Bring on Three Strikes

May 5th, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Later today I am going to blog some criticisms of by Maxim, and suggested amendments. But for now, want to highlight why I support it.

The Dom Post reports:

A burglar who terrorised a woman has dodged jail, despite a previous conviction for attempted murder after stabbing a sleeping teenager in his bed.

The woman, who was chased out of her home and down the street by Burt Te Manu Tangiata Rikihana, 27, described the sentence of supervision as “a joke”.

Rikihana was arrested in December after forcing his way into a Petone home, where the woman was home with her three-year-old child.

Rikihana tried to grab the woman, but she got away from him. She fled down the street, before police arrived and caught Rikihana as he chased her.

In Lower Hutt District Court yesterday, he was sentenced to 24 months’ intensive supervision and 200 hours’ community service on burglary and assault charges.

It is pretty obvious from his pursuit that he was not just there to burgle, but to rape or kill.

In February 2002, Rikihana was sentenced to nine years’ jail for attempted murder, after stabbing Hastings 15-year-old Paul Robertshaw as he lay sleeping in bed.

This was an unprovoked attack on a sleeping kid, who he didn’t even know.

Rikihana took a knife from the kitchen, held it with both hands and stabbed the teenager with such force the knife came out his back. The teen survived.

Now under three strikes, this assault would be the second strike. As the Judge did not give a jail term, the penalty would be the same.

But under three strikes, if Rikihana commits a third violent or sexual offence, he would be given the maximum jail term without parole.

That might prevent more victims down the track.

Tags: ,

41 Responses to “Bring on Three Strikes”

  1. RRM (9,638 comments) says:

    [DPF]: “Later today I am going to blog some criticisms of Three Strikes by Maxim, and suggested amendments. But for now, want to highlight why I support it.” [/quote]

    Good idea! Get a bit of righteous anger going first. You’re not going for a job at Sensible Sentencing by any chance are you?

    IMHO that Rikihana piece of shit should be in the rubbish dump with a bullet in his guts. Or failing that, in prison for a long time. But really you are dooming this topic to another shouting match, emotionalising it like this before you’ve even started. One supporting example does not make a theorem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    One supporting example does not make a theorem.

    It makes the principle (if not the important details) of the bill though doesn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Yvette (2,743 comments) says:

    As well as bringing in the Three Strike policy, sentences in all cases should be given as the actual minimum time the criminal will be expected to spend in jail.
    A judge should not say “I sentence you to nine years” and the public have to work out that really means two thirds or whatever, with time off fro good behaviour.
    It should be “I sentence you to six years, with re-sentencing being an option to reflect your behaviour at any point during the six years I have given you.”

    The public shouldn’t have to be bloody mathematicians or lawyers to understand exactly what a sentence means in their evaluation of exactly how appropriate it is, or how it compares to other sentences for similar crimes.

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

    The real issue here is judges. There needs to be some thought given to how much their failure to protect the law abiding public costs in violence murder theft and other mayhem.

    That three strikes attracts such wide public support is a clear indication that the public thinks judges are not performing.

    Who judges the judges, and maybe its time a few of them were incarcerated as a means of getting them to understand the public’s exasperation and anger at their constant failure to perform the tasks they are paid to perform- Keeping the law abiding public and their property safe from criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, you are only partially onto the nature of the problem.

    Most prosecutions in NZ are carried out by sworn police officers whereas 100% of the defense is carried out by lawyers.

    Defense lawyers will spend their entire career using ANY argument to get their client off and use ANY argument to get the minimal sentence for their ‘client’ (at taxpayer expense of course).

    When it comes to appointing judges for criminal courts only defense lawyers can be appointed. And these same lawyers have come to regard the police as being their ENEMY.

    The solution is to create competition for the appointment of judges by (say) 5 year re-election by the citizens of NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. starboard (2,489 comments) says:

    In February 2002, Rikihana was sentenced to nine years’ jail for attempted murder, after stabbing Hastings 15-year-old Paul Robertshaw as he lay sleeping in bed.

    Rikihana took a knife from the kitchen, held it with both hands and stabbed the teenager with such force the knife came out his back. The teen survived.

    Slapped with half a wet bus ticket ! What an absolute joke. I shake my head in amazement. Gobsmacked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ross Nixon (612 comments) says:

    Hanging would be too good for Rikihana.
    Sometimes I think it would be good if the Muslims did take over! That’s a worry…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    Here we go again, setting political policy based on the rules of baseball. Why shouldn’t it 6 balls and you’re out? Or 5 points and we try to keep you in?

    Or is this someone who simply another case of people who believe in the myth of the power three? good things come in threes; the trinity, etc?

    Wouldn’t it be better to get good lawmaking without the bullfuckingshit? But where would that leave ACT?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    But surely, people, Rikihana is just another example of a poor downtrodden and disadvantaged individual who has been victimised by the white man’s colonialist system. We can’t hold him accountable for his actions.

    I think him being “sentenced to 24 months’ intensive supervision and 200 hours’ community service” is entirely appropriate. Afterall, we need to heal his poor troubled soul. And sending him to prison would simply be sending the wrong message and might further reduce his self esteem – the poor darling.

    And while others might suggest a firing squad at dawn the appropriate penalty, I really do think asking him a few pertinent questions, and then sending him to bed with no supper will better achieve the desired outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Yvette (2,743 comments) says:

    “Slapped with half a wet bus ticket ! What an absolute joke. I shake my head in amazement. Gobsmacked.”

    And this is when you know he is sentenced to nine years, when the judge should be saying “You will serve a minimum of six years, additional time is up o you.” So the judge expects six years is enough. If this was plainly said out right you and everyone else could see the sentence is only six years and be further amazed and gobsmacked – even disgusted and sickened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    200 Hours community service and 24 months supervision.

    Who wants to take a wager that the crim pissed himself laughing when he walked out of court?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    Swiftman the infidel claims:

    When it comes to appointing judges for criminal courts only defense lawyers can be appointed.

    I wonder, do members of the “hang ‘em all” brigade actually believe such crap, or do you knowingly make shit up hoping people without enough of a vested interest to check the facts will believe you and thus assume the remainder of your unsupported assertions are fact?

    Where, in the process for appointing High Court Judges or of District Court judge does it say only those who’ve practised as defence lawyers are eligible?

    The rest of your assertions, that

    Defense (sic) lawyers will spend their entire career using ANY argument to get their client off and use ANY argument to get the minimal sentence for their ‘client’ (at taxpayer expense of course).

    show a complete lack of understanding of the principles of justice and of the reality of the situation. A defence lawyer who didn’t do everything in his or her power tto get their client acquitted (assuming that the client has instructed them to do so, rather than to, say, negotiate a plea) would risk being struck off and destroying their career. On the other hand, some defence lawyers are so breathtakingly incompletent that they manage to get their clients convicted anyway.

    It’s not for nothing that there is a handful of high profile defence lawyers whose names are well known… consistently mounting a successful defence requires a level of skill to advocate against well resourced Crown Prosecutors (I very much doubt a charge as serious as that faced by Rikihana would have been prosecuted by a police officer).

    Having said all that, I am (partly) in agreement with your solution. I don’t think judges should have to campaign for office but there should be a modified form of recall, wherein citizens would be at liberty to gather support for a petition to have a judge’s conduct subject to review and that the review panel would have the power to recommend to the Governor General that the judge be stood aside.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Good idea! Get a bit of righteous anger going first. You’re not going for a job at Sensible Sentencing by any chance are you?

    YEAH DPF! How dare you have an opinion!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Rex, I think the point he was making is that in the majority of cases, it is a Police officer (not a lawyer) prosecuting the case, against a trained lawyer. Doesnt seem like he was lamenting the fact that the crim gets adequate representation, just that the Crown (Gov, Police, whatever) is not represented by a “like skilled” professional, ie: A Career Lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Yvette (2,743 comments) says:

    “Eight years ago Rikihana admitted attempting to murder sleeping 15-year-old Paul Robertshaw in an early-morning stabbing in Willowpark Rd, Hastings, on June 29, 2001. Rikihana had been drinking with relatives nearby.
    Yesterday he was sentenced after admitting burglary and assault – he tried to stab a woman after forcing his way into her Petone home on the night of December 3. He was drunk and had already tried to enter two nearby homes.
    Rikihana had been out of jail almost three years after serving two-thirds of his earlier sentence.”
    http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/local/news/jailed-stabber-attacks-again/3913575/?ref=rss

    He should obviously have had the three years from the first sentence to complete before any consideration was given to what the second sentencing should be for a crime that seems near enough identical: drunken attack with a knife.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    Bevan:

    I noted he was also making that point but given that it wasn’t completely erroneous (unlike the points to which I responded) I left that one alone. I’m not sure where Police and Justice have negotiated the “cut off point” in terms of seriousness of the offence – the point at which Police hand off to Crown Law – but if it’s too high then that’s the fault of Police and Justice bureaucracy and not these hated defence lawyers and judges.

    Presumably if the All Blacks turned up to a game and found their opponents had defaulted and sent in the local 1st XV, Swiftman would curse the All Blacks for winning, or for playing at all, and the ref for awarding the points.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,299 comments) says:

    Yvette, I agree with your request for clarity in sentencing. What about giving a range eg 4-9 years means four years minimum, up to nine years?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Brian Smaller (4,026 comments) says:

    Rex – swifttman may not have put it quite right. But what was that Judge thinking? Everyone knows that this crim’s next serious crime will probably result in a homocide. For the sake of teenagers and women everywhere this guy should be in jail for life now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. David Garrett (6,729 comments) says:

    It was interesting last night during second reading to listen to the total nonsense coming from the opposition. The worst example was from Parekura Horomia, who claimed that “poor brown people” would be “locked up for stealing food for their families under this law”, or words to that effect. I add that qualification because Hansard for last night is not yet available for me to check, but that is a fair paraphrase of his remarks.

    That is of course rubbish – the “strike” offences are all listed so there can be no ambiguity; they are all offences of serious violence; and stealing food, theft or burglary simpliciter are not “strike” offences.

    Either Horomia has not bothered to read the Bill, or he is being deliberately misleading while playing to whoever of his constituents may be listening on the radio. Mind you he is far from alone; even the MSM print peices containing serious errors despite being clearly told the true facts in answer to their questions.

    It was interesting having heard last nights debate to talk today to Geri Silver, the president of FACTS (Families to Amend California Three Strikes). I have stayed in touch with Geri since meeting her during a visit to California in 2007 to find out how to avoid the kind of injustices which occurred there in the early days after California’s law was passed.

    Geri is on record as saying, with regard to ACTs first version of “three strikes”, “compared with what we’ve got here, yours is wonderful.” Of the final NACT version about to be passed, Geri notes that it is more generous to repeat violent offenders than even FACTS is seeking in a binding referendum to be held in the State in 2012. FACTS is concerned with injustice to non violent rather than violent offenders who they exclude from their concern.

    “Three strikes” New Zealand style is a good and just law which will be highly effective, and it cannot come quickly enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    Brian Smaller:

    I agree. That’s one of the main reasons I oppose “three strikes” – it’s a blunt instrument that says “even though this offender has all the hallmarks of being a violent sociopath, let’s treat him the same as someone who’s not and wait till there’s three victims dead, raped, or seriously beaten before we act decisively”.

    Equally, it treats someone who might have been salvageable after they came to notice for their first offence as irredeemable – it just waits till they offend twice more (and create at least two more victims), then locks them up for a long period. Then, having effectively brutalised them beyond any hope of recovery, lets them out to offened some more.

    It’s cheap, ineffective, stupid politics. We don’t need a club to deal with crime, we need a scalpel. I could go on about the alternatives but let’s wait till DPF’s less dog whistly Maxim post, where hopefully there’ll be less jerking of knees.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    And the chief jerker of knees himself comes along and claims:

    “Three strikes” New Zealand style is a good and just law which will be highly effective

    Right… but other politicians who make unproven sweeping generalisations are either “playing to their constituents” or “being deliberately misleading”.

    So what would it have done for the innocent teenager stabbed through the guts? Or the innocent woman and her traumatised child attacked during Rikihana’s second rampage? Nothing.

    What will it do to stop other Rikihanas from attacking other victims? No one can be sure. Maybe something, but only after they have two under their belt.

    What will it do to rehabilitate an offender so he creates no more victims in the first place? Nothing.

    What will it do to make NZers safer in their homes and streets? Nothing, because:

    1. The kind of offender who commits the type of crimes commited by Rikihana isn’t after money, revenge, drugs, or even sex. He’s out to harm as many people as he can until he’s stopped.

    2. If he’s under-charged (as seems to be the case in this instance… surely it should have been attempted rape / murder or, as DPF says, why would he chase the woman?) then the maximum third strike sentence will be inadequate anyway. Had he been charged and convicted of offences relevant to the gravity of his actions, we wouldn’t need a “third strike” to have him locked away for a lengthy period, it would have happened this time.

    3. Unless he is locked away until he is too feeble to offend then, left as he is, he will offend again, including against younger, weaker, non-violent inmates (most of whom shouldn’t be in prison anyway). All his “third strike” sentence does is delay that offence, not prevent it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. lastmanstanding (1,240 comments) says:

    Judges should be subject to the Fair Trading Act and the Commerce Act. At present they are guilty of misleading behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Brian Smaller (2594) Says:
    May 5th, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    I concur.

    Rex
    you make some valid points but until judges sentence properly this will have to do.
    People have lost faith in the system and in the judiciary.

    The aim of this is not to sort all problems out but to set a tone.
    1. you do crime, there is a line in the sand and you will go away for the longest time.
    2. it sends a message to judges we don’t trust you, get right with the victims not the offender.
    3. that multiple offenses as a lifestyle is not acceptable in our society.

    no it doesn’t fix rehabilitation nor does it sort out youth sentencing and offending but it is a start.
    a quick fix yes but one that is needed.
    after 3 offences you are toast and each time after that as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    But MikeNZ, it’s not a quick fix.

    It’s not retrospective. Rikihana and offenders like him have a clean slate. If Rikihana and I were both offending after Garrett’s law passes, I could be doing a far longer stretch than him on my second strike (no parole) than he on his “first”, with (at least) these two horrendous crimes behind him.

    Bottom line: “Three Strikes” fools us into thinking we’re safer and absolves politicians and policy makers of thinking about how to really reduce crime… until such time as we realise it’s been a failed experiment, by which time Garrett or someone like him will have a new hare-brained bit of knee-jerkery to salve our worries and win our votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Rex
    I understand where you are coming from.
    So lets retrospect it, but how do you allow for someone who has committed three offenses in the past but has been clean for 10yrs.
    Now by retroing it, they go to jail, straight to jail, do not pass go and for max years.

    Whereas here they are saying from now on….

    personally I’d like to see commitment to splitting jails sites into 1st 3 convictions and +3.
    With the trade school and classroom & psych tests for the 1st 3 sites.
    But We don’t do rehab here really, psychological services are swamped and actually bonding people as a first step and making them sit that first, before their new sentence (for 2nd offence) is not the norm.
    Jails are too full and with hot swapping to keep them on edge and unsettled to protect the warders they have no opportuntiy to get stable for study, reflection and counseling even if we offered it.

    you have to start somewhere.
    getting judges on side is another issue but goes hand in hand.
    Like getting to these kids when they are kids before the serious stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (23,299 comments) says:

    People seem to want to keep feeding a vicious circle.

    The more you just lock them up for longer the more that costs and the less resources will be available for first strike and non-violent offender rehab, therefore converting more into habitual and violent crims. And so it goes on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    All good points Mike. The separate, betetr resourced prisons for the non-third-strikers is a brillianrt one. But where is it in this law? Where are the plans to introduce it later? Where are the plans to address the lack of resources for parole? To intervene in the lives of young offenders? Nowhere.

    If this was a start, I wouldn’t be so opposed. But it’s not… in fact National has done the opposite of what you propose and cut funding to PARS, a very effective (considering we’re only talking $2.4 million) organisation that tries to do the very things you’re talking about.

    If they wanted to reduce crime they’d do what you’re suggesting and three strikes. Instead, they’re bullshitting us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    When you think about how Garrett and his cronies are pulling the wool over our eyes you might want to consider this passge from the Maxim Report, Mike:

    What counts as a strike is the fact of a warning in court on conviction. A subsequent strike requires offending after having received a warning… Therefore, a serial rapist who is convicted of raping ten women will receive a first warning. This is relevant to the claim that those on strike three are necessarily “the worst of the worst”.

    That’s something I hadn’t cottoned on to till now. So it’s the luck of the draw how many victims you can rack up between arrests and convictions. What a joke (both Garrett and his Bill).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    Starboard got the right word. This is simply gobsmacking; a violent home invasion with that track record. Perhaps if he had kicked the cat on the way the judge would have thrown the book at him. This is so bad that there simply must be more to it. Name and shame (the Judge).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    Swiftman the infidel (195) Says:

    May 5th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
    Redbaiter, you are only partially onto the nature of the problem.

    Most prosecutions in NZ are carried out by sworn police officers whereas 100% of the defense is carried out by lawyers.

    Defense lawyers will spend their entire career using ANY argument to get their client off and use ANY argument to get the minimal sentence for their ‘client’ (at taxpayer expense of course).

    When it comes to appointing judges for criminal courts only defense lawyers can be appointed. And these same lawyers have come to regard the police as being their ENEMY.

    The solution is to create competition for the appointment of judges by (say) 5 year re-election by the citizens of NZ.

    Example A above of why we get dumbass laws passed to appease the public because the public actually believe idiots like swiftman.

    For someone who criticises defence lawyers for allegedly saying anything Swiftman’s complete lack of any grasp on reality is astounding.

    Summary proceedings are prosecuted by police. More serious matters are prosecuted by Crown lawyers. Most offences are summary level and resolved by guilty plea so I guess the point is technically true but unsure what it has to do with this argument.

    Defence lawyers have an overriding obligation to the Court and most take that very seriously. Defence lawyers cannot knowingly promote a lie, unreasonably impunge other people or lie themselves and, as any good counsel will tell you, it is counterproductive to make unrealistic submissions. Still, it seems that Swiftman is quite happy to use lies and stereotypes to justify his position.

    And the great big clanger – just to prove swiftman is a complete idiot – is the allegation that only defence lawyers can be appointed. Completely untrue. Crown counsel are routinely appointed as Judges.

    And the solution? Elected judges. Oh awesome, so swiftman (based on false information to be fair) wants to elect judges and turn dispassionate and balanced dispensing of justice into a popularity contest. Well if Swiftman is the example of the voters God forbid that anyone is judged by someone elected by him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    thedavincimode:

    before you go all Rambo on the judge, bear in mind s/he was sentencing on the offences on which Rikihana was convicted: burglary and assault.

    Now I agree that, considering s/he can take into account prior offending when sentencing, it seems light. However, if you told me you’d “burgled and assaulted” someone I’d assume you broke into a house thinking it was empty with the intent of stealing a few items, got disturbed by the home owner, and shoved them aside as you made your escape.

    I very much doubt Rikihana was in that woman’s home to steal… or if he was, it was only part of why he was there, and that charging it as “burglary” is gobsmackingly stupid. And similarly I don’t think chasing a fleeing victim with a knife is merely “assault”.

    Those could always have been charged in the alternative, so that if he escaped conviction on more serious (and, IMO, realistic) charges he would at least have been found guilty of something. But to make them the only charges he faced after an incident like that suggests it ought to be the Police and/or Crown Law who are in your sights.

    GPT1: That’s what I said! Only you said it better :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. starboard (2,489 comments) says:

    Look…if you commit a crime like this…

    In February 2002, Rikihana was sentenced to nine years’ jail for attempted murder, after stabbing Hastings 15-year-old Paul Robertshaw as he lay sleeping in bed.

    and then this…

    Rikihana took a knife from the kitchen, held it with both hands and stabbed the teenager with such force the knife came out his back

    ..you go to jail for life. Fuck rehabilitaion and all the feel good solutions..you are a scum and deserve to be locked up until you die. I am more than happy for my taxes to go towards keeping them in prison forever. Cut back on the treaty settlements…start lockin the filth up. Die in prison arsewipes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    Actually, starboard, those two quotes aren’t seprate crimes, they’re the one crime (stabbing the sleeping teenager). Interestingly the victim’s mother says:

    Rikihana was “damaged”, she said. “I’m not sure chucking him in jail would do any good, it might just make him worse.”

    She’s right; but so are you. He’s now beyond redemption and it seems highly unlikely any amount of rehabilitation will “fix” him enough to ensure society will be safe.

    But given he’s not going to jail for his latest rampage (attacking and chasing the young mother) and that “intensive supervision” is yet another under-funded joke, it seems we’ve just shrugged our shoulders and are prepared to patiently wait till he has three “strikes” under his belt.

    The appropriate (and safe, and humane) thing to do would be a sentence of confinement to a secure psychiatric facility until such time as he was no longer a risk (which, as I said above, I suspect might be never.

    But some idiots closed all those. Oh yeah… the same people (politicians) we now think can “fix” crime with a Three Strikes law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. starboard (2,489 comments) says:

    I dont give a rats if this offender is from a broken home..so am I…I dont care if he has “mental health issues “…I dont care if he suffers from post colonisation syndrome…he is a threat to our/my safety. The state needs to put him down.

    I voted National last election in the hope that JK would sort this sort of shit out. He hasnt. He has failed. Oh well move on..who’s next…Liarbor…not a show…greens…ppfft…racist party…nah bro…ACT…step right up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    vote your party vote to ACT next time then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pete George (23,299 comments) says:

    What makes you think Act can fix crime? They may get more people jailed for longer, but that’s what this lot look like doing, and that’s what the last lot did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    GPT1: That’s what I said! Only you said it better
    Thanks Rex, to be fair it was such an outrageously stupid comment I went straight into reply mode! It’s hard enough having a rational discussion about something as emotive as violent crime as it is without complete bollocks being chucked into the mix as fact!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    What would prevent more victims down the track was if she instead of running, had done the world a favour and killed the fucker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. willtruth (245 comments) says:

    We all want less crime. There are still terrible crimes being committed, but crime is trending down. Doesn’t that mean present policies are working? Why do we want to change them and make them harsher? How do we know that this won’t lead to an increase in crime? I think that the three strikes brigade should admit that they aren’t actually all that interested in reducing crime, they just want revenge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    Bevan said:
    Rex, I think the point he was making is that in the majority of cases, it is a Police officer (not a lawyer) prosecuting the case, against a trained lawyer.
    As noted above this relates to less serious charges. And all police prosecutors are trained, indeed some are civilian lawyers. In a frightening majority of cases police prosecutors are more competent and experienced that defence counsel. As an example I was talking to a young chap who landed himself a police prosecutors job the other day. In six months he reckons he has done around 50 defended hearings.

    It’s pretty hard to argue (and to be fair I don’t think Bevan was) that the case had anything to do with a poor plod being overwhelmed by vastly experienced defence counsel

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Muzza
    you may well be correct there.
    I certainly think his next victim will agree with you.

    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.