15 years not enough
August 31st, 2010 at 9:15 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
The man who murdered undercover police officer Sergeant Don Wilkinson has been jailed for at least fifteen years.
On June 12 a jury found John Skinner guilty of murdering Sergeant Wilkinson during a covert police operation in September 2008.
Skinner was under police surveillance as a suspected P manufacturer and shot Sergeant Wilkinson with a powerful air rifle after catching him trying to install a tracking device on his Ford Explorer.
Janet Wilson summed this up wonderfully on NewstalkZB yesterday. She said it was not self defence, but quite the opposite – Skinner hunted down Wilkinson and the other office, and shot them like dogs.
It was an execution. I don’t think someone who chases someone in their car, and when catches up to them shoots them multiple times until they are dead is the sort of person who will ever rehabilitate.
Related posts:
- Police Officer executed
- A taser would have helped
- The UK shooting
- Police execute search warrants on Field’s office
August 31st, 2010 at 9:18 am
DPF
It should have been the death penalty.
I say that because I think Life (wghich should mean until death) is inhumane.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:24 am
It was an execution. I don’t think someone who chases someone in their car, and when catches up to them shoots them multiple times until they are dead is the sort of person who will ever rehabilitate.
Depends what you mean by ‘rehabilitate’. By the time Skinner is released he’ll be in his mid-50′s, a demographic in which he is incredibly unlikely to commit a violent crime.
[DPF: Do you have a reference? I'd be keen to see the violent crime prevalance by age group]
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:24 am
According to the news report, Skinner was making abusive gestures toward the victims mother after the sentence was given.
This creep deserves death, nothing less.
Our prison system is a joke, why is it that murder only attracts 15 years? Surely a true life sentence is needed.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:28 am
Last week we had a double murderer released after just 14 years. This week a cop killer gets 15 years.
When did life become so cheap in New Zealand?
There are those who say we send too many people to prison and long sentences affect the chances of a criminal rehabilitating. I say that punishment for your crime comes first and some crimes earn you the right to never be allowed back into society.
Cold blooded pre-meditated murderers should spend the rest of their lives behind bars.
In this case specifically, how dare we ask our Police to protect us, to risk their lives dealing with societies bottom-feeders every day and then prove to them that their lives are worth only 15 years.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:29 am
Agree 100% DPF, and blogged accordingly yesterday. Whilst in one sense all deaths are tragic, the execution of a serving police officer carrying out his duties is at the very highest end of the scale in terms of its seriousness, and the sentence ought to have reflected that. Perhaps the Crown will appeal what appears to this bush lawyer to be a manifestly inadequate sentence.
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2010/08/not-long-enough.html
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:33 am
Danyl, leaving the rehabilitation aside, or the likelihood of re-offending , do you seriously believe that 15 years in prison is sufficeint punishment for hunting down and murdering a Police Officer?
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:35 am
I think having to feed and clothe the bastard for 15 years is enough although I would have liked to see the court award anything and everything he owns to the family of his victim.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:36 am
I agree that this man should be executed – but that’s not the law.
Given our current sentencing regime, 15 years min seems about right to me.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:36 am
Danyl, leaving the rehabilitation aside, or the likelihood of re-offending , do you seriously believe that 15 years in prison is sufficeint punishment for hunting down and murdering a Police Officer?
Not really, but at $100,000 incarceration costs/year is it worth spending an extra million dollars or so to continue to confine someone who isn’t that likely to reoffend?
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:43 am
CraigM
As a society we have lost our sense of what worth is as we have propped up and supported people for not taking responsibility for their lives. At the core of this is the common values that once held us together as a community.
Sadly as a consequence we do not punish nor shame those who refuse to live under the rules of our society and we hold up celebrity as a target to aspire to and treat them differently than ordinary people.
Increasingly our leaders and bureaucracy make decisions for us and enact laws and regulations that more tightly control our lives instead of making us make decisions and live with the consequences.
As they do this they act as if they are the elite and we exist for them, treating us as if we are children and they know better and refusing to be accountable to us and not putting in place the systems and means for the “lordsof us all” to be looked into on a daily basis for our protection.
In sentencing we sanction to the level of the crime, Life should be life or better still (if there is no doubt of guilt) then it should be death.
That values the victims and their families and Whanau and ultimately all of us.
It also sets a line in the sand to judge all other sentences off of.
For me the issues above are what I am looking at for our leaders now for I don’t want to vote for someone who wantsto continue the same old same old.
Vote:I don’t see many of worth to be frank in any of the parties or on the councils.
August 31st, 2010 at 9:44 am
No Danyl
Vote:rather spend a $1000 fee and 9mm to the back of the head.
Lets show the same mercy to the predators as they show their victims.
August 31st, 2010 at 9:50 am
Thanks for answering Danyl.
I just cannot bring myself to put an economic cost on such a crime. Where would you stop Danyl ? you are sentenced to 10 years or 1 million dollars, whichever comes first? What about inflation, we could use that as an indicator for parole eligibilty.
Cost should never come into the equation. Unless you are prepared to take it all the way and adopt the Chinese system for murderers. One bullet to the head and send the bill for the bullet to the familly. No?
Or how about we drastically reduce the cost of incarceration, would that work? I am pretty sure I could come up with a prison system that cost far less than 100k per year to keep a prisoner in. Would that work?
No? because despite my disgust for these scum, we have to treat them humanely because we are the civilised ones.
The cost of incarceration comes with the territory. As a society we decide what is an acceptable standard and then we pay for it.
I am happy to pay my share of whatever it costs to keep murderers out of my community.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:54 am
And who should be tasked to act as final arbiter? Do you not believe it’s a stain on a person’s soul, MikeNZ, to act on the state’s behalf and murder somebody in cold blood? What kind of person would be attracted to the role of executioner? Should the state be encouraging such people’s tendencies? Does it not make the crime of murder more socially acceptable? If it can be done in the name of the state for purposes of punishment, then isn’t the Overton window likely to shift closer to a point where larger numbers of people feel it’s acceptable to murder for their own purposes – be it punishment or otherwise?
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:55 am
***[DPF: Do you have a reference? I'd be keen to see the violent crime prevalance by age group]***
Arrests for violent offending peak at age 18 then steadily decline (p 67, Delinquency in Society, Regoli et al 2010). This may be partially due to declining testosterone levels.
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=hDwK–ZYRWkC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=peak+age+of+violent+offending+testosterone&source=bl&ots=X5s3fB0kxp&sig=4i01siSGl3TT5xjuxZadc5sWwoI&hl=en&ei=USh8TIidNJG6sAPmpKGCBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=peak%20age%20of%20violent%20offending%20testosterone&f=false
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:56 am
Danyl darling, I do so love your liberal ways.
I note that you say this piece of shit is “unlikely” to re offend, tell me, what happens if he does?
Will you and the rest of your luvvie mates apologise?
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:00 am
No Danyl
rather spend a $1000 fee and 9mm to the back of the head.
Lets show the same mercy to the predators as they show their victims.
Capital punishment is a lot more expensive than prison, because you need an extensive judicial process to make sure the government isn’t murdering an innocent person.
I just cannot bring myself to put an economic cost on such a crime. Where would you stop Danyl ? you are sentenced to 10 years or 1 million dollars, whichever comes first?
I think the main role of the justice system should be to prevent further crimes – so spending $1,500,000 dollars locking someone up for ten years is a good investment if it prevents them from killing more people. Spending another $1,500,000 locking someone up for another ten years because you ‘think they’re scum’ seems like money that could be better invested rehabilitating younger offenders – which has a much higher return on investment in terms of preventing future crimes.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:01 am
By the time you get to this stage, the deterrent on the individual in question has failed, so the sentence needs to reflect two things: a deterrent on other individuals who may be so-inclined to commit similar crimes and a deterrent on future offending by the individual in question. What is being argued here? That 15 years will not be a deterrent on the other individuals(/is out of line with punishments for comparable crimes) or that 15 years will not be a deterrent on the individual in question?
I think I agree with Danyl if he is indeed correct about likelihood of future offending.
@CraigM: Costs and benefits must always be considered. To do otherwise is to engage in bad decision-making.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:06 am
I’d be keen to see the violent crime prevalance by age group
The FBI stats are pretty representitive – they describe a classic bell curve. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t206
[DPF: By decade we get 20s - 4,500, 30s - 2,000, 40s - 1,000, 50s - 500, 60s - 125. Every decade the number halves from 20s to 50s, but it is in the 60s, not 50s, that it falls four fold. So I think keeping them inside until 60s is considerably safer than 50s]
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:08 am
@Fot: Danyl actually states he’s unlikely to commit another violent crime, which is different to him not reoffending. As to your question about what happens if he does reoffend, I assume he will be dealt with by the law. We don’t live in a world where we can perfectly predict future events. We need to go by best estimate of future costs and benefits as it’s all we’ve got.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:11 am
“I think I agree with Danyl”
When are you people ever going to wake up? Danyl McLauchlan and his ilk are never “right” about anything. Everything that is wrong with our society today is down to the influence of the hard left. The sooner we kick them and their dumb ideas into touch, the sooner this country will recover. We have suffered forty years of idiocy from Danyl and the rest of the commies, and we’ve seen crime skyrocket to previously unimaginable levels. Shut up and go away Danny, your time is over. You have nothing to offer by way of solutions and if you had any honour, you wouldn’t even want to be part of the debate yourself. Your shame would make you silent.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:17 am
“Capital punishment is a lot more expensive than prison, because you need an extensive judicial process to make sure the government isn’t murdering an innocent person. ”
Not really, Danyl, as I suspect that most people in society today are willing to take the risk that innocent people would be executed in return for knowing that most of the people put to death would in fact be guilty. If one accepts the public willingness for their to be ‘mistakes’, however fatal to the exonerated person, then it becomes quite cheap.
But I disagree with you when you say this: “I think the main role of the justice system should be to prevent further crimes ”
The main role of the justice system is to determine whether or not a person who is accused of an offence is guilty of that offence, and, if so, to apply the correct punishment. It is essentially a civil process, with one side taking a claim against the other, just with the recognition that the consequences are more serious so more safeguards are put in place. The system was not designed to prevent crime (other than application of the death penalty, but that is penal law), but to arbitrate between a person claiming an offence and another person denying it.
Now, if you want to talk about the penal system, then your view has more validity, but I still think it is incorrect. I think that the penal system is retributive, not rehabilitative. I say that from my experience working with people who have been in it, both as inmate and as Corrections Officers. Also from the plain fact that the purpose of prison, community work and fines is to punish a person and, hopefully, deter them from committing further crime. I don’t think it does, but have no problem with the idea of simply having the punitive element as the main purpose!
“Last week we had a double murderer released after just 14 years. This week a cop killer gets 15 years. ”
Well, Barlow was sentenced according to sentencing guidelines as they were in 1996, not 2010. Sentences have undoubtedly gone up. What did Bain get after being convicted of killing 5 people? 15 years? Or was it 13? Either way, when you take into account that William Bell got 30 years for 3 kilings and one attempted murder, then Bain would have been liable to around 40 years or more if the killings he was convicted of had been committed in the last few years.
Don’t forget that Skinner simply becomes eligible for parole at 15 years. It is highly unlikely that he will get out then. I would expect a 20 year stretch before the parole board seriously looks at releasing him.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:17 am
Point 1 – the sentence is NOT 15 years. 15 years is the minimum non parole. DPF, please advise us how many murderers are released on the first parole hearing.
Point 2 – this death could have been avoided. we provide our police with uniforms as a way of us all knowing who they are. In now way do I condone the murder, but I do sometimes wonder why our police love to play hide and seek games like this, rather than being open and upfront about policing.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:18 am
“The FBI stats are pretty representitive – they describe a classic bell curve.”
From my experience, I have to agree with Danyl on this one. Violent offending appears to drop off rapidly as offenders get older. Not always, but usually.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:20 am
“In now way do I condone the murder, but I do sometimes wonder why our police love to play hide and seek games like this, rather than being open and upfront about policing.”
Because they have a responsibility to detect and apprehend persons committing criminal acts. Sometimes that requires that the police undertake covert surveillance. So long as it is done within the rules set by Parliament, what is the problem with that?
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:23 am
“I think the main role of the justice system should be to prevent further crimes ….”
Here we disagree. Do you think we lock people up purely to prevent them from committing another crime, or as punishment for the crime they have committed?
I believe there are two roles and until the first one (punishment) is finished, if it ever is, then the second one can’t be worked on.
For a burgler as an example, spending money on trying to make them worthwhle members of society makes sense.
For a cold blooded pre-meditated killer, he/she has had their lot. Just punishment, no chance of rejoining society.
Jivekitty: Costs and benefits must always be considered. To do otherwise is to engage in bad decision-making.
The bad decision making was done by the killer. I wonder it it was your parent or child that was murdered if you would be so calmy discussing the cost and value of keeping a murderer locked up. As I said earlier, I could easily design a prison system that kept a person alive and treated humanely for far less than 100k per year.
Jus what does it take for people like you (and Danyl) to say enough, this person should not be allowed back into society? is there any crime that does this for you? Under what circumstances would you say ” I don’t care what it costs, this person must never be allowed back in my community” ?
Why is the life of a good person, serving his community, only worth 15 years to you? I just cannot get to the place you are at, where human life is measured so cheaply.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:26 am
and Danyl, re spending money on prevention for young offenders. I am 100% behind that concept. That opens a whole new debate around our society, education, welfare etc. but in principal I truly believe we need to do a lot more in the way of intervention and prevention for our kids. They are most certainly worth the effort.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:26 am
Jivekitty
Are you pulling my wire or are you just plain silly.
Stain on their soul;? where are your brains.
He is a predator and killed deliberately with malice aforethought.
Vote:9mm to the back of the head s quick clean and less costly than 30 yrs in prison which is what Life should be.
its bullshit like yours that has got us to this mess where we don’t sanction the crime and indeed enable people to grow in their offending.
Wake up please.
August 31st, 2010 at 10:28 am
Capital punishment is a lot more expensive than prison,
Vote:Bullshit, it only applies to those who are absolutely in no doubt of innocence.
simple and easy and quick.
Good for the all round except for the,liberal handsqueezers.
August 31st, 2010 at 10:29 am
“Violent offending drops off with ageing”, does that mean that Burton G did a lot more serious shit when he was younger that was not noted or is he the exception that proves the rule.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:30 am
Craig
Why is the life of a good person, serving his community, only worth 15 years to you? I just cannot get to the place you are at, where human life is measured so cheaply.
Why spen d anything at all per year when they are dead to right culpable?
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:31 am
If it costs that much to keep a scumbag inside per year, it is about time we found cheaper ways of keeping these pieces of wothless shit off the streets.
Vote:Perhaps the Howard League would label ity inhumane but frankly they have lost any “right” to be treated as human when they have disregarded the morals and laws that keep our society functioning.
I’m not yet ready to support capital punishment but if people want to set themselves a standard of behaviour, there shoul;d be serious consideration given to treating them by the same standards.
August 31st, 2010 at 10:33 am
“From my experience, I have to agree with Danyl on this one.”
So you agree that perceptions of wrongdoing being diluted by government and Justice system bureaucrats is helpful to the prevention of crime? The primary purpose of the Justice System is to keep law abiding citizens free from the actions of criminals.
If the Justice system is to be used for “rehabilitation, then let the offender or his relatives or charities meet the bill. There is no moral case for making good parents pay (through taxation) for the poor parenting of others.
I’m happy to pay for jail. I’m not happy to pay for rehabilitation, especially seeing as in Ron Mark’s study sometime ago, it was proved to be completely futile. Anyone ever done a cost benefit analysis on the results? I’ll bet its piss poor.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:33 am
“Here we disagree. Do you think we lock people up purely to prevent them from committing another crime, or as punishment for the crime they have committed?
I believe there are two roles and until the first one (punishment) is finished, if it ever is, then the second one can’t be worked on. ”
There will never be enough punishment for many murders, rape, etc in terms of incarceration. Some people deserve for immense pain to be inflicted upon them, but my own desire for punitive justice can’t outweigh the rational weight of the likely cost/benefit to society given the justice and penal systems are social institutions rather than meted out on an individual scale.
“Jus what does it take for people like you (and Danyl) to say enough, this person should not be allowed back into society? is there any crime that does this for you? Under what circumstances would you say ” I don’t care what it costs, this person must never be allowed back in my community” ?”
When the likelihood of serious reoffending is high, because then the likely cost of releasing them into the community will outweigh the likely benefit.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:34 am
MNIJ – you’re fucking kidding right?
Very funny, you almost had me there for a moment. Point 2 is hilarious. Can’t believe I nearly fell for it. For just a split second, I thought you were being serious. lol
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:35 am
“So you agree that perceptions of wrong doing being diluted by government and Justice system bureaucrats is helpful to the prevention of crime? ”
No, Red, just that offenders with a propensity towards violence seem to commit fewer offences as they get older. That’s all.
EDIT: Older as in heading from youth into middle age, not older as in going from early 20s to late 20s, although that is still often the case.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:39 am
“Are you pulling my wire or are you just plain silly.
Stain on their soul;? where are your brains.”
I don’t believe in the soul, but I thought you did. A 9mm to the back of the head in cold blood would not be a job likely to attract damaged individuals or even just those with certain propensities not to be encouraged?
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:40 am
I suspect that most people in society today are willing to take the risk that innocent people would be executed in return for knowing that most of the people put to death would in fact be guilty. If one accepts the public willingness for their to be ‘mistakes’, however fatal to the exonerated person, then it becomes quite cheap.
So if you were wrongly arrested and found guilty for a crime you didn’t commit you’d be okay about being executed without any chance of appeal, because overall the system would be cheaper and more efficient?
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:43 am
“No, Red, just that offenders with a propensity towards violence seem to commit fewer offences as they get older. That’s all.”
Isn’t it important that there are certain perceptions within the community as to how wrong an act is regarded by society? These perceptions are an important part of the process that dissuades those who would commit crime from doing so.
If officialdom keeps reducing the consequences, it encourages more criminals to take the risk and simultaneously reduces the public’s perceptions as to how “bad” the particular crime is. Reduced sentences for murder merely make murder seem like a more attractive option to those who would commit it. Same with lesser crimes.
The higher the risk of detection and arrest, and the greater the consequence, the less crime. End of story.
(leaving aside the true cause of crime in NZ, and that is the absolute amorality of a large sector of society. No law can repair that problem)
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:46 am
“So if you were wrongly arrested and found guilty for a crime you didn’t commit you’d be okay about being executed without any chance of appeal, because overall the system would be cheaper and more efficient?”
Same old bullshit. The state should only execute when the guilt is unmistakable.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:47 am
“I don’t believe in the soul, …”
That explains a lot.
“A 9mm to the back of the head in cold blood would not be a job likely to attract damaged individuals or even just those with certain propensities not to be encouraged?”
In all of recorded history, please point me to the data that shows government sanctioned executioners become killers? It is a ridiculous arguement with no foundation in truth.
Disclaimer: Personally I am against the death penalty.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:48 am
The state should only execute when the guilt is unmistakable.
Your blind faith in government departments to get these matters right is adorable.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:48 am
No, Danyl, I said most people in society wouldn’t worry about the chance of mistakes. I didn’t say that I wouldn’t be worried about it. In my experience, most people seem to be very blase about the possibility of innocent people being charged with an offence until it is them or one of their family/friends who is wrongly charged. Then there is a 180 degree change in their opinions.
For my part, I think it is a dreadful idea. Far too much chance of the innocent being put to death, even in NZ.
“If officialdom keeps reducing the consequences, it encourages more criminals to take the risk and simultaneously reduces the public’s perceptions as to how “bad” the particular crime is. ”
All true, and if you look you will see that sentences are in fact going up, not down. Sentences for violent crime are especially longer now than even a decade and a half ago. This sentence is in no way a ‘reduced’ sentence. To be honest, it seems about right, based on the current law.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:49 am
“The state should only execute when the guilt is unmistakable.”
That would get very few people, then. Also, would you apply it to a plea of guilty that negated the need for a trial?
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:55 am
“Your blind faith in government departments to get these matters right is adorable.”
Justice happens to be a legitimate role of government. It is often unmistakable that a criminal has committed a crime. Barlow’s last two murders for example.
“Also, would you apply it to a plea of guilty that negated the need for a trial?”
No. Who doesn’t know that confessions are sometimes unreliable. Guilt would need to be certain, but the real point here is the false argument of anti-death penalty proponents who say the risk of wrongly executing someone should be a reason to prevent all executions.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:57 am
It is not about right for the victims just the academics and judiciary.
Yes if they plead guilty knowing they could have the death penalty of course.
Vote:Providing we have them bang to rights.
August 31st, 2010 at 11:02 am
P is a very nasty drug. Anyone caught near it in any way shape or form should expect to lose their liberty indefinitely, and have everything in the family and near family sequestrated.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 11:10 am
““I don’t believe in the soul, …”
That explains a lot.”
Not really, a lack of belief doesn’t make me part of a collective in the same way that a belief does, so it’s a lot harder to generalise the broad set of my beliefs. Me being an economist (not employed in that capacity) may be of more use in explaining why I care about cost/benefit to society coming from social institutions.
In all of recorded history, please point me to the data that shows government sanctioned executioners become killers? It is a ridiculous arguement with no foundation in truth.”
9mm to the back of the head is slightly different than a typical government sanctioned execution.
My primary concern around executions is primarily the psychological harm to the executioner/s and the possibility of an innocent person being killed. I tend to find the likelihood that somebody will become a non-state sanctioned killer because they are an executioner low, although I do worry about the psychological profile of somebody who actually wants to do the job (I doubt many actually do want the job?), but I do find MikeNZ’s desired 9mm single bullet to the back of the head slightly different to most government sanctioned executions and think that there would be a greater likelihood a person willing to kill somebody in that manner would come from those who are either criminals or those with certain tendencies which should not be encouraged. Another concern is the normalisation of murder as acceptable although I’m not sure as to the degree that would occur (it differs from what the armed forces already do in that the person is already incapacitated and there is no clear and present threat being given by them).
A doctor may be able to give an injection (avoids violence in a way, easier able to be justified as doctor’s duty, etc), armed forces may be able to be part of a firing squad (group action removes personal responsibility and is also somewhat removed from the the person being executed in that it’s not right behind to the back of the head), people may be able to pull a switch in concert with each other (group action, removal of personal responsibility and removed from the prisoner again), but a single person shooting somebody in the back of the head is somewhat different to all of those.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 11:17 am
This murder was an execution. There have been times when the police have shot someone and I’ve called it unjustified but this is an instance where, if an officer had Skinner in his sights at that moment, he’s have been perfectly justified pulling the trigger to save Sergeant Wilkinson’s life.
The premeditated, execution-style nature of this killing and the fact that there was no danger to Skinner (other than of being busted for making P, which – and I agree with Guy Fawkes here – ought to also be attracting the harshest of penalties) means 15 years was, IMO, relatively light.
Having sais that, however, I must highlight this part of the post:
Me neither. Nor do I think that someone who chases someone on foot, carrying a knife they’d thoughtfully grabbed beforehand, and when he catches up to them stabs them till they’re dead is the sort of person who will ever rehabilitate either. But I can’t wait to hear Garth McVicar try to invent some justification for the sentencing disparity… which I’ll bet has everything to do with “Cameron was young, brown and tagging while Wilkinson was old, white and a police officer”. Because of course in the SST’s world some lives are worth more than others.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 11:19 am
Let me get this straight – said “dirtbag” is cooking up illegal drugs, guns down an unarmed police officer , and now gets to spend 15 odd years swanning around in prison at the tax payers expense, with all his “rights” intact.
Rather than worrying about whether this guy should be “put to death” why dont you worry about the frontline officers in the police force and in the prisons who deal with this shit on a day to day basis. Who risk their lives every day in order to keep us safe, and for a income no better than you and I sitting at our desks.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 11:26 am
Thank you Simone.
all the rest is more bullshit and soft sell.
meanwhile the predators continue doing what they do and the victims mount up.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 11:27 am
MNIJ said
Ah, so the POLICE were to blame for killing one of their own? What complete and utter bullshit. Doubtless, you won’t reply to this just now, as you’ll be down at the Courthouse protesting police brutality for daring to chase a disqualified driver causing him to crash and injure himself. You and your ilk may me feel physically ill.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 11:30 am
Agree with DPF — a sentence of 15 years seems far too light. As I have often previously posted I would either bring in capital punishment or else life imprisonment being for the term of his natural life.
Otherwise we send a signal that a human life is not worth that much. 15 years for killing someone — the victim will never again see the light of day. It does not seem just somehow. I would bring back capital punishment. If we did so I think our murder rate would go down appreciably. Also we would not have to suffer the spectacle of John Barlow still maintaining his innocence!
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 11:44 am
Redbaiter says:
That’s one of the reasons I advance. And considering around 1% of convicted criminals are in fact innocent, it’s probable around 1% of convicted murderers are also. In fact murderers are the group most likely to be subsequently exonerated, but that’s possibly because Innocence Projects and human rights lawyers tend to concentrate on their cases, so let’s leave it at 1%. Is the murder of an innocent man (albeit one one in every hundred) justifiable? Especially when, as the US shows, a death penalty statute doesn’t prevent murders, serious rapes and the other crimes for which it’s imposed.
But my fundamental reason for opposing it is that as a citizen, in whose name the government acts, I do not want any part in the involuntary taking of the life of another. And don’t say “it’s different because it’s lawful”. A lot of bad laws make things that are morally wrong, “right” – telling me I can’t cut down a tree on my own property is lawful. Telling me when I can and cannot open my own business for trade is lawful. And I can be penalised for both. Screw the law, I care about what’s moral. And if it’s not moral for some scumbag to take a police officer’s life (and it sure as hell isn’t) then it’s not moral for me to have any part in taking his, even if that part is only having my taxes pay for the bullet and guy who fires it.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Inventory2 (4,975) Says:
August 31st, 2010 at 11:27 am
MNIJ said
Point 2 – this death could have been avoided. we provide our police with uniforms as a way of us all knowing who they are. In now way do I condone the murder, but I do sometimes wonder why our police love to play hide and seek games like this, rather than being open and upfront about policing.
Ah, so the POLICE were to blame for killing one of their own? What complete and utter bullshit. Doubtless, you won’t reply to this just now, as you’ll be down at the Courthouse protesting police brutality for daring to chase a disqualified driver causing him to crash and injure himself. You and your ilk may me feel physically ill.
Listen here IVshortofbrains, I am here to answer your inuendo.
Why do we provide police with uniforms?
How would you respond if someone was on your property and apparently interferring with it?
When i lived in the central city I heard a noise outside one night, it was armed police mounting a raid on a P Lab. two of them entered my property and used my outdoor furniture to aid in climbing the fence. I knew they were police by their uniforms. Had they been a the type of dark clothing favoured by crims I may well have poked my rifle out the window and had a go. Could you blame me?
I acknowledge the polcie to a valuable and often thankless job, but when we provide them with tools to aid in their work, such as uniforms, body armour, etc., then I believe they are duty bound to use those tools for their personal protection.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Of course its worth the money. The cost of a productive life is at least $2 million dollars.
I would need to see your case for the likelihood of reoffending in this case. There is also the issue that the sentence received has some effect on the possibility of others commiting similar crimes, and the effects of his influence on others in society when released.
Most prisoners who offend seriously enough to be imprisoned well and truly save the country money whilst in jail.
Vote:A burglar or murderer can easily cost 5 times as much as the cost of incarceration out in the community.
August 31st, 2010 at 12:17 pm
The concept of “undercover” is obviously one of the many many concepts that escape jackboot.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 12:34 pm
I think if cost behind bars is the issue for Danyl and others, then lets embrace globalisation and outsource to somewhere else to take the worst offenders off our hands. A small African country might be quite happy to be paid 1/5th of what it would cost us to keep him alive to the same standard of living. A nice profitable venture and everybody wins.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 12:43 pm
***Nor do I think that someone who chases someone on foot, carrying a knife they’d thoughtfully grabbed beforehand, and when he catches up to them stabs them till they’re dead is the sort of person who will ever rehabilitate either. But I can’t wait to hear Garth McVicar try to invent some justification for the sentencing disparity… which I’ll bet has everything to do with “Cameron was young, brown and tagging while Wilkinson was old, white and a police officer”. Because of course in the SST’s world some lives are worth more than others.***
Rex Widerstrom,
There are quite significant differences. Emery was convicted for manslaughter. We don’t know exactly how the confrontation played out. As I posted previously, Emery had previously held someone until the police arrived. He may have been trying to do the same in this case. Also, as I pointed out it would be crazy to confront a group of young taggers unarmed given the tendency of groups to kick someone on the ground causing traumatic brain injury.
Also, your comment “stabs them till they’re dead” suggests a frenzied attack with multiple stabs. The knife penetrated once, and only went in 5 cm (it was 14 cm long), hardly a powerful thrust with intent to kill.
In this case Wilkinson was shot three times. His colleague was beaten and shot twice.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Interesting point Rex. As one who seems adamantly opposed to any religious discussion it amazes me that you still use the word “moral” as if some objective morality exists.
Are you using the word moral in that sense? Or are you using the word moral in the sense of — “something I personally find repugnant”?
Because if we were going to entertain a religious argument we would say that capital punishment is in line with the will of God as revealed in the Bible. Therefore it is both moral and lawful.
But in your case your argument is not particularly sound. It is not moral to take the police officer’s life because the officer is innocent of any crime. The person who killed them is a murderer and therefore guilty of a crime that deserves punishment. Presumably we agree so far? So the moral equivalence which you are getting at does not exist. We have a innocent person who was murdered and a guilty person who should be punished in some way.
The question is what should the punishment be?
Again if objective morality exists, and your argument seems to imply that it does, why not execute the murderer? There is no problem with recidivism, justice is seen to be done, the person has paid the ultimate penalty for the crime and I would like to suggest that future potential murderers will be deterred from their actions.
It seems to make sense to me. And I would add makes sense to God.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Did anyone get alarmed at the thought of someone who upon seeing 2 people taking a shortcut through his backyard was inclined to start shooting them.
Yikes.
The crime of trespass has some serious penalty in that head!!!
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Err yeah, I hope My nameisjack doesn’t actually have a firearms license if he thinks he is justified in shooting and killing people in the circumstance he presents. And wanting Police to wear full uniform while trying to covertly conceal a bug on a drug dealers car, hmmm.
I think England is getting it right when it comes to murder sentences and there are a significant number of double killers in this country who are evidence as to our failings. 25 years should be the minimum sentence with aggravating features ie Burton, Bell etc catching 50 years+ ensuring that they die in jail.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Scott (687) Says:
August 31st, 2010 at 11:30 am
It will also have an effect on other sentencing as there will be a maximum now of – death for absolutely provable cases.
So the handwringers will give 30yrs+ just so they don’t have to kill one of these animals.
we’ll have different degrees of murder and they’ll get life or 30 yrs but the bottom line is if it is absolutely provable then they get executed.
Similarly by finally recognising that murder (remember fully proved) is the ultimate crime and deserves the ultimate penalty as it honours life and it’s value to society as it does by taking the life that steals life from the community.
But the handwringers can’t understand that and so the victims go up.
Its why they don’t understand 3 strikes.
below 3 strikes we’ll give you a chance (but it will be resource intensive) after that you are stuffed and if you kill you won’t again.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Scott says:
Discuss all you like. There’s literally hundreds of thousands of forums for it. This is primarily a political one. And I always aim my “take it elsewhere” comments also at the dropkicks who seem to think they’re clever by indulging in unnecessary and juvenile Christian-baiting.
Ah I see. So unless I subscribe to the rules promulgated by your imaginary friend via burning bushes and stone tablets I have no morality. Interesting. Yes, I include things I personally find repugnant in my definition of morality. My “list of things I find repugnant” is, admittedly, probably much shorter than yours and doesn’t include things like people of the same sex getting married and other such Apocalypse-inducing horrors but, in common with the vast majority of Christians and atheists (and, I imagine, Jews, Buddhists etc) it does include slaughtering a defenceless opponent. Because I don’t oppose it from a Christian perspective, though, that somehow renders my opposition void? And Christians wonder why their religion is sliding into irrelevance…
I’m well aware your imaginary friend is a vengeful bastard, Scott, what with all the plucking out of eyes, selling of daughters and so on that take place in your “moral” guidebook.
On the other hand I have nothing but admiration for those Christians who try to live by other teachings, such as Matthew 5:39, which seems to me to frown upon the whole “wheeee! Let’s torture someone to death and call it Godly” urge you and some of your fellow Christians seem to display. But then I’m no theologian… I don’t have time to read much fiction.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Fair enough Rex. You don’t want to engage this issue. But let me put it to you another way.
You seem to accept that there is such a thing as objective morality. That’s my point. Is there such a thing in your view? Or is it just things you find personally repugnant?
Like we all agree that the killing of this police officer was wrong. No argument there. Now is this just our own personal preferences or is there something bigger than ourselves that leads us all to think that what occurred was wrong?
That’s my point.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Scott:
I don’t want to engage since we have no common ground, religiously speaking. It’s no good me arguing God might not have wanted His followers to go about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands when I don’t believe He exists to begin with.
As for your question on morality, I think there is, hardwired into most of us, an innate understanding of right and wrong. Even Skinner would have known murdering Wilkinson was wrong, he just wouldn’t have cared. That’s why we’re so fascinated by true sociopaths and psychopaths – people completely lacking in empathy for any living thing, and truly bereft of basic morality. They’re not “normal”.
Even most hunters, while taking a life, try to do so without causing unnecessary suffering. Why, when they’re going to kill the animal anyway? Because something tells them that to do otherwise is wrong. That’s what I call morality and, since I find it in Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians and others (as well as its lack in an equally disparate group) I don’t attribute it to any God.
Having said that, the Christian faith provides, if not interpreted too literally, an excellent foundation on which to base one’s morality if one is so inclined. Indeed if everyone lived by the Golden Rule we’d all be vastly better off.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 6:14 pm
“is the murder of an innocent man (albeit one one in every hundred) justifiable? ”
I guess you completely missed my point about only exercising the death penalty option when guilt is unmistakable. You must have or you wouldn’t have written such a long post without addressing that issue.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 6:33 pm
we should export these fucks to somewhere like the Congo where they can serve out their sentence in shit arse conditions whilst being sodomised daily by a big black man called Bubba. Thats justice.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Build a very high rise building, put the judges and parole board and their families in the ground floor. Have all the released crimes spend the first five years of their parole in the upper floors of that building. The judiciary seem to be the only ones wanting this guy back into the neighbourhood in 15 years. Ridiculous.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 8:02 pm
That makes sense. I second that your honour.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Red
Vote:I said the same thing earlier.
They don’t want to acknowledge it at all which shows their lack of integrity in the discussion.
August 31st, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Redbaiter asks:
The judges and juries who convicted the men eventually exonerated from death row in the US thought their guilt was unmistakeable at the time. The largest portion of exonerations were caused by faulty eyewitness testimony. If someone’s standing in the witness stand, pointing at you and saying “I’m absolutely certain I saw Redbaiter pull the trigger” that sounds pretty umistakeable. About 20% were due to police malfeasance… and again, evidence presented by corrupt police officers can look pretty unmistakeable.
What, you think juries in death penalty cases say “Meh, who knows… maybe, maybe not… but what the hell, let’s fry him anyway”?
Unless we’re talking a confession (and even then only if we’re sure the person is of sound mind) we can never be certain of guilt unless the perpetrator was caught in the act, clearly seen on CCTV and can be sure the footage hasn’t been doctored. And of course with death the certain result, no one would confess.
Your argument is a red herring, which is why I haven’t bothered addressing it. It’s the flipside of the “perfect crime”… a beast of such rarity it can usually be seen grazing alongside a unicorn.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 9:25 pm
“we can never be certain of guilt unless the perpetrator was caught in the act,”
Good enough for me. Let’s do it. (its no red herring)
BTW, do you think there is a milligram of chance that Graeme Burton was innocent of both crimes?
“And of course with death the certain result, no one would confess.”
An assertion already proved wrong many a time I would say. Don’t forget the death penalty still applies in the USA and many countries. A quick search I am sure would show some perps who confessed even tho they knew they would fry.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Redbaiter:
Seems you missed my point. The risk of executing an innocent isn’t my primary reason for opposing the death penalty. It is, as I said above, that “as a citizen, in whose name the government acts, I do not want any part in the involuntary taking of the life of another”. The death penalty reduces the state to a level lower than the person being executed, because in the state’s case it has taken a cold, calculated decision, reaffirmmed several times across appeals etc., to take a life. The murderer would almost certainly have acted rashly.
Absolutely not.
You’re correct… though further research would show many confessed after an initial guilty verdict, having initially pleaded not guilty, and often after years on death row. They simply got tired of living in inhuman conditions with the constant threat of death. Whether they were guilty or not, I don’t know. If you were innocent and on death row, would you be more or less inclined – after years and years of stress, fear and uncertainty – to want to bring it to an end – any end?
Remember Gary Gilmore? He’s famous for demanding the firing squad, less so for insisting his execution not be appealed because he didn’t want to spend decades in limbo, in isolation, with uncertainty hanging over him. I recommend a read of “The Executioner’s Song”… fascinating insight into the mind of a killer, but also the way the US handles the execution of its killers.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 6:17 am
Danyl and DPF, one of the problems with that FBI link is that the ‘frequency-per-age’ data in Table 2.6 has no relationship to the US population age structure- i.e. lacks data for the context in which we are interpreting the data. I’ve had a cursory look for age-structure data for the US in 2002, but had no luck- would make the assertion more compelling if you could demonstrate that the frequency of convictions for violent crime is lower in x age group; CIA factbook is useless for this.
Also, I’m not convinced that the US situation does necessarily translate to NZ so well- not least of which is because of the way they classify homicides, but also from a sociocultural perspective. Unfortunately the stats.govt.nz tables only seem to allow you to view either the age of offenders or violent-crime data, and not cross-reference the two (unless someone can figure out how to combine the two).
I suppose most importantly, there’s no suggestion from this data that a 50 year old whom has already been convicted of a violent crime, is more or less likely to repeat offend when discharged from custody- irrespective of period of incarceration.
Despite the emotive aspect of the man’s crime, in particular that his victim was a police officer, I doubt imprisoning the man any longer will have any greater effect of his risk of re-offending- be it 5, 10 or 15 years longer (unless of course he dies in prison)- if anything, there is data that other methods are useful.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 9:12 am
Also, on the death penalty: http://www.bakadesuyo.com/do-prison-conditions-have-more-of-a-deterrent If that research is accurate, I’d argue for prison conditions as a deterrent while maintaining that everything be done in order to rehabilitate (well, where the benefit of doing so exceeds the cost anyway), i.e. there must be a balance so the conditions deter but allow rehabilitation. Don’t know what that balance would be.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 9:30 am
Jive Kitty — I just don’t think that rehabilitation should be our primary concern when dealing with murderers. I, along with many of the public, want to see justice. To give someone 14 years for murder just doesn’t seem right. The penalty just does not fit the crime.
Now if we executed the murderer then the penalty does fit the crime. Anyone can see that justice has been done. That the penalty is sufficient.
Secondly I believe, along with many others, along with what the Bible says, along with what a lot of research says, that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. I reckon the number of murders in New Zealand would plummet if capital punishment were introduced.
Historically in New Zealand the number of murders was low. Probably around 10 per year. Then the Labour government (who else) abolished capital punishment. The number of murders since the abolition of capital punishment has now risen to more like 80 per year. Now I reckon a lot of those murders would not have been committed if capital punishment was still the penalty for murder.
So I would like to see capital punishment reintroduced. I believe it would save a lot of innocent lives from being brutally snuffed out.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 9:35 am
“Having said that, the Christian faith provides, if not interpreted too literally, an excellent foundation on which to base one’s morality if one is so inclined. Indeed if everyone lived by the Golden Rule we’d all be vastly better off.”
I think we agree on something Rex.
Can we look forward to seeing you at church next Sunday?
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 2:01 pm
LOL. Either of you ever sat through a real trial? You seem to think there will be some sort of clear and easily-definable threshold above which, in some trials, it suddenly becomes “unmistakable” that the guy in the dock did it.
Far as I can tell no-one on this thread asking for a softer ride for murderers.
Plenty of people on this thread are saying they don’t want to be a part of a system that occasionally makes mistakes and executes innocent people. Reasonable doubt is the standard our courts are capable of working to, and that’s nowhere near solid enough to kill someone IMHO.
And please don’t lump me in with Rex. Unlike him I have no problem with the idea of the state permanently removing murderers by killing them. But I have nowhere near enough faith in the state’s ability to correctly and irrefutably identify the murderers.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 2:25 pm
@Scott: I’ll just state the logic I’m working from and leave it at that. 1) The death penalty will not be introduced and nor should it – I don’t trust the state in its ability to absolutely identify the guilty and I have other qualms. 2) Eventually, most prisoners will be released. Given that, there are two issues. The first issue is that there still needs to be adequate deterrence. The second is that if a prisoner is likely to be released there needs to be the utmost done with regard to rehabilitation (or future deterrence for the individual in question with regard to future crimes) in order that they don’t commit further crimes against others upon release. 4) Given these priors, while individual victims matter, their costs are sunk and their desire for retribution in many cases is unlikely to be met – imprisonment often doesn’t go anywhere near to assuaging this desire. As such, far more important to society in a general sense are the matters of managing deterrence and rehabilitation in the most cost-effective manner. 5) Even where a prisoner is never going to be released (does this really occur in NZ?) there still need to be incentives for them to behave well as should there be none, there will likely be greater costs imposed than there otherwise would be.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 2:35 pm
RRM
That is your opinion and I acknowledge and honour that.
Burton?
Are you absolutely sure that the state would have got it wrong with his first murder?
the 2nd?
if so then you are completely correct.
But you aren’t are you?
That is my position, some people are bang to rights.
most aren’t.
Those who aren’t get life – either 65yr or til death.
those who are.
dead, dead, dead.
it is the only fair sentence.
My position is proper life is inhumane as opposed to death.
Vote:I’ve been to court at least 300 times probably in my life, though never as a defendant.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Leniency hasnt worked. Namby pambism hasnt worked. The handwringers have had their time in the sun. Fuck off…move over..give us the reigns…. its time to hit’em hard. Death to the Burtons of the world. Eye for an eye. Take a life..forfiet yours.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 3:00 pm
“Leniency hasnt worked. “
Increasing sentences haven’t been a raging success either, except for those in the security construction business.
Numbers (years) are thrown into comments here as if they are no big deal, like “15 years not enough”.
Does anyone actually stop to think about what that would mean? What 15 years would be like as a punishment, 15 birthdays, 15 Christmases, 5 governments, 3 or four Olympics and World Cups, until 2025? For me it would be 45 children’s birthdays. Never seeing grandchildren growing up. One year would be awful, 15 times that would be hard to bear.
I doubt anyone can really comment on how much punishment is in 15 years with any insight unless they have experienced been imprisoned for 15 days, and then contemplate what it would be like to repeat that another 364 times. I wonder how those suggesting bullets and throwaway keys would face up to it. Especially if they were there unfairly.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 3:05 pm
PG…imagine facing the rest of your life, remembering daily, the prolonged agony a loved one went through at the hands of a scum bag like burton …so really PG , apart from yourself , who gives a flying fuck what a convicted shitbags thoughts are on their long-term incarceration
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Increasing sentences haven’t been a raging success either
..yes they have…look at the record numbers of scum locked up. That means the bastards arent on the streets. Hopefully the numbers will only go up…forget double bunking, I want to see 4 convicts stuffed into a room..I want to see misery in their eyes.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Starboard
I don’t know what drivel PG has given you but I think putting someone away for 30-40 years is inhumane and we’re supposed to be humane, besides which I’d rather the cost of incarceration go to the vicitm’s family as compensation along side the murderers estate however small.
Besides which the victms and their family, whanau as you quite rightly point out are reminded every family celebration that their loved one isn’t there and why each and every month and year they occur in thereafter.
That each year they could remember that the arse who murdered their loved one isn’t ever going to put another family through what they go through, will be of some comfort if he/she is 6 feet under.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Fair enough MikeNZ (@ 2:35pm) and well said.
Vote: