Guest Post on Three Strikes law

January 22nd, 2011 at 2:44 pm by David Farrar

A guest post by former MP on the law:

This week, figures on convictions since the “three strikes” legislation came into force were released. 132 offenders were convicted of 209 “strike” offences. 151 of the convictions were for “pure violence” offences –including aggravated robbery (59), robbery(29), wounding with intent (33) and injuring with intent (20). There were also 58 convictions for indecent assault.

As some commentators at the time have noted – with some justification – indecent assault can cover a fairly broad continuum from the “drunken grope” to near rape. In my view the relative seriousness of various forms of indecent assault is a red herring – or at least a separate debate. None of the other “strike” convictions thus far can be described as “minor offences”, although others will no doubt argue otherwise.

These early results are entirely to be expected. At the time the Bill was being debated, there was all manner of ill informed – and downright dishonest – claims that “three strikes” would see people locked up for minor offences including theft. It seemed not to matter how often it was explained that the Bill was carefully drafted to target only repeat violent offenders – the misinformation campaign went on.

All of the convictions since June 2010 were first strikes, meaning the offenders who were actually sent to prison are still eligible for parole as before. The only thing that changed was those offenders now have a first warning on their file – which will have real consequences when they appear again for a violent offence – and most of them will.

A registrar of my acquaintance runs a District Court in a provinical area. She has paid particular attention to the “strike” offenders appearing for sentence in that court. She tells me that almost without exception, they are familiar faces, having appeared before – some on many occasions – often for violent offending.

She also tells me that most of those sentenced appear to pay little attention to the warning, although if their lawyers are doing their jobs, the offenders will have been told that as a result of it, a further conviction for a strike offence will have a significantly different outcome. Next time, any custodial sentence will have to be served without parole, and even in our ridiculously liberal justice system, a second conviction for a strike offence will almost certainly result in a prison sentence.

The debate about whether three strikes “works” will continue regardless of the results. I have no doubt that even if in three years time violent crime has dropped significantly, the liberal left will refuse to believe that a more punitive approach has anything to do with it. Sadly the left are like that.

The late Dr Dennis Dutton told me a few years ago of his great amusement at the disquiet in American liberal academia when homicides in New York City plummeted in the early 1990’s. Those in the ivory towers embarked upon a feverish search for “the real reason” homicide had declined from about 2500 in 1990 to about 450 per year at the end of the decade. They simply could not accept that something as “simplisitic” as more police on the street with a different attitude, and sentence enhancement measures similar to a “three strikes” approach could have been the reason.

New Yorker’s didn’t care what the reason was, they were just happy to be able to take their kids to Times Square on a Sunday afternoon without being hassled by drug dealers or robbed. Most New Zealanders will be similarly happy that 132 violent offenders now have their first strike, and that within a few years a good proportion of them will be locked up for a long time.

Like David, I’m looking forward to the legislation leading to some repeat violent offenders getting locked up for a long time, so they can’t continue to offend.

Tags: ,

109 Responses to “Guest Post on Three Strikes law”

  1. kowtow (8,175 comments) says:

    The 3 strikes legislation is a sad indictment of our society and legal system.

    It should never have been necessary. As the story above shows these violent criminals are well known to the system. A system that has become corrupted by soft thinking and soft sentencing.

    A serious violent offender should be sent away on his first offense for a very long time,if necessary life. And life should mean life. We’d have a much safer society and a criminal class that respected the law and it’s consequences.(as it stands they think it’s a joke,note the recent reports of crims in court swearing ,seig heiling etc)

    Message to Mr Garret. Well done ,I think you were a great parliamentarian and have done the country proud with this law.Too bad our media are full of left wing wowsers that never did a thing wrong when they were younger!I reckon the SST are great too and represent a lot more of ordinary NZers than the likes of the tossers who get so much air time on RNZ etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. burt (8,190 comments) says:

    kowtow

    Prison itself should not be necessary and is a sad indictment of our society. Do you propose we stop sending people to prison so we can pretend society is just dandy and safe for all ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    burt, it’s what they did in Finland. And their society is safer as a result.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    I would have agreed with this idea once – but like many ideas expressed by the Act Party it just wreaks of an idealism that can only come from someone that has been locked away in middle-class seclusion too long. It’s also an idealism that is so detached from reality that it looks to focus on venal and hellishly expensive punishment over compassionate and far cheaper preventative measures.

    Violence is usually associated with an attempt to control others, because of insecurities felt by the offender. They feel small and powerless so look to insert some power and control into their life through violence. The feeling of powerlessness is most felt bu the poor, so it is no wonder that violence preponderates in economically marginalised communities.

    All the punishment in the world will do nothing to prevent violence from happening. But as we know – this is all about punishment. The punishment is an end in itself to the right. It reinforces their feeling of moral superiority. Since it’s an irrational kind of superiority, it needs symbolism to ground it in reality. The poor are morally inferior – they need supervision and punishment to reinforce that position in the mind of the right. Hitler inculcated a race hierarchy. Modern day Social Darwinists have implemented a class hierarchy, and it results from the same kind of faulty and unfounded reasoning. i.e. it is grounded in emotion rather than anything rational or concrete.

    Because of this, it needs endless propaganda to convince the public of its value – night after night, crime after crime. People are bombarded on the tv news with images of the poor acting irrationally and aggressively. There is no analysis – just an image, and a symbol of class hierarchy. It becomes a frame that is imprinted on the brain. Through this the minds of poor people are also colonised by the social darwinists. They start to believe in the enemy’s propaganda. Then – at that point, class heirachy and the moral symbolism that is attached to it becomes a part of relatively unquestioned objective reality.

    Monitoring and punishment are rationalised as solutions – but really only serve as a means of control, to prevent a collective consciousness amongst the poor that is self-respecting, and self-actualising.

    Thus the lifeless monotony of mechanical class oppression is replicated through time and space, shutting out means organic of organic social adaptation. Inertia and entropy make the system rigid – but because of this it is only a matter of time before cracks appear, and the irresistible spirit of freedom breaks through the fascist prison created by forces of monopoly capital.

    It will be bye bye for Farrar and co.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    All the punishment in the world will do nothing to prevent violence from happening. But as we know – this is all about punishment. The punishment is an end in itself to the right. It reinforces their feeling of moral superiority.

    Ah yes, an end in itself. See, we on the right are not quite so complex. You commit a crime, you’re punished and hopefully next time you think before you commit another crime. Simple, eh?

    3 strikes is for people who can’t learn that for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. AlphaKiwi (687 comments) says:

    @ magic bullet

    You should read Freakonomics. It show’s a causation between locking up criminals longer and a decrease in violent crime in the States.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Why should I take the opinion of someone who stole a dead baby’s identity and who lied to a Court seriously?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kiwigunner (230 comments) says:

    My thoughts exactly. He should be in jail himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Shit I agree with mickeysavage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. nasska (11,138 comments) says:

    magic bullet @ 3.23pm

    I admit to having some problems trawling through the verbiage to get to the point of your argument but I think it’s something along the lines of legislators picking on the poor.

    Don’t you feel that you may be slightly patronizing of the people you are trying to support? Given that they, regardless of circumstance, still possess free will & choose violence as a means of dominating others. They are not forced to take this option but from their point of view it’s quick, it’s easy & it’s effective. The only negative outcome for the offender is getting convicted & punished.

    You could reflect that the victims are frequently maimed, hospitalised & may be traumatised for the rest of their lives…..they didn’t get a choice. They & the rest of society may be grateful that even if imprisonment doesn’t reform it sure stops reoffending for the duration of the sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. hmmokrightitis (1,582 comments) says:

    “but because of this it is only a matter of time before cracks appear, and the irresistible spirit of freedom breaks through the fascist prison created by forces of monopoly capital.”

    That’s right, prisons are fascist. OMFG, what do you smoke? Its funny, being 46 years old, Ive learnt a really neat trick. If I don’t break the law, I don’t get punished. Go figure huh? I take personal responsibility for my own actions.

    I did it when I was on the bones of my arse when I was living in a fucking hovel in South Auckland, and I do it now living in a huge home – all paid for – in the provinces of NZ.

    The forces of monopoly capital don’t make prisons – society does, and we expect people to abide by our laws. And if you think the morons who end up in prison will have a spirit of freedom to break that, then you really shouldn’t be allowed to dress yourself in the morning.

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

    “Shit I agree with mickeysavage”

    Well you would. Trouble is Micky is as wrong as he always is. The phrase “stole a dead bay’s identity” is just weak propaganda that the left’s mainstream media cronyists ran with and those damn fools content to still patronise such a corrupt source believed.

    Mind you Garret got what he asked for. No fight. Far to ready to cave in. Politics is no place for cry babies. Oil rig worker?? Pffft.. Did you make it past leasehand Dave?

    Thanks for the 3 strikes legislation though. That was a great effort and well done. Just a shame you turned to water on the passport thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Red – he did steal a dead baby’s identity and he successfully obtained a passport with it. That is illegal, but are you saying it’s OK? Or is it only OK if someone you agree with does it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    I think that the violent recidivist, and criminally insane repeat offenders should be re-housed in better and posher accommodation for life.

    Actually next to any Government Ministers or Shadow Spokespersons main dwelling, holiday dwelling, or houses they may have fancied buying for living or renting out.

    Or better still next to Judge’s houses and their extended families. See how lenient the Liberals are then.

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

    One day you will wake up to how Mickey and his leftist media cronies play you like a violin Gazza. “Stole a dead babies identity” was just a weak and cowardly smear designed to neutralise Garret as an opponent to the policies of the left. Their policies can’t stand real scrutiny. They can’t stand real argument. Therefore anyone who challenges them must be disposed of.

    So Garret was disposed of and Micky and his hate drive totalitarian crowd were once again spared the need to defend corrupt and worthless polices that do not work for the good of the community, but do work to entrench the left in power.

    Sarah Palin, Don Brash, David Garret, all victims of the same strategy, but it won’t work without gullible fools still stupid enough to believe a corrupt and partisan media buying into it Gazza.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    RB

    “Stole a dead babies identity” was just a weak and cowardly smear designed to neutralise Garret

    You mean you can see nothing wrong with what he did?

    You think he is a victim??

    Surely you jest.

    What about the telling fibs to court to get himself the leniency he refuses to let anyone else have?

    Garrett is a hypocrite. He is gone because of the awful things he has done in the past and not because of any attack.

    And Hide for knowing about Garrett’s “indiscretions” and still putting him high on the list is also a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    Did the dead baby need the passport? That would be the sort of retort from the Commies. They of course can do no wrong.

    Hypocrites to an individual.

    And Taito Field still escapes censure from the Party for the corruption when he was in power. Only when he left the Borg, did he get slotted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    So now Garrett’s a victim for breaking the law? Now you’re starting to sound like one of them, Red!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Mickey the savage, please explain to all of us here how Garrets schoolboy actions caused any harm to anyone at all, including the family of the baby. Oh I forgot they were victims, which is what all you losers always are. Victims of your own stupidity, self importance and preoccupation with the control of others minds.

    When you have that sorted out in your mind then explain to us how we were made better off by the thugs and bullies of the first and last Labour Govt and why we shouldn’t claim victim hood because of them, for that’s what most Kiwi’s have become. Victims of tyrannical fools whose best attempt was to destroy the wealth and hopes of many many Kiwi’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    So gazza your reading and comprehension didn’t make grade at NCEA. Clearly that is not what Red said, but why would anyone be surprised that you don’t understand plain English.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    And here is why these bastards should be locked up.

    http://www.telstraclear.co.nz/news/news-story.cfm?content_id=802860

    http://www.telstraclear.co.nz/news/news-story.cfm?content_id=802866

    Both from this afternoons news.

    Justify that behavoir if you can.

    and here’s another which spent our money.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4569228/Alleged-abduction-victim-found

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Magic bullet,

    Garrett’s second to last paragraph above was squarely aimed at you. And you still don’t get it.

    By the way, every time you make socio-economic position an excuse for criminal behaviour you spit in the face of the majority of poor who remain fundamentally honest, law abiding citizens despite whatever personal challenges and hardships may deal with. Why don’t you try showing them a little respect? They are more deserving of it than those in the same position who choose to act otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    “Sarah Palin, Don Brash, David Garret, all victims of the same strategy”
    Sounds like he said Garret was a victim after all. Just like the poor murderers in jail, who are victims of society. You do the crime, you pay the consequences, including the social consequences. If that precludes you from being an MP then so be it. That’s the argument in favour of three strikes isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. oob (196 comments) says:

    mickeysavage: Why should I take the opinion of someone who stole a dead baby’s identity and who lied to a Court seriously?

    From the bloke who swallows and then regurgitates Helen Clark’s ideology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. davidp (3,574 comments) says:

    mickysavage>Why should I take the opinion of someone who stole a dead baby’s identity and who lied to a Court seriously?

    A completely self awareness free comment from a person who has stolen a dead prime minister’s identity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    “bhudson”

    Every time you say that it’s the heat that pops pop corn, you’re spitting in the face of all the other pop corns that haven’t popped yet, because they require a bit more heat and a bit more time to do so.

    It’s the pop corn that pop first that are evil. All the other pop corn should focus their anger and resentment on those pop corn, for they are the real problem…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    MB what are you on about?
    Stop talking in metaphors and start making sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    MB,

    So what you are saying – in the vernacular – is that you don’t give a shit about the law abiding poor who are too dumb to realise that being poor gives them an excuse to break the law.

    Clearly your corn is well popped.

    It must really tear you up that your dream o class conflict and revolution has never, and will never, show any signs of materializing in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Viking2

    please explain to all of us here how Garrets schoolboy actions caused any harm to anyone at all, including the family of the baby

    Garrett was 26 at the time and old enough to know better. Can you also explain to the parents of the child how their anguish is not appropriate.

    davidp

    Good retort. But it is clear that I am not pretending to be someone who was way better than me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    The mind is mostly dedicated to processing visual information. Metaphors and symbolism rule the intellectual and emotional terrain of any society – that is its power. Not going to go into the philosophy of it too much because it will take forever.

    Anyhow – the heat is symbolic of the pressure of existing in a society where money is status and power, whilst having none. This applies to around 30% of adults. Some can handle the pressure better than others. All i’m saying is that the right’s solution is to reinforce the mechanisms that create a context for crime to occur in. It’s the response of the reptilian brain – problem – solution. This is the low level of conceptual thinking that characterises the reactionary right.

    At the top of the capitalist pyramid, you have people with more evolved brains, who can engage in the dialectical process with quite some proficiency.

    Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis, or Problem+Reaction=Solution. That’s the formula used for social control. Create the “problem” through economic marginalisation and social alienation (i.e. high income inequality), then the people that make up the majority will react with outrage (reaction), and demand people to be locked up. It’s a self-perpetuating mechanism.

    All along the way the framing of the issue is controlled using stock footage, stereotypes and frames which result in predictable responses at each step of the dialectical process.

    That’s why right wing reactionaries are such tools, without even knowing it. Quite sad really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    “All the punishment in the world will do nothing to prevent violence from happening. ”

    Quite true but the magic of a bullet behind the ear certainly stops the perpetrator of said violence ever doing it again.

    That leads us to the knotty question of whether state sanctioned violence is preferable to individual violence of course. :)

    “only a matter of time before cracks appear, and the irresistible spirit of freedom breaks through the fascist prison created by forces of monopoly capital.

    It will be bye bye for Farrar and co.”

    Down with Hitler, down with Stalin, down with…with….Farrar??? :)

    Suggest you apply your own pseudonym to your own ear Magic Bullet. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Not going to go into the philosophy of it too much because it will take forever.

    A bit like trying to work out what you were on about. And are still on about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    “you don’t give a shit about the law abiding poor”

    Yes i do – for they are the tools in a fixed game. It’s very sad. I watch the unawares like yourself like a biologist watches the reactions of a rat in a maze. The rat has no perspective, so cannot know why they are making the choices that they do. The observer knows better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    gazz – i’m introducing new conceptual tools for you. I suggest you look them up if you don’t understand them. Educate and enlighten yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. davidp (3,574 comments) says:

    mickysavage>Good retort. But it is clear that I am not pretending to be someone who was way better than me.

    Your identity theft doesn’t hurt the real Savage, so I don’t care. I can’t work myself up to care about Garrett’s identity theft either… obtaining a passport in someone else’s name doesn’t hurt anyone unless it is used to enable a further crime, such as smuggling or terrorism.

    On the other hand, serving Labour MPs have been convicted of drink driving offenses and assault. Both crimes have the potential to lead to serious physical harm or death, and both are tolerated by the Labour Party who allow these MPs to remain in parliament rather than resigning as Garrett did. Why the difference? Do you comment “Why should I take the opinion of someone who drove drunk and could have killed people seriously?” on Red Alert whenever Dyson posts? If not, why the double standard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Garrett was 26 at the time and old enough to know better. Can you also explain to the parents of the child how their anguish is not appropriate.

    Easy as.

    Well how old are you and you have attempted to plagiarised another persons name and notoriety or has that coincidence escaped your tiny mind? Funnily enough you seem to have also taken on his bad attitudes and bulling behavoir as well.

    As for the babies family.
    They knew nothing about the matter until some lefty title tattle decided that they should by which time the child had been dead and gone many years. Like most names there are always many copies owned by others and indeed in times past when children died often the next one born after that death were given the same name so its not unusual to have two children born and given the same names in a family. But of course you wouldn’t have known that for your knowledge is limited to dogma rather than history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Inventory2 (10,265 comments) says:

    Let’s just look at Three Strikes as a two-edged sword.

    One edge is the deterrent effect. If given a first strike, the offender knows that the next time around will be the full duration of the sentence with no parole, and then the ultimate sanction; a life sentence, without parole. If the person then chooses to reoffend, they accept the consequences. The ball is in their court.

    The other edge is the safety of the community. If someone is so stupid or so intent on offending that they ignore a strike warning, then surely society is a safer place with them off the streets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Damn it is funny some are suggesting it is blood libel against Garrett because he stole a dead child’s identity.

    Yet how many of you on the hard right believe he should be charged with Perjury ? remember your ranting one set of laws for all.

    Here is the good part about Garrett of not being charged and jailed, it will be bought up often in the Epsom seat in the next election.
    And the right wing rant that Hide’s judgment can be trusted after Garrett was chosen and found to have committed a foul crime before he was an MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    davidp – that would depend on whether Ruth Dyson is making a comment about drink driving, or TP Field is making a comment about corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    MB,

    ^^ Haha. I would say Nice attempt but it really was so obvious. Thank you for your patronizing nonsense.

    It is a huge failing of the Left for the leaders or aspirants to consider themselves better than everyone else – especially, of course, those they consider to be their ‘core constituents’.

    I am afraid that it is your notion that life can be explained in a textbook that is fundamentally flawed.

    You might like to think that it is all a “fixed game” but unfortunately is only you, the Left, that are playing it. Perhaps that explains why you can only ever see what you want to see and can never get the outcome you want.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    “Down with Hitler, down with Stalin, down with…with….Farrar???”

    I look at Farrar as being a sort of a miniature Goebbels – except Farrar’s philosophy (if he gets his way) ends up with a dictatorship of monopoly capital (which becomes the state), and the entrenchment of a highly stratified class system, with very little social mobility.

    With the right surveillance technology and brainwashing techniques (see Garrett’s piece above) such a static, dichotomised and predatory society could last a very long time.

    We’re not there yet, but the signs are there.

    “Countless people will hate the New World Order and will die protesting against it.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    “bhudson”

    If i had the same inputs (mass media) to make my judgments on, i would be fairly close to the reactionary mainstream. I don’t see myself as being “better”. I just as having an insatiable appetite for learning about history, psychology, economics and politics.

    We’re going from being a society that values liberty and humanity above all else, to a society that views those things as very contingent. We’re slipping backwards as a species and it’s sad to watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    I’m sure DPF will be really happy that you’ve called him a mini Goebbels.

    What sort of world order do you want MB? I don’t think it will be any different than the one you describe above, except you and your socialist mates will be at the top teir.

    The capitalist system works because of social mobility. The fact that you can aspire to be part of the highest “class” (for want of a better word) is what makes it work. Work hard and you will succeed, take a risk with some of your capital and if it pays off you will succeed more. If it fails you lose your capital. Because it’s yours you tend to take more care of it.
    What we “righties” do not want is the exact system you describe above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    MB there has never been a society that values liberty and humanity above all else.
    Also what is your version of liberty and freedom? For me it’s that you’re free to make your own mistakes and wear the consequences of it, but sadly I think for people like you it means that if you make a mistake you are free from the consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Mini Goebbels – it’s another name for the bros. It was real popular in a comic in the 1960s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. nasska (11,138 comments) says:

    @ magic bullet

    Just under your veneer of sanity I suspect there lies a university degree. Bachelor of Philosophy would be my guess but my gut feeling is that your ability to use about 90 irrelevant words where half a dozen would do is the reward of a long & mediocre socialist education.

    Please enlighten us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    “I look at Farrar as being a sort of a miniature Goebbels ”

    Your vision is obviously faulty in the extreme MB.

    Goebbels was a scrawny little prick.

    Farrar is more a miniature Goering without the dress sense and pilots licence. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    That’s the the dark irony in it – your ideals lead us to a society where we get exactly what you claim you don’t want. A type of stalinism. Same result, just a different path.

    Perhaps this is why the Scandinavian countries are the most democratic and least corrupt in the world. They have the right balance between capitalism and socialism. If they were to go to far to the left or too far to the right they will lose liberties and become more corrupt.

    The far right and far left look the enemy in their eyes, and still can not see that they are who they hate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Viking2

    It’s a very suspect view that a crime is only committed when the victim becomes aware of it. And the parents are victims here, not Garret.

    Garret’s completely superfluous reference to Denis Dutton simply highlights how Denis could often be quite dotty, in this case inventing a supposed frenzy of an imaginary group of people. Analysis shows many reasons for the drop in crime in New York, much of which was reflected across the whole country therefore was not solely the result of “Broken Windows”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    So Grumpy are you suggesting none of your mates and lefties and hori’s have never done something stupid or wrong in the eyes of the law and told an untruth in court and then gone on to better things?
    Oh I forgot you lot don’t do that stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    MB – if the Scandanavian countries are so good then why don’t you move there? Is it because of the high cost of living? That it costs over $20 for a pint of beer in Norway?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    nasska:

    “Just under your veneer of sanity I suspect there lies a university degree.”

    veneer? It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. The normative measure of sanity is therefore paradoxical when applied to certain societies. Understand?

    This is a forum for political discussion – if you want to know the personal details of strangers i suggest you try a dating site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    “if the Scandanavian countries are so good then why don’t you move there?”

    Too cold. Apparently it’s a good place if you like attractive women though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Farrar is more a miniature Goering without the dress sense and pilots licence.

    Did you say miniature? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Sorry Manolo. Change ‘miniature’ to ‘short-arsed’ if you prefer. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    “Oh I forgot you lot don’t do that stuff.”

    Course they don’t Viking2 they just beat their children to death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    Let’s see… where do I begin with demolishing this self-justifying melange of opinion masquerading as fact, which so many (DPF included) have swallowed whole without checking its veracity?

    Garrett’s claim:

    those offenders now have a first warning on their file – which will have real consequences when they appear again for a violent offence – and most of them will.

    The truth:

    The seriousness of the current offence, which was a key factor in determining sentencing, has relatively little impact on recidivism. In fact, people convicted of more serious offences (those with seriousness scores of more than 180 and especially more than 365) had a lower relative risk of reconviction (my emphasis) Source: Sentencing in New Zealand: A Statistical Analysis, Sue Triggs, Ministry of Justice, December 1999

    Garrett claims:

    homicides in New York City plummeted in the early 1990′s… They simply could not accept that something as “simplisitic” as more police on the street with a different attitude, and sentence enhancement measures similar to a “three strikes” approach could have been the reason

    Whew… I could devote a book to rebutting that one.

    First, New York’s “three strikes” law is significantly different to – and I’d argue significantly more liberal than – the one introduced by Mr Garrett and agreed to by his dancing show ponies in National:

    Under P.L. 70.10, a New York trial court is authorized—but not required—to sentence an offender with two prior felony convictions to a much longer incarceration period than would normally be permitted. The determination of whether the offender is eligible for the “persistent felony offender” status is left to the judge alone. (my emphasis)

    Second there is no correlation between the frequency of “three strikes” findings and reductions in crime:

    Among California’s 12 largest counties, the six most frequent users of the law “struck out” defendants at twice the rate of the lowest. If three strikes was truly a factor in curbing violent crime, these heavy-using counties should have experienced a sharper drop in such crime than the light users. The opposite happened.

    If one considers New York’s law to not, in fact, count as a “three strikes” law (and interestingly threestrikes.org, a strongly pro-three strikes site doesn’t think so) then the results are even more pointed (from the same article as the previous link):

    The decline in violent crime in New York, which doesn’t have a three-strikes law, was 20% greater than in California. Even after eight years, states without a three-strikes measure had an average violent crime rate 30% below California’s.

    And sadly for Mr Garrett, New York state’s “three strikes” law was recently struck down as unconstitutional last year by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, suggesting that other states may soon follow.

    Garrett claims:

    was all manner of ill informed – and downright dishonest – claims

    Yes there were – from him. And it seems even a well-deserved removal from public office for one lie hasn’t stopped him perpetuating others, as shown by the facts above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    I’m getting images of DPF appearing on the History channel in an SS uniform now. lolz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Well Luc the word victim has only become a major in our language since you whinning socialists crawled out from under your
    mothers skirts to be brought up in a mamby pamby world that failed miserably to prepare you for the tests and trauma of life as it exists on this planet.
    This stuff is all in the fabric of life and it is life. Sometimes in life shit happens and people do stupid things and people get hurt mentally and physically. Sometimes its at the hand of others and sometimes at peoples own hand.

    Making about 4 million Kiwi’s victims is a failure game (note here that some of us simply can’t relate to being called victims but prefer to recognize these things a part of life’s happenings and therefore part of building ones character) , Its a game of creating dependence rather than resilience. That doesn’t mean of course that people don’t or won’t need assistance but it changes the way its seen and the response to the cause. Creating victim mentality doesn’t create belief in one self nor does it assist people to move on in their lives.

    A good lesson is to be had at funerals where often it is said that “I have gone but I’m still here, speak of me as if I’m still with you” or words to that effect. In other words and simple terms. Get over IT, get on with life and stop moaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Goering was Luftwaffe and designed his own powder blue uniforms MB.

    I told you your vision was faulty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Course they don’t Viking2 they just beat their children to death.

    After beating the missus for not picking up the KFC and fags. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Least they have started to give the ex a proper cremation Manolo.

    Who said murri’s ain’t civilised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Well guess what Rex. Nothing that you guys have done has made the situation better so we deserve to give this a try.
    If it doesn’t work then you can come back and tell us and put in place a better alternative if you have one.
    you already know that there is lots that I agree with you about criminals and prison etc but sorry bad bastards are bad bastards and need locking up until they can get their heads sorted and figure out why they are there. We are not talking about individuals that are small time occasional transgressors we are talking about outright bad bastards and thugs.
    Lets just keep that in perspective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Why should someone who is convicted for manslaughter at age 50 due to a car accident be thrown in jail for life because he was in a couple of fights when he was 18?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. kowtow (8,175 comments) says:

    With due respect to the family involved .

    The left and pro criminal comentators are very concerned about dead babies when they want to hammer Garret but the rest of the time it appears that dead babies rights come second to a womans choice!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Who said they would be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Now Now Kowtow, there is a difference and that’s off subject. This is not a religious post. YET

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Who said murri’s ain’t civilised.

    They are very, very civilised indeed.

    Just travel around our country and you’ll find the monuments, the magnificent buildings they built, the sculptures, the paintings, the abundant masterpieces that surpassed Greeks and Romans.

    I shall not forget their refined music and dancing, only comparable to the finest European of the 18th century. And what about their libraries which will put Babylon and Constantinople’s to shame?

    Undoubtly, we are in the presence of a extremely developed and sophisticated culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Cause the evil bastard was lucky to get away with it for 32 years gazz? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    This entire thread makes me want to throw up. New Zealand has a significant problem with violent crime, committed by a small(ish) number of ferals. The three-strikes law is specifically aimed at those ferals, and is designed to provide increasing severity of punishment when the ferals don’t learn their lesson. It is also a message to our weak, liberal, progressive judges to harden the fuck up on these people.

    Rex, your opinions are worthless. Your way has been tried. It’s been “cuddle the crim” for the past decade in New Zealand, and as a result it is a far less safe, far more violent country. Just STFU for a while and see if three strikes works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    “Undoubtly, we are in the presence of a extremely developed and sophisticated culture.”

    Where does the “Vivid marker” face paint and the slighty off-white bare arse’s that are displayed to our distinguished visitors fit in to sophistication then Manolo?

    At least they used to wear black shorts under the flax once upon a time. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    Also David, Redbaiter is right. You should have stood up to the scum when they attacked you. The problem of the right the world over is they allow the left to set the terms of engagement. They set the terms of the discussion, they even set the language for the debate. You should have fought them.

    In your one act of refusal to stand and salute the deposed dictator, the worst Prime Minister in New Zealand’s history, when she left the Parliament you identified as a man of more integrity than any other in that cess-pool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Offshore_Kiwi, if you are in MLB I’ll shout you some single malt next time I visit (within two months or so).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    Sounds good Manolo. I’ve never put faces to names of the blogosphere before, and would enjoy a nice scotch with one of the rational commenters.

    I know I’m going to regret doing this (I hope hotmail’s spam filters are up to the challenge from the idiots that inhabit this troll farm), but you can mail me on GanttGuy at hotmail dot com.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    Offshore_Kiwi suggests:

    Rex, your opinions are worthless.

    Oh, right then. I’ve just been through the criminal justice system multiple times and now work in the courts and prisons dealing with dozens of cases every year, read widely on the subject and discuss it with judges, prosecutors, criminals, victims, defence lawyers… Whereas you are…?

    Your way has been tried.

    With the greatest respect, you clearly have no idea what “my way” is. My way would involve (amongst a lot of other things) coming down hard on young and “minor” offenders – everything from fluro vests a a scrubbing brush for graffiti vandals to “boot camps” for the worst ones. Basically “broken windows”, with things that have been learned since added in.

    Instead we mollycoddle young offenders till they hit a certain age (by which time they believe themselves to be invincible) and then say “you should have realised that one day we’d take a tougher stance” and hit them with their first “strike”.

    Just STFU for a while and see if three strikes works.

    What do you mean, see if it works?! I’ve linked to just a tiny portion of the extensive long-term research above that shows that it doesn’t.

    So your answer is to cling desperately to the forlorn hope that in New Zealand, as opposed to everywhere else it’s been tried, it will work? Brilliant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Rex, if we lock up the real bad bastards then maybe you will have the time to do the work you suggest because they will be influenced less by those you want to change. Meantime they will wreck havoc all around them and you can never stop them influencing the next generation.
    Separate the bad from the rest and you can begin to win.
    Anyway 17%- 20% are always going to be bad. That’s statistically so. The other 80% will vary from goody two shoes to nearly bad and all of us in between.
    Lets just work with the 80% and do good things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. big bruv (13,698 comments) says:

    Micky Savage’s immediate personal attack on Garrett is a classic example of the way the leftish scum deal with a topic that they do not want to debate, they know they cannot win the battle of public opinion, they know they cannot win the debate or counter the logic behind the argument so they so straight into attack mode.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    One might well say that Micky Savage stole a dead man’s name.
    Of course I assuming that’s not his legal name.
    Talk about hypocrisy?
    And it is well to note that he actually uses the stolen name as opposed to Garret who did not.

    He seems to have run away now his double standard has been exposed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    big bruv

    Micky Savage’s immediate personal attack on Garrett is a classic example of the way the leftish scum deal with a topic that they do not want to debate, they know they cannot win the battle of public opinion, they know they cannot win the debate or counter the logic behind the argument so they so straight into attack mode.

    I just thought that I would introduce Garrett’s well known background into the debate and allow people to form the almost inevitable conclusion that Garrett is a hypocrite and his judgment should not be trusted. I have supported many people in their lives who have done the same as him, made a mistake but he is a hypocrite because he refuses to allow others to receive the possibility of mercy that he did.

    He is a hypocrite. As a poster child for the law and order brigade he is a disaster.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. nasska (11,138 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom @ 7.30pm

    Your way with young offenders would be well worthy of being put into action. The problem will still remain with older recidivists who at least under the three strikes legislation will be out of the way if not rehabilitated. Surely if you work closely with the justice system you must realise that there are some offenders who are simply career criminals. If their thing is minor property crime they are a damn nuisance…… if they are violent offenders they are a continuing potential danger to all of us & society must have the means to protect it’s self.

    In the country town I lived in until recently the local constable was of the opinion that if a crim hadn’t got his shit together by the time he was 27 he’d be in & out of pokey for the rest of his life.

    I don’t think he was far wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. 3-coil (1,215 comments) says:

    Magic Bullet (5:48pm) tells us: “At the top of the capitalist pyramid, you have people with more evolved brains…”

    ,,,which exposes Magic Bullet’s eugenic belief that “at the bottom of the capitalist pyramid, you have people with less evolved brains”. MB, your primitive thinking and logic would even put Garrett to shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. big bruv (13,698 comments) says:

    Micky

    “He is a hypocrite because he refuses to allow others to receive the possibility of mercy that he did.”

    That is bullshit and you know it, you have no issue defending people like Mallard or Benson Pope, you have no issue defending Clark (given the huge lie she lived with for over nine years)

    You and the rest of the left attack what Garrett has to say and because you know the public support it, you cannot attack the argument because it would highlight Labour’s (and the left in general) failed liberal law and order policies.

    Despite what some say it is time that we stopped dealing with criminal scum in a gentle manner, it is time to forget about rehabilitation and just lock the bastards up for as long as possible and in the most inhumane conditions as possible.

    If we happen to lose the odd key or forget about some of them then tough luck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Big bruv

    Despite what some say it is time that we stopped dealing with criminal scum in a gentle manner, it is time to forget about rehabilitation and just lock the bastards up for as long as possible and in the most inhumane conditions as possible.

    Do you propose that we start with Garrett first?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. big bruv (13,698 comments) says:

    Micky

    How about we attack the argument instead?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. davidp (3,574 comments) says:

    Viking2>And it is well to note that he actually uses the stolen name as opposed to Garret who did not.

    His real name is Greg Presland and he is a member of the Labour Party (http://grassroots.labour.org.nz/profile/GregPresland), a lawyer (http://www.mylawyer.co.nz/), and an Auckland city councilor (http://www.elections2010.co.nz/2010/candidates/greg-presland). Greg has stolen the identity of Mick Savage who, according to yellow.co.nz, lives in Snells Beach. He stole Mick’s identity in order to hide his own identity on the internet, allowing him to post unpleasant comments while avoiding being held responsible for them as a Councilor and a lawyer.

    David Garrett resigned after his identity theft was discovered. Presland has stated in this thread that he finds identity theft to be an “awful thing”. He has also expressed concerns about hypocrisy. Greg has a few problems with a lack of self awareness, but even he will have realised that the only way that he can avoid appearing a hypocrite is to resign from the Auckland Council, and then request the Law Society to begin an investigation of his ethics issues.

    While that is happening, we need to ask the same questions of Phil Goff and Len Brown that were asked previously of Rodney Hide. Did Goff or Brown know that Greg had stolen Mick Savage’s identity and was using it all over the internet? Including 736 times on Kiwiblog. If so, why didn’t Goff or Brown take some action?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. big bruv (13,698 comments) says:

    Micky

    I had no idea you are an arts ‘luvvie”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    Viking2 says:

    Separate the bad from the rest and you can begin to win.

    I agree totally. What I object to is “three strikes” as the mechanism for doing so. Ironically, some of that 20%* who are always going to be bad will be on to their 100th serious offence by the time “3 strikes” catches up with them while others (like the hypothetical person who’s convicted of manslaughter due to reckless driving, then gets caught for an “indecent assault” which is nothing more than a drunken grope etc etc as outlined by someone above) will cop the penalty on their actual third offence when perhaps they don’t deserve it.

    A discretionary law, such as New York has – ironically, as Garrett misleadingly holds it out as equivalent to our own – would be a better mechanism IMO.

    * I might dispute that figure but you haven’t told me what the comparator is. All criminals? All people? All males 17 – 30 (which seems to be the group most prone to violence)?

    nasska:

    The problem will still remain with older recidivists who at least under the three strikes legislation will be out of the way if not rehabilitated.

    We don’t really try to rehabilitate them now. People here confuse “rehabilitation” with “an easy life in jail” but there’s no correlation (other than that earning an easier time in jail can be an important incentive in rehabilitation). If we’d tried and failed, then maybe it’d be time to try something else, but not “three strikes” because, as the statistics I’ve referenced above show, it doesn’t work in reducing crime and thus reducing victims.

    there are some offenders who are simply career criminals. If their thing is minor property crime they are a damn nuisance…… if they are violent offenders they are a continuing potential danger to all of us & society must have the means to protect it’s self.

    Yes, but our ways of approaching those two extremes (and everyone in between) must be different and must be, as much as is possible, tailored to suit the criminal. Some people may respond only to hard labour breaking rocks. Others may respond to something like being on the cleaning detail in Accident and Emergency (under supervision, of course) and seeing what sort of s**t their ilk causes (before going back to prison to eat and sleep). Still others might just need something productive to do with their time, like a job (are you listening, Paula, or are you too busy ignoring the plight of abused children?).

    Stopping criminals reoffending is psychological. Even hard labour works on their psychology… it’s designed to be so unpleasant they won’t want to have to do it again. But we build “one size fits all” jails and short sighted populists like Garrett legislate “one size fits all” sentences rather than leaving the discretion with judges, who actually hear the evidence. We treat every criminal the same, and then wonder why around half reoffend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. hubbers (232 comments) says:

    …embarked upon a feverish search for “the real reason” homicide had declined …

    I love that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Psycho Milt (2,405 comments) says:

    Why should I take the opinion of someone who stole a dead baby’s identity and who lied to a Court seriously?

    Who better understands the way criminals bullshit the court in successful attempts to weasel out of well-deserved punishment than someone who’s done it himself? He appears extremely well qualified to be taken seriously on the subject – what are your own qualifications?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Gulag1917 (851 comments) says:

    Allowing violent crims to intimidate and break every major law is eroding NZ as a peaceful nation and impeding progress.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Big Bruv, so should Garrett be charged with perjury, him being a criminal scum as you put it about others?
    Or, do you want two standards ? are you suggesting the normal punter would support Garrett a person who believed stealing a dead child’s name was good form ?
    Do you support those who steal the name of dead children ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Enough of the feeble and dishonest misdirection about the passport from the usual leftards and trolls who aren’t able to answer the arguments. Dumb thing to do, but he didn’t do anything with the passport. If mr Garrett was proposing three strikes for applying for a joke passport with no criminal intent and doing absoutely nothing with the bogus passport, then you could fairly claim “hypocrisy”. You will notice that the strike offenses are for serious violent and sexual offenses with actual victims, not for joke paperwork.
    Who knows maybe he even has some parking offenses we don’t know about? That is equally irrelevant to his stance on violent offending as the passport shenanigans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. nasska (11,138 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom @ 10.41pm

    I see where you are coming from when you argue against the ‘one size fits all’ approach to sentencing & agree that in ideal circumstances the punishment could be better tailored to the offender. You must surely realise however that the reason three strikes gained traction with the public were manifestly inadequate sentences handed out to repeat offenders by judges who were seen to have lost touch with reality. In fact had judges been doing the job they are paid royally to do I doubt that even a proposal for the law would ever have been floated. To a layman there are three aspects to punishment……… retribution, rehabilitation & keeping the offender out of society to prevent more crime. The order of importance of these aspects will vary depending on whether one is a commentator or a victim.

    My arguments are based solely from the desire to keep recidivist violent predators apart from potential victims.

    You state that three strikes “doesn’t work in reducing crime & thus reducing victims”. Most studies I have heard of were from California where three strikes is really punitive. I seem to remember reading that it was possible for someone in their early twenties to be effectively imprisoned for life for a short string of middling crimes. If these people are incarcerated they are presumably not offending so there must be new criminals stepping up to take their place. How can this be blamed on three strikes?

    The legislation that Garret is responsible for is not aimed at petty criminals & had it been it wouldn’t have had a chance of being passed. I also thought that there was a weasel out clause somewhere to the effect that it can be overridden if the sentence would be manifestly out of proportion to the offense (or words to that effect).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Put it away You do not get it do you, a false passport had nothing to do with the reason people are pissed off with Garrett.
    Stealing a dead child’s identity knowing he would cause the parents more misery had everything to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Pete George (23,427 comments) says:

    manifestly inadequate sentences handed out to repeat offenders by judges who were seen to have lost touch with reality.

    A commonly expressed perception – but is it backed by any evidence? Sentences have increased significantly over the last decade.

    Numbers of custodial sentences:
    1988 5,425
    1998 6,966
    2004 8,537
    2008 10,143

    http://wdmzpub01.stats.govt.nz/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportName=Justice/Convicted%20Offenders

    Length of sentence has also increased. Hence the increasing prison population.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Oh bugger off hori, no one believes your feigned outrage about the victims of the great passport heist of ’84 when you are trying to use that to feebly and illogically try to discredit a law that would keep real scum off the streets today and PREVENT actual harm to actual victims of actual serious violence and sex offending now and in the future. Their feelings mean less to you than cheap leftard point scoring against a law that offends your out-of-touch wet bus ticket ideology. No sale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. nasska (11,138 comments) says:

    Peter George @ 10.16am

    I’ll wade through the link you gave later but for a quick reply I’ll quote from the SST’s website. They state that violent crime increased by 108% from 1990 to 2000 & another 7% increase from 1999 to 2005. The figures you provided give an increase of custodial sentences of 87% over the 20 years to 2008. Not many people are imprisoned for petty offenses so the figures would suggest reduced sentences on average for violent crime.

    It’s my opinion that prison should be reserved largely for violent crime. Property, drug, traffic etc offenses although a pain in the arse to any victim are better dealt with by community & restorative sentences. To qualify for three strikes an offender would have to for example rape someone, commit an armed robbery & a grievous assault. How much more does society have to put up with before we see the back of the offender for a long time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Chris Diack (739 comments) says:

    This thread is instructive.

    Mickysavage (who is hardly even a poor man’s west Auckland Rumpole) doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion but ad hominem. But that’s the modern face of the Labour Party. Nasty. And personally abusive.

    Of course no one needs reminding of why David Garrett left Parliament. I would note that he as paid for his wrongdoing by losing his political career. He had already made a significant difference in the face of opposition from both the Minister of Justice and MOJ which is pretty remarkable for a first term MP. Plus he also made a difference in employment law. And he has acted with far more honour than say Hon Chris Carter who our Micky was up until recently boosting.

    And why does any of this matter given the public policy argument over whether violent or sexually recidivist criminals should be treated with more certain sentencing outcomes or to put it another way; be afforded less judicial discretion as to sentencing on the basis of a prior and current pattern of offending? After all Parliament has set the sentancing range; why shouldn’t the upper limits (as democratically determined) be applied in a limited range of circumstances (a pattern of serious violent and sexual offending).

    To say that David Garrett’s contribution to public policy is somehow illegitimate because of previous wrongdoing (or non disclosure) or hypocrisy is the same as saying that Helen Clark should be remembered for wrongfully using taxpayer resources to secure her election or as the type of person who signs as her own someone else’s art work.

    I suspect that Micky isn’t a happy chappie. Garrett’s real crime was to actually make a real difference irrespective of his personal foibles.

    Rex:

    Of course in New York they have a ‘broken windows policy’ or ‘zero tolerance for crime’ running in tandem with tougher sentencing which seems to be along the lines of what interests you. In all likelihood a similar project in one of our Police districts would have been the next project for David Garrett and ACT.

    What I don’t trust about your contribution here is the vitriol directed towards David Garrett personally. He may not be perfect (who his) but he was never a booster for Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Chris Diack (739 comments) says:

    Check it out

    William Bratton was Police Chief in Boston, NY and LA. He talks about how he got crime down and the ‘broken windows’ policy. Well worth listening to.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00d278t

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. badmac (139 comments) says:

    To Rex.

    Has the 3 strikes law caused an increase in violent crime?
    Is it likely to?

    So whats the problem?
    You will admit that it will take some violent SOBs out of society, not just inside for some R&R and retraining but out for good. That will decrease crime just because they can longer commit crimes.

    You say it will catch some people who don’t deserve it. We have laws they broke them. Now you want to go softly softly. Vehicular manslaughter some innocent died because the criminal broke the law. Drunken grope, oh that’s ok the victim doesn’t matter, who cares what it did to their lives as long as the criminal isn’t treated unjustly. Then they get life for a third strike. They knew the consequences and still broke the law. Sounds like the law works very well. Obviously the person doesn’t learn and would go on to keep committing crime which the law 3strikes law will prevent, sad for the criminal even sadder for the victims they created along the way. A descent society is about protecting the innocent not giving those who operate outside of the law an excuse to reoffend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Has the 3 strikes law caused an increase in violent crime?
    Is it likely to?

    So whats the problem?

    The problem is that if it doesn’t work we have put thousands more in jail that didn’t need to be there, ruining their lives for some petty mistake and costing the taxpayer millions.

    The government has power but they also have a responsibility to use it properly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Gulag1917 (851 comments) says:

    What are the petty mistakes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Getting in a fight and being charged with assault? Groping someone in a nightclub and she taking it to its legal conclusion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Gulag1917 (851 comments) says:

    You are answering a question with a question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Change the question marks to full stops then. I just gave you two examples to answer your question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Gulag1917 (851 comments) says:

    Inevitably people getting into a fight will attract the attention of the police and in an attempt for them to keep the peace and prevent further incidents wiil arrest person/s. Fighting is not actual a human right protected by law. Unless it is aggravated assault it is doubtful whether the person/persons will actually go to jail. Aggravated assault is not a petty crime. Groping is bad form and if their are consequences the guy is asking for it. Very few people go to jail for petty offences and if they do it is because they are a danger to the public. Can you prove that there are thousands in jail that are not a reason of serious public concern and safety. Thousands of bad incidents happen in NZ without any consequence at all. Bad luck to the bad guys when they get caught out as they inevitably do.

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

    Of cause getting tougher on crime and sending more crims to jail may well require large additional investment in prison facilities. Now I’m not going to argue that such investment could or would not be offset by social gains but maybe we should be looking at other ways to both reduce cost and provide an increased deterrent effect.

    How about seeing if we can outsource our prisons? Not just the management but also the location. Places like Thailand for instance might welcome some investment. [/tongue in cheek]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Chuck Bird (4,831 comments) says:

    he is a hypocrite because he refuses to allow others to receive the possibility of mercy that he did.

    There is a difference. The 3 strikes laws is about serious violence. Common assault is not included in the 3 strike list let alone non violent crimes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Clint Heine (1,570 comments) says:

    Ahh yes, good old Mickysavage. Attack the messenger not the message. Fine form for a bloke who I cansafely assume has been let down by Labour HQ so many times that his long term aspirations to enter Parliament and dive into the gravy train is all but over.

    And New Zealand is richer for it. Garrett was a better MP than you would have been… but it seems even Labour isn’t stupid enough to select you.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.