Three Strikes now law

May 26th, 2010 at 8:43 am by David Farrar

The bill has been passed into law, and this is a good thing.

I see two major gains from the law.

  1. A deterrent effect on some (not all) serious criminals who at sentencing for a first or second strike will be told by the Judge what they will incur if they commit a further strike.
  2. Recidivist serious violent and sexual offenders will end up spending much more time in prison, and over their lifetime bash, rape or kill fewer people.

This law is not retrospective so it will probably take some years for a criminal to get a second let alone a third strike.

There are ways the law could have been improved. I agreed with some of the points Maxim made – like still allowing a discount at third strike for an early guilty plea.

But overall it is a big step in the right direction, and it will make a difference. Congrats to David Garrett and Judith Collins for getting it through.

Tags: ,

51 Responses to “Three Strikes now law”

  1. Yvette (2,849 comments) says:

    Is drunk driving one of the offences included?

    [DPF: Nope, only crimes with a maximum penalty of seven or more years]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. m@tt (631 comments) says:

    Please tell us how many less violent crimes you think there will be in next years stats, and each subsequent year due to this deterrent effect you mention.

    [DPF: Did you not see the point I made that it is not retrospective so will take five years or so for people to reach third strikes.

    So minimal impact in next few years, but after five to ten years or so, I would expect to see a reduction along the lines of 10% to 20% in the crime categories this law applies to]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. big bruv (14,156 comments) says:

    Reposted from General Debate

    Congratulations to David Garrett and ACT for the passing of the three strikes legislation, to steal a quote from a recent pollie “now our kids will be safe”.

    And shame on Labour, the Greens and the Maori party, speaker after speaker stood up and told us how bad this bill will be for the criminal scum, mind you, at least we know now that Labour and the Greens are more concerned about criminals than they are about the victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (10,025 comments) says:

    [Bruv]: “now our kids will be safe”.

    – Citation needed…?

    [Bruv]: “And shame on Labour, the Greens and the Maori party, speaker after speaker stood up and told us how bad this bill will be for the criminal scum”

    The occasional strawman argument could be seen as an honest mistake. Doing it constantly and doing precious little else starts to look like a form of masturbation. Or trolling. Free tip.

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

    “…at least we know now that Labour and the Greens are more concerned about criminals than they are about the victims.”

    big bruv you are losing your touch. Labour and the Greens ARE the criminals.

    Have you forgotten their record of lying, stealing and defrauding the public by abuse of power under the KKKlarKKK and KKKullen government?

    Have you forgotten that that fat useless criminal slug called Phillip Field is, right now, getting [deleted by DPF and 30 demerits] by the Black Power is some grotty prison cell.

    LEST WE FORGET.

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

    Get a mirror RRM.

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

    it will probably take some years for a criminal to get a second let alone a third strike.

    Could we please have an iPredict share on repeal of the Three Strikes legislation before first sentencing under it.

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

    Please tell us how many less violent crimes you think there will be in next years stats, and each subsequent year due to this deterrent effect you mention.

    I’ll tell you that M@tt, if you tell me how much reduced the global temperature will be in the next five years, and each subsequent year, due to the deterrent effect of paying higher power and petrol prices as from 1 July 2010.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. m@tt (631 comments) says:

    Gooner. What a strange comment you make.
    I’m legitimately curious that David is using his blog to claim a deterrent effect. I would like to know if he has factual data to back up his claim or if it is just wishful thinking.

    But I’ll indulge you. Global temperatures will not be affected by higher power and petrol prices. Higher power and petrol prices will affect wallets though.

    Now, you had something to tell me?

    [DPF: The California law has seen a reduction in crime. What I don;t know is how much is deterrent and how much it is that criminals are in prison for longer and hence unable to carry on committing crimes]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Who says it needs to be about reducing the crime rate? That would be great, but even if it has the effect of preventing an increase, that’s an improvement.

    Secondly, regardless of what happens to the crime rate, there is a punishment aspect. I am pleased that the worst of the worst scumbags will receive more punishment.

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

    Have you forgotten that that fat useless criminal slug called Phillip Field is, right now, getting fucked up the anus by the Black Power is some grotty prison cell.

    swiftman, I am no fan of Philip-Field – he is scum in my view – but my recollection is that the judge sentenced him to incarceration, not degradation. Than anyone could take pleasure in a person being violated like that is unspeakably distasteful. I wish that I were a judge and you were in the dock right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. m@tt (631 comments) says:

    Queenstfarmer.
    The nats and act say it’s about reducing crime rates. And right up there david say’s it has a deterrent effect. A deterrent effect implies a reduction. Surely someone has crunched those numbers?

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

    “Than anyone could take pleasure in a person being violated like that is unspeakably distasteful.”

    Then I confess to being unspeakably distasteful.

    I wish that I were a judge and you were in the dock right now.

    Charged with…bad taste?

    lol @ a wanka

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Garrett (7,554 comments) says:

    I have just heard the tape of an interview with the Rev. Ron Givens, who was recently here speaking about how terrible “three strikes” was. In the course of the interview with Mike Hosking, Givens claimed that I refused to debate him on the subject, and waited until he was out of the country to comment publicly on his claims. On both counts, this is completely untrue.

    My staff made several attempts to get me on the same podium as Givens while he was here. The fact is I offered to debate him any where, any time, at a place or in a forum of his choosing. We were rebuffed on every occasion.

    On 17 May I ussued a press release responding to Givens’ claims made on TV3 and on a Radio New Zealand interview with Chris Laidlaw. No mainstream media picked up the release. We have no control over what the MSM chooses to focus on.

    In addition to approaches by my staff, I myself made a direct approach to the Dean of Canterbury Law School in an attempt to debate Givens when he spoke there. I understand that that offer was passed to the Howard League for Penal Reform, who brought Givens into the country. I received no response.

    I shall today issue a press release making all the above clear, and also offering to debate Givens by telephone on any medium that will have us. I will even pay for the phone call from California.

    Readers can draw their own conclusions as to why those who are opposed to “three strikes” need to resort to downright dishonesty in order to advance their arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. NOt1tocommentoften (433 comments) says:

    Queenstreet, if your concern is the level of punishment in this country, there are far less crude ways of going about this. This is a blunt tool that will have unjust and inconsistent effects. Go ahead, raise individual penalties, but why do it this way? Why not take into account the circumstances of each case and apply the appropriate penalty?

    Why is it that as soon as you start questioning criminal policy in this country you become an apologist? Someone who is suddenly pro-crims. It’s there in Bruv’s comment above and it is the way most criminal policy debates are spun – Those who want to get tough on crime vs those liberal pinkos who don’t think there should be any personal responsibility. That is a bullshit devide and reaks of ignorance.

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

    M@tt, good on you for being honest.

    I will oblige too. I doubt there will be a marked reduction in violent crimes as a result of this law, but I still support it. In other words, I doubt the purported validity of a deterrent effect in criminal sentencing. To be truly deterrent, I think the penalty has to be almost inhumane and so extreme that people just wouldn’t want to go there. I don’t think prison does that.

    I noticed that Jim Anderton didn’t vote. Anyone know why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. m@tt (631 comments) says:

    Gooner, I appreciate your response. It’s refreshing to see honest, truly thought out opinions here for a change.

    I would love to see a government do something that really addressed crime, particularly violent crime, rather than just claim to be ‘tough on crime’ and deliver legislation that really isn’t going to make a measurable difference. Successive governments have made claims on reducing crime without delivering and it’s just not good enough.

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

    I noticed that Jim Anderton didn’t vote. Anyone know why?

    He can only vote/have a vote cast for him if he’s within the Parliamentary precinct. I would assume he wasn’t, so didn’t. Campaigning?

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

    M@tt, so would I. I am convinced that it starts in the home. Violent offenders are, by and large, raised to be thugs and violent. Most aren’t born that way. That’s where it needs addressing – as children. This law is pretty much ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff stuff, but for the worst offenders it needs to be in place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. NOt1tocommentoften (433 comments) says:

    Gooner. Thanks for the honesty. May I ask why you support it if you don’t think it will make a difference to the crime rate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bob R (1,393 comments) says:

    ***Violent offenders are, by and large, raised to be thugs and violent. Most aren’t born that way. That’s where it needs addressing – as children.***

    How do you do that? The most effective means would be to make birth control shots a condition of welfare. That seems unlikely to happen soon, so what do you propose?

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

    Because scumbag repeat offenders do not deserve to be in the community. They might make a mistake once, perhaps twice, but after three times you cannot say there are mistakes or “errors in judgment”.

    I have no problem with locking up the William Bells of this world for life – true life. I think it is easy to distinguish between offenders like him, and those who commit minor thefts and the the like. I would also be a soft-cock liberal on minor cannabis use, and perhaps other drug use, and have instant fines, rather than clog up the criminal courts. But we’re not a mature enough country to have those debates unfortunately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. BlairM (2,365 comments) says:

    I’m afraid the Rachel Hunter principle applies to the effects of the three strikes legislation. They will become apparent over the long term.

    Many recidivist criminals in this country have dozens of convictions. This law will ensure they stay locked up for longer. The only crimes you can commit in prison are against other prisoners. New Zealand will be a lot safer in coming years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. m@tt (631 comments) says:

    “How do you do that? The most effective means would be to make birth control shots a condition of welfare. That seems unlikely to happen soon, so what do you propose?”

    Reducing poverty and inequality, investing in all levels of education, ensuring that all parents no matter what their background have access to good quality support and by having strong mechanisms in place to pick up where parents fail. Because they do.

    Plenty of good solutions in there. Unfortunately the ideologically blinkered amongst us just can’t see them for looking.

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

    Bob, we focus a lot in this country on the downtrodden and derelicts, as we should. We focus on the causes of crime from their perspective.

    But I think the focus should be totally on the contrary: we should look at families and adults who have never committed crime and who never will and see what common factors they had in their upbringing and look to repeat those factors throughout society. If we look hard enough I think the factors will be love, support, patience, time (with kids) and dare I say it, standard of living – particulalry education.

    I have no idea how to teach love, support, patience, and time with your kids but they should be inherent in parents. I’ve said here before that I would love to do a research PhD on not causes of crime, but reasons people do not commit crime. Then you will have the answers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    NOt1tocommentoften: “This is a blunt tool that will have unjust and inconsistent effects”

    Like the crim who “accidentally” rapes a 3rd victim? Or that 3rd murder conviction which really wasn’t that bad compared to his previous two? Or the 3-time grevious bodily harm offender whose victim really had it coming to him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. NOt1tocommentoften (433 comments) says:

    Like the crim who “accidentally” rapes a 3rd victim?

    You mean where consent is iffy and it is a borderline case? Then yes I do. You got my point exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    RRM: The occasional strawman argument could be seen as an honest mistake. Doing it constantly and doing precious little else starts to look like a form of masturbation. Or trolling. Free tip.

    WTF? So people are only allowed to critisise National and Act? Riiight…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    m@tt: I suspect the stats (damned lies, etc…) can be manipulated to meet every side of the debate. Personally I’m pleased that we are trying something new (in this country) to do something about crime. If it works, great. If not, we can try something else. What is the harm in giving this a go?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    NOt1tocommentoften: no, “borderline” does not get you there. That is the kind of misinformation the opponents of this law put out. “Beyond reasonable doubt” is still the requirement. And remember, it is “beyond reasonable doubt” on 3 separate occassions! There is no “iffy” about it. Why shouldn’t someone be given the full sentence after committing their 3rd serious crime?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. NOt1tocommentoften (433 comments) says:

    The sort of misinformation that is put out there queenstreet is that every “serious crime” is equally serious. It is not. Read a sentencing note or two and you will realise that there are huge differences in the gravity of offending for different charges. I’m well aware of the standard of proof but that is a very simplistic view of criminal behaviour and the sorts of cases that come before the courts. This is a crude form of punishment that fails to sentence proportionate to the particular facts. And I’m not saying whether or not I support tougher penalties, all I have a problem with here is that this legislation is crude. It says highest penalty whether or not you are the worst of the worst.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    NOt1tocommentoften: OK, I agree that “there are huge differences in the gravity of offending for different charges”. It would indeed be wrong to say every “serious crime” is equally serious.

    But what this law says is that for serious, repeat offenders, on the 3rd strke it’s tough luck. Strikes 1 and 2 can take the “seriousness” into account. Light sentences might be given. But not on the 3rd (serious) strike. No more lenience, no more excuses, no more let-offs. Everyone knows that’s the rules. Warnings are given. Full sentence. And after 3 dead / brutalised victims in a row that will be fine with me. We’re not talking about things like shoplifting here.

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

    And after 3 dead / brutalised victims in a row that will be fine with me. We’re not talking about things like shoplifting here.

    Except sometime we could be (almost). Not all of the crimes listed as serious violent or sexual crimes actually involve violence or sex. For example, aggravated burglary (a strike offence – 14 year max) can be committed by someone breaking into a shop with a crowbar (a crowbar is a weapon). Or even by the person who drives that person from the scene (who can be convicted of the crime for aiding its commission). Nothing needs to have been stolen, but this is still a strike.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Judges should have the option to turn the three strikes around… your first offence maximum penalty.. making the need for strike one and two irrelevant.. it would still be a three strikes policy.

    As it is now after a offenders 2nd strike.. its all or nothing.. so the offenders next crime will be so much worse then it may have needed to be… most offenders re-offend so why wait for the inevitable… thats my simplistic view .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. backster (2,185 comments) says:

    I think this is a giant leap forward in the fight against violent crime… The next step should be to strengthen the Corrections system and legislate to empower the wardens to enforce control, for instance solitary confinement for serious transgressions should be automatic and not an infringement against civil rights. Hurting an inmates feelings should be a consequence of their crime and not grounds for a massive damages claim. The former ‘goon’ squad should be re-instated to re-inforce the right of the administration to exercise authority. The Judicial liberalism that resulted in the current absurd situation needs to be rolled back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Or even by the person who drives that person from the scene (who can be convicted of the crime for aiding its commission). Nothing needs to have been stolen, but this is still a strike.

    Sounds like a good deterrent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Bob R (1,393 comments) says:

    ***Reducing poverty and inequality, investing in all levels of education, ensuring that all parents no matter what their background have access to good quality support and by having strong mechanisms in place to pick up where parents fail. Because they do.***

    That is why you need to discourage the dysfunctional from having children. They will screw up their kids lives.

    As for poverty & inequality – that doesn’t really stack up. Look at the crime rates in the two countries with the greatest income inequality in the world. Singapore & Hong Kong. They also have the lowest crime rates along with Japan.

    Similarly, look at the underrepresentation of Asian communties in the US (p32).

    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=vgHgNsmZ3vsC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Crime+a+biosocial+analysis&source=bl&ots=PB-YbVYMl9&sig=xyzw52ar1zHScLTjI-WcWYV-3-0&hl=en&ei=qG38S4mMIZHSM4GQtbYB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=asian&f=false

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. CJD (333 comments) says:

    FANTASTIC NEWS!!!! All this nonsense from the Left about how this potentially breaches human rights. What about victim rights? Also what is unfair about a system that gives you three chances to correct your behavior? Murder victims only get one strike and they are gone!!!!
    Yes we need to work on the social side to prevent people becoming crims in the first place, but the primary function should be to protect what is argueably the only real human right and that is to be left alone to achieve your full potential in society without the fear of random violence.
    There are two issues-remove the animals from society that are so damaged that decent folk are helfd in fear. Secondly prevent the development of such people by early identification of those likely to offend and applying the correct social modifications early.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. m@tt (631 comments) says:

    “[DPF: Did you not see the point I made that it is not retrospective so will take five years or so for people to reach third strikes.

    So minimal impact in next few years, but after five to ten years or so, I would expect to see a reduction along the lines of 10% to 20% in the crime categories this law applies to]”

    Did you not see I was referring to the deterrent effect? Surely that kicks in immediately, or at least very quickly? I mean someone committing their first offence now will be warned won’t they?
    Read for comprehension much?

    As for your prediction. 5-10 years. 10 to 20%. What kind of figures are those? Do you think anyone in the government has something more accurate that a dart thrown at a board from 100 feet away? If not why not. If so, where are they? Now there’s something more worthy of an OIA request than a pair of fluffy handcuffs or an anonymous bloggers name. I think I may send one now actually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. curia pigeon (191 comments) says:

    Also – you’re not going to turn NZ into an authoritarian state such as those recently emerged from feudalism Asian ones. We have a different cultural tradition, with more of an individualistic approach to life. In Singapore and Hong Kong life revolves around family and community – whereas in the Anglo-Saxon countries it revolves around money (i.e. many people think nothing of moving away from thier families to get a higher paying job). As such we have less social constraints when it comes to crime. When you combine that with the hyper-materialism and weath enequality of neo-liberal capitalism you’ve got a recipie for disenfranchisement, social dislocation and crime.

    As such we need the state’s safety nets to provide some cohesion – because families and comunities no longer do..

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

    Graeme Edgeler (1490) Says:
    May 26th, 2010 at 11:37 am

    So What!

    It is a strike.
    When you are in a hole and digging and the earth starts caving in what do you do?
    Stop Digging.

    So the onus is on the person who breaks the law, stop it.
    Many offenders commit many more crimes than they are ever convicted for.
    3 is now the limit.
    Yes it is at the bottom of the4 cliff but it is a start.

    now we need to go after the parents and families who are dysfunctional.

    personally I’d like to see it for all crimes incl white collar, across the board.

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

    curia
    As such we need the state’s safety nets to provide some cohesion – because families and comunities no longer do..
    why do they no longer?

    because statism has supplanted the family.
    and the liberal lefty trefties have supplanted the judeo-christian values and ethics.

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

    So What!

    It is a strike.

    I was responding to an implied claim that all strike offending involved dead or brutalised victims. This is not true, I stated that it was not true and gave reasons. That was my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Bob R (1,393 comments) says:

    ***curia pigeon (24) Says:

    May 26th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
    Bob-R

    You’re making “facts” up. Hong Kong and Singapore aren’t the most unequal countries on the planet.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality***

    I wasn’t making it up. I relied on this article dated October 16, 2009 reporting UN development figures.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107980/countries-with-the-biggest-gaps-between-rich-and-poor

    *Also – you’re not going to turn NZ into an authoritarian state such as those recently emerged from feudalism Asian ones. We have a different cultural tradition, with more of an individualistic approach to life. In Singapore and Hong Kong life revolves around family and community – whereas in the Anglo-Saxon countries it revolves around money (i.e. many people think nothing of moving away from thier families to get a higher paying job). As such we have less social constraints when it comes to crime. When you combine that with the hyper-materialism and weath enequality of neo-liberal capitalism you’ve got a recipie for disenfranchisement, social dislocation and crime.

    As such we need the state’s safety nets to provide some cohesion – because families and comunities no longer do..***

    I agree that a safety net is required, but NZ already has one. You could argue that in some ways the availability of a safety net weakens the reliance on families. For instance, in the US out of wedlock births increased after the 1960’s. It’s the downside of increased freedom and complexity in a society.

    I do think that there need to be more low skill jobs for people liable to end up in crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. curia pigeon (191 comments) says:

    Mike – i agree that statism has supplanted the family to some degree – but i’d also argue that the seeds were sown with the reformation, which led to the enlightenment, which led to liberalism, which led to free-market capitalism, which led to economic atomisation. That’s our cultural tradition. The Asian countries have a different one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. PeterG (21 comments) says:

    The article linked two above, is quite illuminating.

    Skimming through it, one might think that :Hong Kong, Singapore, U.S.A,Israel, Portugal, New Zealand, Italy, Britain, Australia, Ireland and Greece were the most ‘inequal’ countries on earth. However there is a subtle filter being applied to the countries listed, they are only those apparently with ” the world’s most advanced economies”

    If you look at the list of countries in the Wikipedia entry, which are based on exactly the same data,those countries listed as ‘more inequal’ than Hong Kong, but not mentioned at all in the linked artical are:
    Namibia, Lesotho, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Botswana, Bolivia, Haiti, Colombia, Paraguay, South Africa, Brazil, Panama, Guatemala, Chile, Honduras, Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru, Dominican Republic, Argentina, Papua New Guinea, Zambia, Niger, Swaziland, The Gambia, Zimbabwe, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Venezuela, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nepal, Guinea-Bissau, China (PRC), Rwanda, Mexico, Uganda, Jamaica, Uruguay, Cte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Philippines, Nigeria and Turkey.

    Even in the first list provided, we have NZ at position 6 (36.2) and Australia at position 9 (35.2). But look closer at the raw figures provided:
    New Zealand
    Share of income or expenditure (%)
    Poorest 10%: 2.2
    Richest 10%: 27.8

    Australia
    Share of income or expenditure (%)
    Poorest 10%: 2.0
    Richest 10%: 25.4

    The poorest are actually listed as worse-off (2.0) in Australia than in NZ. But due to the fact that there are slightly fewer ‘rich pricks’ this somehow makes the life of the ‘poor’ better.

    It’s all so bogus no meaningful opinion should be based on it.

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

    DPF:

    I would expect to see a reduction along the lines of 10% to 20% in the crime categories this law applies to

    I really hope we’re both around in five to ten years, DPF. More to the point I hope Garrett and Collins are still around to be exposed as hollow confidence tricksters.

    The California law has seen a reduction in crime.

    And there you go, repeating their spin. The California law has seen a massive outflow of criminals to other states. Violent criminals do not stop offending because of the fear of penalties, otherwise any country with the death penalty would have virtually no murders. They are either mentally subnormal, so high on drugs they can’t make rational decisions at the time, or psychopaths.

    Present them with harsher penalties and they’ll scuttle away to avoid them, or simply ignore them. As we don’t have other jurisdictions nearby into which we can shovel our garbage and pretend we’ve reduced crime, they’ll do the latter.

    Garrett keeps saying “this is just the beginning” (even though it’s at the end of the process, but anyway…) there is nothing from Act or National on:

    1. Proper care for the mentally ill, including early identirfication, properly funded facilities (secure ones if necessary) and sufficient staffing.

    2. An effective strategy to combat serious drugs and renove from circulation those who manufacture and peddle them. And concurrent strategies to restrict GPs from prescribing legal medications with potentially violent side-effects such as benzodiazepines.

    3. Early identification of psychopaths and the ability to incarcerate them away from society and from other prisoners, indefinitely if need be.

    4. And most importantly, identification of young people at risk of slipping into serious crime and a suite of initiatives designed to arrest that – with both carrots and sticks.

    Instead we have an ineffective law which allows Garrett and Collins to adopt a macho pose going into the next election. Nothing more nor less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. JNR (2 comments) says:

    I just heard you say on RNZ Afternoons ‘The Panel’ that once all the violent offenders were in prison there would be no more coming through and so there would be a large decrease in violent crime.
    I must have missed the magic newly passed legislation that will be ensuring that “no more violent offenders will be coming through”. Seriously, do you really believe this? Are you saying that violence is simply endemic to certain families and once those families are locked up there wont be any more violent offenders being created? Though I almost never agree with you I did credit you with a great deal of intelligence. This truly shocked me.

    [DPF: I did not mean to imply that there will be no more violent criminals at all. Of course not. Dysfunctional families will continue. But I stand by my major point which is a fairly small number of people commit a large number of crimes, and if repeat violent offenders are not being let out after just a few months, then there will be a fall in violent crime]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Let those who oppose three strikes spend a night in a cell with William Bell…or Graham Burton.Or how about putting your wife or daughters in with them.

    No….?

    Thought not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    There is no evidence that shows that the three strikes approach works to reduce crime.However the good news for those recidivist offenders is that New Zealand prisons are world leaders in providing comfortable warm conditions for you to do your time.The infamous The Mount will shortly be boasting first class views of the wonderful Waitemata Harbour from cells which will add to the comfort.This prison of course will be reserved for disgraced property developers and investment managers caught with their hands in the till.

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