Violent Crimes
April 1st, 2011 at 4:18 pm by David FarrarThe crime stats came out today. I always ignore the headline figures about the total crime rate because it is a near meaningless figure – one murder is treated the same as one minor drug offence. Also certain categories of crime will go up and down (drug offences) depending on how much policing is done.
Hence I have always focused on violent crimes. Partly because they are the most serious – and what concern people the most. But partly because they are the most likely to be reported.
So what has happened to the four major categories of violent crimes:
- Homicides down 23.6% from 127 to 97
- Serious Assaults resulting in injuries down 5.7% from 11941 to 11260
- Serious Assaults not resulting in injuries down 6.2% from 10324 to 9679
- Common Assaults up 2.0% from 23070 to 23526
This is only the second time since 1999, the number of violent crimes has decreased.
Tags: law & order
April 1st, 2011 at 4:29 pm
And as long as the nat’s don’t starve the police budget and other government anti-violence measures it may stay that way.
Vote:Crime rate drop ‘may be short-lived’
April 1st, 2011 at 4:44 pm
I do hope this is not too much off topic. I think it is relevant.
Well it is now official…New Zealand’s Justice System is not only bankrupt…it is also corrupt.
Justice Christopher Allan sentenced wealthy race horse owner Greg Meads to a pathetic 11 years [non parole] in prison for the cold blooded execution of his wife…he shot Helen point blank in the neck with a shot gun!
Helens father, David White will be on T V 3 Campbell live tonight…THIS IS A MUST WATCH!
We need to ensure a BIG audience to let our politicians know this travesty of justice will not be tolerated.
Please email, text, ring or simply tell your friends.
For more details check Latest Press Release “A bullet cheaper than divorce”
http://www.safenz.org.nz/
I have attached a press release for your information.
Kind Regards
Garth McVicar
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 4:54 pm
A lot of the credit must go to Judith Collins for her no nonsense pro-active leadership over the top of the lack lustre Administration associated with the previous government. I have no doubt her approach has raised morale among the field staff. ( After sitting on the issue for at least six months Broad has retired without apparently making any decision on arming the Police.)
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 4:57 pm
backster
Broad will no doubt be just as prominent in retirement as he was as Commissioner.
I hadn’t realised that he already retired. But then I never really noticed that he was there.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 4:58 pm
This is only the second time since 1999, the number of violent crimes has decreased.
And into the teeth of the biggest economic headwinds we have ever seen and which keep coming, gives the lie to the lefty allegation that “poverty begats crime.”
It never did. Attitude begats crime, and that has nothing to do with personal circumstance and to think it does, is to profoundly misunderstand the standard modus operandi of your common-or-garden human mind.
How else do addicts stop? In a heartbeat, they change their mind. They could be in prison, they could be anywhere, they just, one day, say to themselves, no more.
That decision point is what turns them from addicts into recovering their lives and themselves. But that decision point can happen anywhere anytime and it’s not dependent upon wealth or personal freedom or anything else. It’s an internal thought, that costs nothing.
Yet somehow, lefties still allege criminals are mostly people who have no choice but to do what they do because they are driven by grinding poverty which gives them no choice. Sure, there are a huge number of utterly appalling human tragedies inside the underworld and those should be better recognised, identified and prevented than they currently are, with vigorous and efficient urgency, by eleventy gaajillion times greater than what we currently do. Talk to any criminal lawyer FFS. All of them have hundreds if not thousands of human tragedy. Analyse that data and design measures to stop all that. That, IS preventable. So why the fuck aren’t we doing that?
However this takes nothing away from Collins’ achievement. Congratulations, Judith. You are very, very, very good. Well done.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Good to see reported violent crime on the decline. It is still far too high despite being the second most imprisoned people in the OECD.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 5:10 pm
It is still far too high despite being the second most imprisoned people in the OECD.
Yes Inky prison isn’t the answer for a lot of them isn’t it but it’s how you tell the difference isn’t it.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 5:10 pm
@ Chuck
I agree 11 yrs seems light. What would you suggest?
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 5:15 pm
The answer is treating people like people and stop telling them they are losers the first time they get in trouble.
Prison should be left for the very violent, murderers (and other killers), men who attack women, adults who attack children, white collar criminals and those who repeatedly break the law.
I have no problem with more police. As long as they are part of the society these police in
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 5:19 pm
What would you suggest?
I would suggest Gooner the same sentence Joseph Thompson got, 27 years no parole as I recall?
For any cold-blooded ruthless deliberate act, like this.
Also, ability in legislation to sue estate for damages arising therefrom. The victim’s young daughter and her caregivers justify legislative recognition and ability to sue and frankly if it’s not already built in it’s disgraceful. Serious hole in the law.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 5:24 pm
“I agree 11 yrs seems light. What would you suggest? ”
In relation to other sentence for premeditated murder it is only a bit light. IMHO
What needs to happen the bar needs to be lifted for all murders whether the murderer is male or female.
What do you think of 8 years for murder with no minimum non parole period? This means the murderer could be out in 2y 8m.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 5:27 pm
The answer is treating people like people and stop telling them they are losers the first time they get in trouble.
Inky how do you deal with people with attitudes that just give the fingers to stuff like that?
That’s the chaff I’m interested in sorting. I don’t think serious career crime is begat by any other sort of person.
I agree a lot of petty crime is committed by pissed-off people who are simply responding to previous bad experiences. I think one thing that’s missing in the design of the criminal law, is a full enough factoring of the exigencies of the human mind upon behaviour. A really astute reworking combining both legal and psychological principles could I believe produce a significant improvement. Too bad lawyers think they’re the smartest, isn’t it. Oh, apart from Doctors. The doctors…
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Why can’t we, develop a cross-party accord with respect to our approach to crime? Start with the most violent and most reprehensible crimes and work down till we get down to levels where no accords can be reached.
Would that not be of benefit?
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 7:20 pm
@ Reid
Why stop at 27yrs? Why not 50yrs?
@ Chuck
8yrs is an arbitrary figure, 11yrs is based on tariff to a degree. You didn’t answer the question: What minimum period would you suggest is suitable?
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Why stop at 27yrs? Why not 50yrs?
Because that’s why you have case law Gooner so it can set the tariff and that’s been rising and that’s a good thing, provided the other mechanisms have functioned properly, which they don’t always.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Why can’t we, develop a cross-party accord with respect to our approach to crime? Start with the most violent and most “reprehensible crimes and work down till we get down to levels where no accords can be reached.”
Because the limp wristed want to cuddle the offenders, not punish them. Punishment works, as long as it’s swift, meaningful, and consistent. Make the punishment not worth the effort.
Consistency is the key. Cuddling just does nothing.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Because the limp wristed want to cuddle the offenders, not punish them. Punishment works, as long as it’s swift, meaningful, and consistent. Make the punishment not worth the effort.
Consistency is the key. Cuddling just does nothing.
Well said Wally.
One of our problems is inconsistency.
From whence does this stem? i.e. why do the left and right have differing approaches to what is a clear non-political issue? Why? Isn’t that just fucking nuts?
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 8:08 pm
@ Gooner. I beleive I did answer you r question, under the existing system the judge was a little light. If he was a lot heavier it would have been appealed. I believe there should be degrees of murder and for first degree it should be life without parole. The jury should decide on the degree.
In regards my question do you think someone convicted of murder should be eligible for parole after 2y 8m or should there be an automatic life sentence with a minimum non parole period of at least 10 years?
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 8:18 pm
There are some interesting currants in this bun…for example, although the murder rate has “dropped significantly” in short term, the overall 25 year rate of homicide per 100,000 is relatively flat…these short term “spikes” are what you will always get with such a small population, and it is unwise to read too much into the decline in murder. Secondly as one commentator has noted, the drop in crime happened regardless of tougher economic times, thus – once again – demonstrating that despite what the lefties claim, there is absolutely no correlation between unemployment and crime – particularly violent crime. During the Great Recession, the American left were making dire predictions about a significant rise in crime as a result of a sharp rise in unemployment (16% from memory, in California, in the last quarter of 2009). Not only did the dire predictions not come to pass, the OPPOSITE happened, with crime continuing to decline.
Lastly, it is no coincidence that there was a sharp drop in crime in Counties-Manukau, our biggest police district. While the “unemployment causes crime thesis” is demonstrably bullshit, there IS a clear correlation between more police on the streets and a decrease in crime. (Even Rex agrees with that!) Again, this has been seen in the US, particularly in New York, the home of “zero tolerance.” What is less well known is that there has been a quiet easing up on the “policing and imprisonment” pedal in NY State in recent years and – surprise surprise – there has been a increase in violent crime as a result.
Much as I would like to say “three strikes” has caused this decline, it is too early for it to have had any significant effect – although by the time of the next election it certainly will have. 3S is however part of the reversal of the “treat criminals as victims” mindset we endured under Clark. As others above has said, we now need to hold our nerve and not cut back on policing.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 8:31 pm
…and for Chuck and others’ information, the minimum non parole period which may be imposed for murder is 10 years where a life sentence is imposed…s.102 of the Sentencing Act allows a court not to impose a life sentence for murder in exceptional cases, but there must be very good reasons not to do so…to the best of my knowledge there have only been two such cases since 2002, one of them an old man who killed his terminally ill wife at her request to relieve her suffering. He was convicted of murder, but sentenced to – I think – two years’ home detention. Someone here will know the exact sentence, and the circumstances of the other case.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 8:39 pm
why do the left and right have differing approaches to what is a clear non-political issue?
Yes, Why??
Vote:The left seem to push “offenders have rights”, whereas victims and the public’s rights should take precedence over those of offending low-lifes.
April 1st, 2011 at 8:42 pm
David, what do you think of the 8 year sentence with no non parole period for murder? Do you think there is some sexism in the sentencing? It is easy to claim BWS when the victim is dead. Gaye Oaks murdered Doug Gardner because he was going to leave her for his ex wife. She got out in 8 years.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 8:45 pm
@ Chuck
Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
I also believe in degrees of murder. And for 1st degree, yes, life without parole.
But the police should be charging on the degree and should prove it. It is not a jury decision.
And for reid, tariffs for Joseph Thompson and this guy are dissimilar because the crimes are different. No Judge would use a tariff for sexual assault on a murder sentence. If we look at William Bell, he committed first degree murder and got 30yrs without parole. That’s 10yrs per victim. This guy got 11 years for one victim. Maybe that’s about right?
Why is 11yrs not punishment, but 27 years is? Surely once you past a decent stint (say 5 years) punishment becomes a redundant concept as prison just becomes a way of life; indeed, a lot of people find it hard to adapt to life on the outside which is a punishment for them and prison is their life.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 8:50 pm
@ Chuck, that was in 1994 and well before the Sentencing Act 2002. It’s not right to compare and contrast in those circumstances.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Chuck: The Oakes case was prior to the Sentencing Act 2002. No-one could now get a life sentence with less than a 10 year minimum non parole period…but as I have said, it is possible to NOT be sentenced to life for murder in exceptional circumstances. For the record, I am quite comfortable with the sentence passed on the old man who euthanased his terminally ill wife at her request.
Going back to Oakes, I believe there should be some recogniton of battered wife (or person) syndrome…we used to have a form of it…it was called provocation, but that defence was abolished last year because of hysterical lobbying over a couple of murders of homosexuals where the defence succeeded – wrongly in my view, in at least one of them – and the Weatherston case, where the defence was offered but FAILED.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 8:59 pm
“But the police should be charging on the degree and should prove it. It is not a jury decision.”
I think we are on the same page. What I meant for the jury to decide was that the police would decide to charge for first degree murder and the jury could same guilty or not guilty but guilt to a lower degree or manslaughter much like the existing system.
You still have not said what you think of 8 years with no non parole provision for murder. I no not care if she needed alcohol for self medication as her lawyer, Mr Fairbrother, claimed.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Read the previous posts Chuck!!
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:08 pm
David, Oakes was sentenced to life with than a 10 year minimum non parole period but she got out in 8.
She tried the BWS crap but the jury did not buy it. She committed cold blooded premeditated murder because her partner was going to leave her for his ex wife. I have read the full transcripts a number of times and spoken to Gardner’s sister and brother. She planned the poisoning with some man hating dykes at the local refuge. It is almost certain she had help burying his body. None the dyke were charged it is an outrage.
It would be nice if ACT’s one law for all applied to men and women. What do you think?
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Chuck, criminal sentencing is a little like education in that one shoe does not fit all.
David Garrett previously pointed out the case of a very elderly man who murdered his terminally sick wife and was “only” given home detention.
Gaye Oaks was a different case, with different circumstances.
William Bell was different again, as was Clayton Weatherston.
Is 11yrs enough here? Maybe not. But it was probably reasonably close considering the tariffs.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:15 pm
I’d be wary of interpreting this (yet) as anything other than statistical variation and some minor issues perhaps as david garrett suggests. Still way to much crime.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Chuck, I think you should let it go. It was 1994. Let’s focus on 2011 and the forward years.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:27 pm
David, it looks like the posts our crossing.
Getting back to what you said in regard provocation I agree we should never have got rid of it. However, it should not be a justification for premeditated murder when there is planning over a period of time.
For example you come home and find you house if burgled. you subdue the burglar and tie him up. You then find you wife or daughter or son has been raped. You then put an ax through the pricks head. Provocation should be a legitimate defence.
Where a murder is planned over days or weeks there is no way provocation should be a defence.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:30 pm
“Chuck, I think you should let it go. It was 1994. Let’s focus on 2011 and the forward years.”
Okay then what about “Eight years for murder ‘brave and right’ ”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4077214/Eight-years-for-murder-brave-and-right
Not much has changed.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:32 pm
But in that example Chuck, there is no provocation because the burglar did not even know you were coming home so how could he have committed an act of provocatoin towards you? He didn’t know you exist.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:33 pm
You are right Chuck…Oakes was released early…and she shouldnt have been..
But moving right along… for those who support degrees of murder – of which broadly speaking, I am one – I believe we now actually have a degrees of murder regime without that label. Consider this:
“Ordinary” murder – the long haggling spouses; the neighbours who had never got on and one snaps; the use of a weapon but without a clear intent to kill, where the jury could have gone either way, manslaughter or murder: Life imprisonment (except for those very rare s. 102 cases) with a minimum non parole period of 10 years.
Aggravated murder – murder of a particularly heinous nature with one or more of the aggravating features listed in section X of the Sentencing Act (I cant be bothered finding it): Life with a minimum non parole period of 17 years.
The worst possible cases of murder – Because of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act of 2010 – which introduced three strikes and other changes: Judges now may impose Life Without Parole (LWOP)
That to my mind is a degrees of murder regime. And yes, the big question is when – or perhaps whether – a Judge would ever take a deep breath and impose LWOP. Surely a future Graeme Burton, or a murderer with a prior manslaughter would be a candidate? We have just had one of those, Pauesi Brown, who killed the good samaritan Austin Hemmings. But Brown’s offence was committed prior to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Reading that article, the sentence seems about right to me. If you’re saying you cannot take any of those circumstances mentioned in that article into account in sentencing then that would a very, very tough argument to make, if not impossible.
As I said earlier, there is no “one shoe fits all” in criminal sentencing.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:40 pm
“Eight years …brave and right”..Ok, so there’s the second s.102 case Chuck. The short answer is “I don’t know if that was just, and neither really does anyone who didnt hear all the evidence.” I do believe it is very hard for us men to understand the mindset of “battered women”, but I am not prepared to say it (BWS) doesn’t exist…sorry Chuck we are normally totally on the same page, but not today…
All the lefties are very quiet tonight…all on the piss?
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:42 pm
There are only three of us debating this…the cyberspace equivalent of a dinner party convo I guess…
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:45 pm
I’m not 21 anymore David….this is my Friday night now….very sad.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:47 pm
“But in that example Chuck, there is no provocation because the burglar did not even know you were coming home so how could he have committed an act of provocatoin towards you? He didn’t know you exist.”
Are you a lawyer?
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:50 pm
You know the answer to that!
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 9:55 pm
If you get tired of blogging
Men Don’t Tell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_gLDF2dGLY
This will show you that that men can equally be victims of domestic violence.
It is a good video. Let us know what you think.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Who would want to be 21 Gooner? If I was the right side of 35 I’d be as happy as a pig in muck!
Yes Chuck, no doubt men can be victims of domestic violence…my poor late father was one of them…
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 10:04 pm
I agree that from reading the description of Jacqueline Wihongi’s case, the sentence of 8 years was indeed brave, given the “hanging is too good from them” attitude of many in New Zealand and also seems right. One special aspect is what appears to be some genuine remorse.
This case, as well as that of the gentleman who killed his very sick wife, show why mandatory minimum sentences, especially the death penalty, are so dangerous.
From what I have read of Ms Wihongi’s case, if New Zealand had a mandatory life sentence, especially if that was life without parole or the death penalty, she would probably have been acquited of the murder charge. At least I hope she would have been.
As the judge said, a life sentence would have been manifestly unjust and I am glad that there is still an element of justice in our court system.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 10:17 pm
A late arrival at the dinner table…who would be silly enough to suggest a mandatory LWOP or death sentence
George??
Not me….
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Mr Garrett…
Pass that baton my way…LWOP or the death sentence is a bloody great idea.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 10:43 pm
MANDATORY death or LWOP sentences BB…? No-one would get convicted…
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Ha ha….they would if they had been on a couple of the juries that I have sat on…
Seriously though, how could you not convict a William Bell or a Graham Burton even allowing for the fact that they were going to be executed?
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 10:59 pm
I personally would have no problem in those two cases (and others like them)…but the reality is not everyone is like us!
One of the main reasons I modified my view on capital punishment was my time in Tonga, where the death penalty remains as a discretionary sentence – last used in 1982. For 20 years after that, there were no murder convictions in tonga (I said no murder CONVICTIONS not no murders) because the clergymen told their flocks that if they were on a jury and convicted a man of murder: 1) he would be executed ( a lie, because it is a discretionary sentence) and 2) they would be as guilty as him of taking a life and therefore go to hell. So for 20 years there were scores of what lawyers call “perverse verdicts”; clear cases of murder where juries instead convicted of manslaughter.
For different reasons, I believe we would have the same result here – even if the sentence was not mandatory. Instead of being a reviled psycho, Bell and Burton would be come poor sad boys who hadnt had a chance; there would be vigils by both hymn singers and Greenies outside the prison on the morning of the execution…LWOP for those guys is in any event probably a worse punishment than the 30 seconds of terror those dispatched by Pierrepoint suffered in the UK…
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 11:09 pm
The only reason we need to reject the death penalty is that it would undoubtedly lead to state-sanctioned murder of innocent people.
If you can watch “Conviction: The True Story of Clarence Elkins”, who was accused of rape of an elderly woman and a child and murder of the elderly woman by his traumatised 6 year old niece (the younger victim) and was convicted by a jury, but was in fact wholly innocent, then do.
Not to be confused with the more recent movie starring Hillary Swank, also called “Conviction” which dramatises a similar story. The man who was the subject of that film endured eighteen years wrongful imprisonment and then died six months after his release. As his sister (who got a law degree to save him) says in the movie “if we had the death penalty in Massachusetts, he’d be dead”.
Vote:April 2nd, 2011 at 2:58 am
From the “sensible” sentencing press release:
“Not only has Justice Allan lowered the benchmark for premeditated cold blooded murder he has ensured that every woman considering leaving her husband was now a target for a bullet rather than a matrimonial settlement”.
Does Garth McVicar add anything of value to the law and order debate? I have no doubt that this sentence (of life with a minimum non-parole period of 11 years) will have absolutely no effect on violent crime. it’s hyperbole, it’s stupid, and it detracts from the people having a sensible debate.
On solutions: NYC seems to have been a great success, but the success was due to a very expensive intervention – you can’t walk very far without seeing a police officer. This is a city where you feel safe, even in the middle of the night, because of clear deterrents. From what I saw, and was told, police on the beat were the primary reason why crime went down.
On the matter of Provocation. I’m glad the defence is gone, partially because it was a throwback to an age where we thought it was okay to solve disputes using violence, and secondly because it was being used successfully to allow the defence of homosexual panic. I am sad that it took a case like Weatherston, where the defence wasn’t even successful, to get it repealed.
On degrees of murder – inflexible, codified sentencing systems are a bad idea. 3 strikes was a step in the wrong direction (I’m glad Mr Garrett isn’t claiming any effect) – I’m much more comfortable with the experts (judges) making determinations on sentencing.
georgebolwing
Vote:I’m pretty sure we do have mandatory life sentences for murder. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
April 2nd, 2011 at 7:17 am
Rex: (if you return to this thread when you awake in WA) there is no doubt that innocent people have been executed in the US. When I wrote my book on capital punishment in 1999, the generally accepted total was about 30, it may well be more now. In fact as you know, as a result of the number of exonerations of people on death row, many states placed moritoriums on capital punishment (CP), and many are now abandoning it altogether.
As I have said before, my view on CP has changed somewhat – but not because of executions of innocent people in the US. The US system – such as you can say there is a “US” system in a federal state with literally thousands of different jurisdictions – was ALWAYS terrible, right from the point of arrest to execution. Chapter 4 of my book is entitled “Why capital punishment fails in the USA”. Space doesnt permit me to go into the reasons why that is so here.
The picture is very different in New Zealand and the UK, upon which our system was closely based. There is no serious claim that anyone was ever wrongly hanged in New Zealand – although the point is well made that if we had had a mandatory death sentence in 1970 Arthur Thomas may well have been the first (executive clemency may have saved him).
In the 20th century, about 800 people were hanged in England. Of those, about four are now known or thought to have been wrongly executed. There is only one which is a certain miscarriage of justice, the case of Timothy Evans who was hanged for the murders of his wife and child, a crime almost certainly committed by his landlord Reginald Christie, who was later hanged himself for other murders.
Many would say “even one is too many”, and that is a perfectly understandable view. But if CP can be an effective deterrent – as I believe was the case both here and in the UK – the dreadful question of whether the occasional mistake is justified for the greater good is an argument at least worth having. Sadly, hundreds of totally innocent people are killed every year, most of them on the roads.
Vote:April 2nd, 2011 at 9:18 am
One aspect that seems to have been over-looked on this thread:
Alcohol is closely associated with violence. Alcohol is also purchased with discretionary income. There is less discretionary income than there once was, and more of that income is being invested or saved at the moment. So it’s no surprise that the reporting of violent crime has gone down.
Vote:April 2nd, 2011 at 10:01 am
David
Vote:I wrote an opinion piece in the local newspaper in response to a feature on your book launch back back then. You actually wrote to me personally – which I appreciated – after someone faxed you a copy in Tonga. My own views on CP have shifted also, but I still stand by most of what I said back then; that it is intolerable that even one innocent is executed in the cold light of day. When the individual turns out to be innocent, there is something qualitatively different about killing someone as a matter of principle (even as they are apprehended and under control) that seems an order of magnitude more perverse than death by misadventure.
April 2nd, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Adze: Back when the book first came out I was frequently asked the question “what if the wrong man was you?”; each interviewer seemed to think I had never considered that possibility! My answer then was the same as now: it would be unbelievably horrific, and I would probably NOT go to my death with dignity.
Frankly, I dont know the answer to that dilemma, so perhaps it is as well for me that I have modified my views on CP for other reasons, and so dont need to address it.
You say your view has changed over time – in what way? I honestly cant remember your piece, but I am glad I did you the courtesy of replying. For myself, I would still willingly put a bullet in the back of Graeme Burton’s head, but as a matter of public policy I am not the advocate I once was…
Vote:April 2nd, 2011 at 5:55 pm
“You say your view has changed over time – in what way?”
No polar shift; just less absolute and more pragmatic. I think in the cases of truly psychopathic individuals where there is no doubt of guilt, it could be considered merciful to kill them. But as a deterrent or punishment I’m not convinced of its efficacy. I think it is better to “turn” criminals where possible; and we can only do that through study of living criminals, while continuing to ensure the safety of society.
Vote:April 3rd, 2011 at 3:13 pm
David Garrett:
Apologies for returning to this somewhat late. Hopefully you’ll pick this up. You say:
I can’t argue with you on that, I haven’t done the research. I’d be surprised if, during the Maori Wars at least, there weren’t executions that could be called into doubt.
However I do know that here in Australia, which also bases it system on that of the UK, there have certainly been wrongful executions.
I’d have thought a leading light of the SST would almost automatically oppose anything which inevitably created a victim in circumstances which were avoidable, as the death penalty does when it executes an innocent. But while my primary motivation in opposing the death penalty is to protect the innocent, I’m also in agreement with your earlier sentiment that LWOP is a more appropriate punishment… a cold blooded murderer should reflect every day on his crimes and, if so inclined, try to make amends in some way.
Vote: