledge. I am very grateful to Dr Greg Newbold – probably the only Criminologist in this country willing to state the obvious from research data whether it is politically correct or not – for his assistance. And for the record, although I have known Greg for 20 years, we frequently disagree on penal policy and other related topics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. dad4justice (8,313 comments) says:

    “This is important, because many lefties try to argue that all or at least the vast majority of murders are in fact domestic violence taken a step too far.”

    Thank you David G, as the Fathers Rights Movement has been concerned about the distorted reporting of domestic violence figures that stereotype all decent dads as potential rapists. The disgusting lefty feminazis are responsible for incredible lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    And if the Western world had thrown Marcuse, Derrida, Foucault, and all the other “intellectuals” who were the knowing advocates of moral confusion, into jail way back in the 1950’s, our societies would have been spared a lot more than just having not breeded so many murderers; we’d have far less crime and far less welfarism and far more intelligence and better educated people and far less drain on the economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    Totally agree Phil.
    Good article by the SST and not like their usual leftist songsheet.

    Rather than locking up people for the term of their natural lives-which by the way is better than the 15 years or so that murderers get today- does anyone besides me think we should reopen the debate about capital punishment?

    I understand it has a marked effect on denying murderers the opportunity to repeat their crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. David Garrett (7,562 comments) says:

    A futher update…as I suspected, my list of repeat killers is incorrect. Greg Newbold has kindly advised me of two in his records that were not in my research..

    Dartelle Elder killed a jogger in Hastings and was convicted of murder. He was later charged with the murder of a fellow prisoner. Greg does not know if he was convicted of that killing, but we believe he was.

    In 1977 one Henry Kino, having just been released from prison for either murder or manslaughter, deliberately ran over and killed his ex girlfriend. So there you are – at least 11 repeat killers since the late seventies…there may well be more.

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

    Good to see some actual figures being discussed for a change, instead of the usual “sensible sentencing!!!” / “LIFE means LIFE!!!” rhetoric.

    BUT…

    considering the numbers of deaths we are talking about preventing, and considering that the annual road toll is between THREE HUNDRED and FOUR HUNDRED preventable deaths, do you all STILL maintain that traffic policing is just a rort to collect fine revenue? Or are the roads really more dangerous than murderers in this country?

    (AND NO I do not support criminals or feel sorry for them. But feel free to go down that line if it makes you feel better!)

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

    “do you all STILL maintain that traffic policing is just a rort to collect fine revenue?”

    Not only that, it mitigates good driving because the constant harrying destroys the confidence of those behind the wheel.

    Any good sports coach will tell you the worst way to improve performance is to undermines self confidence. The constant harassment of “public good” advertising has turned NZ drivers into shaking fearful nervous nellies, and therefore much more prone to accidents than they would normally be.

    Improved car design is the main reason deaths are down.

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

    Hmmm – I drove up the line to Rotorua a few weekends back. Passed everybody – the old girl was really running nicely for a change. 1960s car design is perfectly safe if you are reasonably skilled and not an idiot.

    Don’t recall getting harassed by the Fuzz at any stage – let alone “constantly”. Next objection?

    (I did see a couple of cops with laser guns out. I gave the officers a cheery wave as I passed, to show my appreciation for their efforts to sort out the idiots.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Manolo (14,077 comments) says:

    Do you all STILL maintain that traffic policing is just a rort to collect fine revenue? Yes.
    Or are the roads really more dangerous than murderers in this country? No.

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

    manolo – ok, so what is your basis for saying that the roads are not more dangerous than murderers? You’ll notice I gave my reason – number of deaths resulting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Repton (769 comments) says:

    What will it cost long-term to cope with the increased prison population?

    How would the benefits compare with spending the same money on more police officers (assuming we can get the recruits)?

    Or how many lives would we save if we spent the money on hospitals — increasing doctors, ambulances, E&R, etc.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    The “local Iwi” had the power to change Wanganui to Whanganui.

    The “local Iwi” are about to control the prisons.

    The success of the Textus (the guy who get’s texts from people too scared to complain about poor restaurant service, apparently above 90% are too scared to complain) in my opinion shows a lot about Kiwis and their ridiculous inaction against violent criminals (who are let’s face it mostly Maori and supported by the “local Iwi”).

    “Local Iwi” coming to a center near you to fuck up New Zealand.

    Short of capital punishment (which we all know will never happen in such a baaaaaaa! country).

    My advice to all white Kiwis, Indians and Asians is to give the North Island to the Maoris.

    Give it a few years, when Auckland itself has become “Maori land” overgrown and useless with a few old cars strewn about here and there and plenty of pit-bulls roaming wild, then sign a “free trade agreement” with the Maori and buy it back at a discount rate and smoke a cigar as you burn the Treaty of Waitangi, which has zero power or relevance to the New New Zealand any more.

    Good idea John Keys?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. racer (257 comments) says:

    Hey garrett, hope you get the arse raping you so deserve some time, you wanker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Jim (398 comments) says:

    “Let me know when they propose a death penalty. Till then, not serious.”

    Murray, I’m with you on that.

    One of the big criticisms of capital punishment is “who wants to push the button?”.

    Well, when I read about adults who brutally bash toddlers to death, I don’t find that question so hard to answer. Bury them beneath some new forest plantation so they can do the country some good instead of being a huge and unnecessary cost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    Racer – good to see you’re advocating rape and violence. Tell me where David Garrett has called for this?
    You really should take those reading classes, they will do wonders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Dusky (51 comments) says:

    Ratbiter, I’m not a statistician, but regardless of how many deaths there are on the roads, I would always, always, always feel safer in a car than I would around somebody that I was aware had multiple convictions for extreme violence. (Heck, I’d feel a little nervous about somebody who had numerous minor convictions, but that doesn’t matter in this scenario).

    The thing about road deaths is that while many are a result of careless driving, extreme speeding… failing to keep eyes on the road … not adjusting for faulty weather, and more unforgivably, driving while drunk … I would guess fewer (as I say, not a stats girl) to be as a result of minor speeding … something that people do frequently when they are on a road they know well. It seems, therefore, disproportionate to have police targetting in great abundance those who speed slightly, while there are many areas that are unsafe to walk at night, or domestic disputes that have great delays in police responding, etc etc. I’m actually way off topic – what I WANTED to say is that roads aren’t dangerous – people who drive dangerously are dangerous, and they are not always the same people that get targetted for minor speed infractions.

    Back on topic! I’m a supporter of the death penalty … not to the extent it is practiced in some countries, and far more than it is practiced in others. The reason for that is not that I want revenge on criminals (though I admit to having felt that impulse on multiple occasions in the past), but simply that those who repeatedly scorn society and knowingly inflict pain on others should NOT be free to continue to do. I would like to see the world protected from the worst repetitive criminals. I believe the three strikes law will fix a lot of this. My reason for supporting the d.p. is that I also don’t think those criminals should be cared for at great expense of the same people they hurt.

    Of course, I also don’t think I’m quite at the stage where I’d be comfortable seeing people able to execute people on flimsy evidence … so 3 strikes will do for now.

    Please let it happen.

    Just as a postnote … I hope I’m not the only person who finds it faintly ironic that those people who think the ‘few rich’ should be penalised so that society will be better off as a whole, often seem to hate the idea of the few extremely violent criminals having their freedom hampered, so that society can be defended from them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    the deity formerly known as nigel6888 opines:

    Time to get real people. Guiliani’s “broken windows” policy has much going for it.

    You’re right, of course it does and, unlike “3 strikes” laws, which have been shown to be riddled with problems, “broken windows” approaches to law have been universally successful.

    But they work by cracking down on criminals when they do their first bit of tagging or steal their first car. Instead of convening a family group conference and calling in a Pakeha with a bone carving to tell everyone what nasty society has done to little Timmy to make him want to express himself all over our fences, it teaches him some consequences.

    It doesn’t stop every minor offender from escalation up the criminal ladder but it stops a good number.

    The SST say they support “broken windows”. But given one chance to demand National pass a law did they tell Act to put that one forward?

    No, they pass a law that depends on people committing three heinous and terrible crimes before it even comes into effect. As if some P-crazed pscho or hardened gang member is going to stop and weigh the potential consequences of his actions any more than they do now.

    But at least people like David Garrett get to have this feeling of revenge and power over those scum… it’s too bad that occurs at the expense of other victims… the ones raped, brutalised, beaten and murdered by offenders on “only” their first or second strike, and with a long history of “minor” violence and antisocial behaviour behind them.

    clintheine asks:

    Tell me where David Garrett has called for this?

    While I don’t agree with racer’s comment I can understand his/her feelings. By asking where Garrett “called for” prison rape you’re loading the question. What Garrett said was:

    The fact is: if you don’t want to be assaulted – or worse – by a cellmate, avoid prison by not committing a crime.

    [Note he’s not even talking here of violent thugs. The topic is double bunking, which can happen to anyone imprisoned, even for minor offences. And prison rape is usually perpetrated by one or more older, stronger, more violent offenders on younger, weaker, non-violent ones. So Garrett doesn’t want murderers and rapists having TVs or heating, but he doesn’t mind throwing them a bit of fresh meat].

    That’s the same mindset that saw Sheik Hilally claim that if women didn’t want to be raped they should dress demurely or else they were “uncovered meat”. And all the adding “Oh, but rape is of course wrong…” afterwards doesn’t make the attitude any less repugnant, wrong, inappropriate for anyone (let alone an MP) and, frankly, sick.

    He’s a disgrace to Rodney and the rest of the Act caucus and to youand every other thinking, reasonable supporter and till you’re rid of him you’ll find more and more people who supported the party turning away in disgust.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. racer (257 comments) says:

    clintheine
    Racer – good to see you’re advocating rape and violence. Tell me where David Garrett has called for this?
    You really should take those reading classes, they will do wonders.

    Its rather facetious you to claim he hasn’t. You know exactly what I’m going to quote to prove it, then you’ll retort with some smart aleck, clutching at straws bullshit claim, and being an act supporter, your so chuffed with your own self professed intelligence that you wont realize that you still just plain wrong.

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