Three strikes may have prevented this

April 17th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Dom Post reports:

Notorious criminal allegedly smashed into a man’s house, punched him on the jaw, then threatened to come after him with a bat.

But charges against him were dropped and Gillies was allowed to remain outside prison.

This all happened on parole. The charges were dropped as no witness would testify.

July 1993 – stabs Gisborne police officer Nigel Hendrikse in the neck, chest and thigh, leaving him fighting for his life. Hendrikse is permanently disabled. Gillies sentenced to 12 years prison.

That would have been strike one.

1995 – has two years and nine months added to his sentence for attacking his girlfriend while she visited him at Paremoremo prison.

And that would have been strike two.

May 2004 – arrested after a 3km police car chase at speeds of up to 170kmh in Hawke’s Bay. He assaulted officers, who found cocaine, methamphetamine and $21,040 cash in the car.

And that would be strike three. Maximum sentence with no parole. Instead:

2005 – sentenced to seven years prison.

February 2010 – parole declined after telling the Parole Board he had no intention of attending the Violence Prevention Unit.

May, 2011 – released on parole, a year early.

June 22, 2011 – breaches parole conditions. Comes back before parole board on August 15. Released again from October 14.

February 10, 2012 – charged with burglary, assault, threatening behaviour and breach of parole conditions. Recalled to prison.

April 5 – released under parole conditions after the charges were dropped when witness did not answer their summons. Convicted on charge of breaching his parole conditions, and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months.

Gillies has over 105 previous convictions. Who thinks he will no longer offend?

Remember it is Labour and Green policy to repeal the law.

Tags: ,

55 Responses to “Three strikes may have prevented this”

  1. RichardEkins (5 comments) says:

    It’s unclear from what’s posted here whether his May 2004 offending involved “qualifying offences”. It would depend on the nature of the assaults (how serious they were). Drug offending doesn’t count. So it’s not clear he would have hit strike three in May 2004 at all. Some (not many) of the “qualifying offences” have a maximum jail term of seven years, so I wouldn’t assume that even if he’d hit “strike three” he’d necessarily have been imprisoned for much longer than he was (seven years of which he served six). Again, it would depend on the nature of the assaults – how serious they were.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. AG (1,832 comments) says:

    Ummm … no.

    “Strike one” offence – fine: Attempted Murder.

    “Strike two” offence – unlikely to qualify, unless it was wounding with intent to injure or the like … which I doubt as that would have got him far more than 2 years 9 months.

    “Strike three” offence – doesn’t qualify, as there was no “serious violent offence” involved.

    The point is, not EVERY bad action counts under 3 strikes. Only those offences listed here do: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0009/latest/DLM3023002.html. So even under the 3 strikes law, Gilles still would be on strike one.

    [DPF: Of course his 61 other crimes may have counted. I thought the third one would due to length of sentence but stand corrected. Have to know details of second one]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    And there is no doubt the bastards WILL repeal it DPF…unless we get to the point – which wont be for a while – that it becomes politically impossible to repeal. That point will not come until we have half a dozen third strikers – like Gillies – in jail…And even then, the leftie mongrels are so ideologically obsessed that they would probably get in and repeal it anyway…but you can bet your arse they wont campaign on it…well, the Greens might, they like being in opposition.

    If they WERE silly enough to campaign on it in 2014 or 2017, the forces of common sense would retaliate with a “Willie Horton” type campaign….and the law would survive for at least another election.

    And note how we are already seeing alternative “explanations” for the crime drop since 2008….exactly as happened in the US when more intensive policing and sentence enhancment laws cause crime rates to plummetacross the country. Because in the leftie liberal world, reductions in crime just cannot be achieved by such policies….they just can’t and that’s that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wreck1080 (3,970 comments) says:

    @ag : Probably you’re right.

    But, 3 strikes will have prevented a future crime then, given the 2012 conviction would have qualified as 3rd strike.

    THis is a nasty nasty nasty person, a friend of the greens given their support of him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    Off topic…but what is it with lefties prefacing their comments with “Ummmm….” even well educated ones? When I still bothered to visit the Standard I saw that all the time…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RichardEkins (5 comments) says:

    But he hasn’t been convicted of the 2012 offending, which doesn’t seem to have been charged as a qualifying offence in any case (burglary and assault aren’t such; aggravated burglary is, which perhaps he could have been charged with).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. AG (1,832 comments) says:

    @David: “That point will not come until we have half a dozen third strikers – like Gillies – in jail … ”

    Interesting that the guy who wrote this law doesn’t know how it actually works in relation to individual defendants. Truly, Parliament has lost a giant.

    @wreck1080: “But, 3 strikes will have prevented a future crime then, given the 2012 conviction would have qualified as 3rd strike.”

    If you read DPF’s post, you’ll see there is no 2012 conviction (most likely because the witnesses were intimidated out of testifying). And even if there were, the charges aren’t qualifying “serious violent” ones … so he’d still be on “strike one”.

    For the record, all I’m doing here is pointing out the law doesn’t actually operate as is being claimed in this instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    Richard E: Welcome to the forum where you wont get banned just for not toeing the party line, or raising difficult questions. ALL shades of opinion are welcome here…

    In your academic fashion you are avoiding the real question, which is in my view: Is Gillies not the kind of person who should be behind bars -preferably for the rest of his natural? Or do you believe someone with his history is still redeemable?

    As you know better than most, the 3S law we have was the “best” – from the right’s point of view – that we could achieve at the time. It was never claimed to be perfect, or a silver bullet that was going to eliminate violent crime. But one great beauty of it is that it’s very easy to add to the list of “strike” offences by amending legislation that only the Greens and Mana would oppose….

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

    On a side note – had cause to hang around the courts for several days several years ago.

    From personal observation an awful lot of accused walked because of more technical reasons such as non attendance of witnesses, time taken to get to trial, unavailability of police officers involved etc.

    Similarly, an awful lot of those found guilty had a lot of prior convictions typically minimum 10.

    A custodial sentence was fairly rare. Mostly, fines and community sentencing even for offences involving some level of violence. As vast majority were on some sort of benefit the fines were a bit of a joke as it normally required repayment at 17c a week for the next 430 years. Admittedly only saw one truly violent case and he received what appeared to be a remarkably short sentence of I think 10 months for what was a fairly nasty crime. He put someone in hospital for a month.

    The punishment for not performing the required community sentencing appeared to be more community sentencing.

    Standard defence appeared to be drugs and/or alcohol.

    That doesn’t lead one to believe NZ is trigger happy locking people up – if anything criminals appear to get 6th, 7th, etc chances.

    I keep coming back to the rights of the wider community vs the rights of repeat offenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. AG (1,832 comments) says:

    “And note how we are already seeing alternative “explanations” for the crime drop since 2008…”

    Here’s a thought … maybe because the decline in serious violent offending began long before 2008, and so what we’re seeing since then is simply the continuation of a trend? See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10565563

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Martin Gibson (247 comments) says:

    I had a candid chat with a former Corrections manager who said most of the hard core crims in jail would be in and out until their mid-40s-50s when they run out of puff.

    They also said something like: “Most of the hard-core inmates don’t see any problem with what they’re doing, and they get the behaviour reinforced by the gangs they’re in.
    “Gangs are the source of most of NZ’s social problems — most of the killed babies are in gang-affiliated houses. We need to stop kids heading into gangs and get them out when they are. We’re dealing with a lost generation in the jails. Everyone thinks they’re easily reformable with a bit of education or God, but they’re not. They love taking drugs, they love violence, they don’t see any problem with their behaviour.”

    The John Gillies of New Zealand appear at a ratio with other kids who drift into crime and gangs, just like killer soldiers do to those who shoot at nothing in war.

    No point in getting angry, but worth pressuring government to keep kids out of gang environments, because the John Gillies make great hedgefund CEOs if they get steered in a different direction.

    Worth also pursuing at a local level, where we went to school with our gang members and know some them as reasonable people (sober and on their own).

    We can talk about what sort of place we want to live in.

    http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/opinion/column/?id=27319

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

    Thanks David G. I’m sure I’ve bored everyone silly with my views on the merits of the legislation, including Kiwiblog readers:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/05/maxim_on_three_strikes.html
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/01/guest_response_on_three_strikes.html

    Like AG, I’m just replying to David F’s post about the application of the three strikes law to this case. Not sure why that means, in true academic fashion (?), I’m avoiding the real question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > the leftie mongrels are so ideologically obsessed

    That’s cute coming from someone who’s seen more strikes than wharfies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Weihana (4,606 comments) says:


    He assaulted officers, who found cocaine, methamphetamine and $21,040 cash in the car.

    Doesn’t seem surprising that a criminal released from prison finds a job in dealing drugs. Even if this man had been given the full sentence without parole in 2004 (assuming it is a strike offense which seems questionable), he will still get out eventually. So really, what does three strikes accomplish?

    To me it seems a bigger problem that released offenders have the worst incentives when they get out. They probably can’t get a job anywhere and whatever jobs they can get will never be as appealing as dealing drugs with the amount of money that is able to be made.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Weihana (4,606 comments) says:

    Martin Gibson,


    “Gangs are the source of most of NZ’s social problems — most of the killed babies are in gang-affiliated houses. We need to stop kids heading into gangs and get them out when they are. We’re dealing with a lost generation in the jails. Everyone thinks they’re easily reformable with a bit of education or God, but they’re not. They love taking drugs, they love violence, they don’t see any problem with their behaviour.”

    And how do these gangs make their money? They sell drugs. And they will continue selling drugs so long as they remain illegal. Oh well… lets go back to burying our head in the sand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    DPF: released on parole, a year early.

    And what is National’s policy on the joke that is the parole board?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    Geddis: Given that you will spit the dummy and take your ball home soon as you did the other day, I will engage with you…If one reads the whole article – as I just did – you quickly realise that there are a whole lot of variables in there…the definition of “murder”; the reporting rate (although I have always discounted that; I dont believe murder was ever unreported, at least not in the 20th century)…changes in policing policy….

    the most signifcant factor which the article doesnt mention is the advances in emergency medical treatment. Put simply, injuries from which death usually resulted in 1970 – or even 1990 – are now frequently survivable due to better emergency medical treatment and speed – such as afforded my helicopter rescue – getting the injured from remote locations to hospital quickly. The so-called “golden hour” and all that…

    One study I recall reading (NO, I cant provide a reference to it right now) estimated that the “medical treatment” factor had reduced homicides by at least 15%. Or is that explanation as fanciful as more readily available abortions being mostly responsible for the precipitate drop in crime in NY ?

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

    @Weihana

    the assumption once again is that helping repeat offenders will stop them performing crime. Many cannot be rehabilitated until as someone said earlier they run out of puff as they got older. I knew quite a few people with pretty extensive criminal records by the age of 20 back home in Liverpool. They laughed them silly at the efforts made to rehabilitate them – a great joke. To them crime was a lifestyle choice and Liverpool being the way it was gave them a level of notoriety.

    For the type of offender who performs the type of crime that would see them locked up under the 3 strikes it’s about protecting the wider community from them rather than as a deterrence. Locking people up is not a deterrence to some people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    One thing that seems to come up again and again is that most criminal acts are committed by a very small percentage of the population, usually known to the police.
    Three strikes sounds great, but what about those with 10, 20, 50 or over a 100 convictions?
    This creep has over 105 previous convictions.
    Isn’t it time that we fit those repeat offenders with electronic tracking bracelets or-and lock them up for a looooooong time?

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

    Was about to make the point, but it has already made by others – three strikes applies to strike offences only. And then only after conviction.

    I would note that under the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s proposed three strikes law, as drafted by David G, even the attempted murder would not count as strike offending.

    DPF, just answer this: how would the three strikes law have prevented the recent offending, if only Gillies first conviction is serious enough to count as a strike?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    @David Garrett – it generally means they are all hot under the collar, and are jumping straight into talking down at someone or telling someone they are wrong, without pausing to think about what they are saying first, and certainly without pausing to think what they are about to say actually makes sense or is valid – like AG above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. AG (1,832 comments) says:

    Garrett,

    Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like “an alternative ‘explanation’ for the crime drop” … exactly what you decried those in the “leftie, liberal world” engaging in in your post at 11:13. So, once again, you show yourself not worth debating. Off to do real work now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. lastmanstanding (1,303 comments) says:

    This is your fault DPF and mine and all the others who have condemned this poor man to his life of torment. What he needs is understanding and forgiveness, he really doesnt mean to do what he does. It is a cry for help. Society is to blame. The Government is to blame. the Government agencies that have failed him are to blame.

    EVERYONE IS TO BLAME.

    However I have the solution. Give him to me and I will solve the problem.

    Oh I will need a 22 and couple of bullets just in case the first one misses

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

    Oh I will need a 22 and couple of bullets just in case the first one misses

    Won’t that increase the murder rate? Especially when you’re going to kill someone who has never murdered anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Martin Gibson (247 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    I agree, the illegality of drugs provides income for gangs.

    It was the aspect of United Future’s policies I found most at odds with my own ideas.

    The war on drugs have allowed medical problems to become criminal problems, but unravelling stupid ideas can be like a game of pick-up-sticks, and I believe there are a few things to take care of before you pull away the drug laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    Shit, that didnt take long!! It took him about 30 comments to go “off to do real work” the other day….

    But just for the record readers…I never ONCE said – in parliament or elsewhere – that 3S was a magic bullet that would largely eliminate violent crime..a chocolate fish – nay – a BOX of chocolate fish – for anyone who can quote me as ever saying that, or anything like it. I do however recall a couple of convos with Graeme E where I said it was never going to be a magic bullet…

    Secondly, I knew from the beginning that a COMBINATION of more intensive NY style policing and 3S was going to get the best result…it was just that 3S was already ACT policy; it was easy for the public to understand; and able to be implemented as discrete ACT policy….Had I still been there, formal policy along the lines of what is happening now with policing in South Auckland would have been next on the agenda…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Weihana (4,606 comments) says:

    slijmbal,


    Many cannot be rehabilitated until as someone said earlier they run out of puff as they got older…

    …To them crime was a lifestyle choice…

    Indeed. But what helps make it such an attractive lifestyle choice? Drug money. Gangs thrive on drugs whether it is Cannabis or Methamphetamine and as long as these drugs remain illegal then these gangs will be able to generate huge profits from trading in them. And unlike other crimes, such as theft, the initial risk of getting caught is very low. If a car is stolen the owner will report it. A drug user doesn’t report their dealer. Furthermore, the gangs will never be able to generate as much revenue from regular crimes as they can from the drug trade.

    There are plenty of assholes in this world but I would suggest that their proximity to organized crime can often be the difference between them being just a regular asshole and a serious criminal. To me, locking up these people is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Until we address the fact that crime has risen as a direct consequence of prohibitionist policies then we will never address the root cause of most gang related crime.

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

    But just for the record readers…I never ONCE said – in parliament or elsewhere – that 3S was a magic bullet that would largely eliminate violent crime..a chocolate fish – nay – a BOX of chocolate fish – for anyone who can quote me as ever saying that, or anything like it. I dont recall a couple of convos with Graeme E where I said it was never going to be a magic bullet…

    Does a “marked reduction” in violent crime as a result of 3S come close enough? I’m pretty sure you made that claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    Weihana: Quite late in my short political career I became a convert to drug courts, having met and later corresponded extensively with Judge Peggy Hora of California, who was one of the prime movers of such courts in her state and later elsewhere. It will be interesting to see the results of the trial presently underway in Auckland. But just as 3S is no magic bullet, neither will drug courts or anything else ever be.

    Oh, and just in case anyone hasn’t put two and two together…I believe Geddis has run away because he doesn’t want his petty point scoring posts here to come up
    on a Google search of “Andrew Geddis”….which I will ensure does in fact occur by using his name whenever I respond to him here…Shit, and this is just a blog! Imagine how Andrew would have fared in the bear pit on the corner of Lambton Quay and Bowen Street !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    Graeme E: The only “hard” prediction I ever made to the best of my knowledge was “a 10% reduction in violent crime when the policy took hold” which I told Sean Plunket on National Radio…I got bollocked by Rodders for making a prediction which could be nailed down and referred to later…Pollies are supposed to avoid saything anything they can later be beaten over the head with..But now I am no longer a pollie I am happy to stick with that…

    But then of course any such reduction will always be attributed to something OTHER THAN 3S or more intensive policing, so it’s a no winner prediction either way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Confession, had never read the qualifiers for 3s until it was posted above. With no intention to cop a hay maker, and accepting that DG has made the point that it was a start from which the qualifiers would hope to have been expanded over the years, it seems very ‘entrapment lite’ around the non sexual violence. For example attempted murder is hardly ever a charge that is proved or pleaded guilty to, same with procuring, or conspiring to commit murder, the firearm charges give the impression of filling up the gaps, and as others have pointed out Gillies life of crime to this point wouldn’t have made him eligible for 3s anyway. As to the sexual offending which the act seems more geared up towards won’t any of the potentials there be sentenced to PD before they got anywhere near a 3rd strike. I thought that was the controversy with Wilson.

    I’m sure David knows, but I’m wondering at the frequency of the sexual offences that happen which would incur 2nd or 3rd strikes but which under current law would escape PD. If David bothers to answer he might or might not confirm that 3s has a firmer direction against sexual violence, something that could be lost on the general public.

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

    David Garrett says “But then of course any such reduction will always be attributed to something OTHER THAN 3S or more intensive policing…”

    I assume he means something like: “you quickly realise that there are a whole lot of variables in there…the definition of “murder”; the reporting rate (although I have always discounted that; I dont believe murder was ever unreported, at least not in the 20th century)…changes in policing policy…the most signifcant factor which the article doesnt mention is the advances in emergency medical treatment.” The sorts of things he himself referred to when seeking to deny that any fall in violent offending since 2008 is simply part of a long term trend?

    Is that the sort of weasel thinking you are so against, David?

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

    But then of course any such reduction will always be attributed to something OTHER THAN 3S or more intensive policing, so it’s a no winner prediction either way.

    You should be able to tie it down with a good statistician.

    Don’t look at the overall crime rate, or the crime rate of violent offences, but at the crime rate of those who meet definitions of strike offending.

    Take 10 years of crime statistics before and after 3S, and assess the number of strike offences committed by those with (or who would have had) first or final warnings. If the incarceration = incapacitation argument works, the number of offences committed by those with previous serious convictions will decrease.

    It will be difficult to statistically establish a [Edit: general] deterrent effect, but establishing the effect of the “imprisoned people can’t commit crimes” factor should be within reach.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RRM (10,026 comments) says:

    DPF:
    Remember it is Labour and Green policy to repeal the three strikes law.

    Really?

    Labour Party justice policy is in HERE:
    http://www.labour.org.nz/sites/labour.org.nz/files/2011%20Labour%20Party%20Manifesto.pdf

    Justice policy starts on page 327. Perhaps you can point out the bit about repealing 3 strikes? I can’t seem to find it…. But it is a somewhat lengthy volume, maybe I just need to keep looking…?

    Meanwhile, Green Party justice policy is HERE:
    http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/justice

    Perhaps you could point to the bit about repealing three strikes? I’m having trouble finding anything like that in here either…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    Never mind 3 strikes.
    Attempting to murder a policeman should have been a life sentence, a real one ,not a lefty liberal one. He’d never be on the streets again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    Nostalgia: Happy to answer. The original 3S law which I drafted for ACT contained a somewhat arbitrary list of 25 or so “strike” offences (Graeme E: I thought I had told you before that any draft which appeared without Attempted Murder was an error on the part of whoever copied the draft onto some website – or maybe my own drafting error, I can’t remember. Certainly Attempted Murder was always intended to be a “strike” offence).

    When the ACT 3S Bill became part of National’s Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill – which was a masterstroke on Rodney Hide’s part – the list was “rationalised” by the Nats to “all violent offences which carry a sentence of seven years or more in prison. I had no complaints about that – especially since it almost doubled the list of “strike” offences. But that was the criterion: violent offences which carry at least seven years imprisonment as a penalty.

    It was only much later I realised that Power had no intention of the law ever passing; I always loved the irony that his inept game playing led to a law with much greater scope than our original! Of course when the PM overruled him and said they would support 3S as then drafted – without any qualifying sentence – Power could hardly say “But I never intended to have a list twice as long as Garrett’s” !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    RRM: Both the Greens and Labour said at the time – and have continued to say – that they would repeal it as soon as they got the chance. I am not at all surprised it doesnt appear in any formal written policy for the simple reason that they know the law has massive public support – and is working just as intended, i.e targeting only repeat violent offenders, and not chocolate bar thieves as they dishonestly claimed.

    But have no doubt: the first thing – probably literally – a Labour-Green government would do is repeal it, and hope that by the time of the election three years later the furore had died down.

    If you doubt me, I suggest you write to both parties’ justice spokespersons and ask the simple question ” Will you repeal the so-called ‘three-strikes” law when you are next part of a government?” Dollars to dougnuts you won’t get a straight answer. Go ahead, try it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RRM (10,026 comments) says:

    Oh sorry I get it – it’s not anywhere in their policy, but we “just know” they would do it.

    Righto…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    @RRM: “Perhaps you could point to the bit about repealing three strikes? I’m having trouble finding anything like that in here either…” OK, here goes:

    Labour said they would repeal it is here:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5901327/Street-set-on-three-strikes-law-repeal
    and here:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10758665

    Plenty more instances if you took the time to look for them yourself. But the two instances above should help clear it up for you….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    RRM: Well, there are two statements from senior Labour figures for you…I know that Clayton “the Carpet Inspector” Cosgrove is not a major force in the Labour caucus, but Street is…

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

    Power could hardly say “But I never intended to have a list twice as long as Garrett’s” !!

    No. And I don’t think he would have. Even though the list is longer – speaking as an opponent of 3S – it’s a much better list. I’d quibble about the necessity in all situations of a couple: ag. burglary, and indecent assault, but it’s a pretty good list of serious crimes to attach strike consequences if you were going to have them.

    The SST/ACT list, even including attempted murder, missed too many serious offences (aggravated robbery, attempted rape, sexual connection with children), and had too many non-serious ones (smacking, for example).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. AG (1,832 comments) says:

    @Garrett:

    “Oh, and just in case anyone hasn’t put two and two together…I believe Geddis has run away because he doesn’t want his petty point scoring posts here to come up on a Google search of “Andrew Geddis”….which I will ensure does in fact occur by using his name whenever I respond to him here”

    Oh, do fuck off Garrett. Some of us still have jobs that pay money and require work, which means we can’t sit on a blog thread ALL day swapping shit. As it is, I waste too much time here already. And, Andrew Geddis, Andrew Geddis, Andrew Geddis … there, that ought to help up this comment on google searches … it’s one I am proud to make.

    “Shit, and this is just a blog! Imagine how Andrew would have fared in the bear pit on the corner of Lambton Quay and Bowen Street !!”

    Probably not that well. But, on the plus side, I have never stolen the identity of a dead baby in order to see if I can get a false passport, then when caught lied to the court about my previous convictions in order to gain a discharge without conviction and suppression of my name (because publicity may exacerbate my “anxiety depressive condition”), thus causing my practicing certificate to be suspended for a year. So I do have that advantage over you when it comes to being a suitable MP … .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    Graeme: God know’s what draft you saw, but aggravated robbery was always on any draft I prepared….And in case I was unclear, I am quite happy with the list as passed, but in my view P manufacture should have been included on it for the reasons I have outlined here and elsewhere in the past.

    RRM: Gone off somewhere?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..And note how we are already seeing alternative “explanations” for the crime drop since 2008..”

    that’d be that sharp drop in reported crime reported in countries with both repressive and liberal penal policies..?

    ..that drop that is the ultimate proof of the bullshit you try to peddle…?..that what explains that crime drop also here..?

    ..understandable you don’t factor that into yr canard..eh..?

    ..you really are full of it..eh..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    Andrew Geddis: Ah! there you are…back with another one which sticks to the issues and avoids personal attacks…Interesting to compare this and earlier posts today with the ones made with your “reasonable and totally reasoned” hat on the other day…you know…the day you spat that dummy and stormed off home…

    By the way, what happened to that debate you and I were supposed to do? Did you tell Clark you wouldn’t be on a podium with me? That’s what your fellow academic Pratt said…and that was well BEFORE my downfall! Surely you could make a complete fool of someone as ignorant as me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Weihana (4,606 comments) says:

    David Garrett (1,343) Says:
    April 17th, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Weihana: Quite late in my short political career I became a convert to drug courts, having met and later corresponded extensively with Judge Peggy Hora of California, who was one of the prime movers of such courts in her state and later elsewhere. It will be interesting to see the results of the trial presently underway in Auckland. But just as 3S is no magic bullet, neither will drug courts or anything else ever be.

    Drug abuse is a comparatively small problem when compared to criminal gangs that thrive on the illegality of those drugs. While I agree there is no magic bullet to eliminate drug abuse, that is no reason to ignore the harmful consequences of the drug war and the fact that legalization would do more than anything to reduce the harm caused by organized crime. In that respect drug law reform IS a sort of magic bullet to reverse a problem that was mostly created by legislation in the first place.

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

    Graeme: God know’s what draft you saw, but aggravated robbery was always on any draft I prepared.

    I refer to both the draft that used to be on the SST website (http://www.safenz.org.nz/threestrikes.htm) and claiming your authorship, and the version emailed to me by your executive assistant at Parliament, after I emailed you asking you for the most up-to-date copy.

    The version you emailed me (and not including robbery or aggravated robbery etc.) is uploaded on my post here: http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/three-strikes-w-updates/ (it looks like an MP3, but it downloads like a word document).

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

    David Garrett says: “Graeme: God know’s what draft you saw, but aggravated robbery was always on any draft I prepared.”

    Not drinking and drafting legislation, were you David?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RRM (10,026 comments) says:

    RRM: Gone off somewhere?

    Gone off to do some work. It’s not all lunch breaks around here unfortunately.

    So if things Maryan Street said in the heat of battle before an election defeat are deemed Labour Party “policy” then – by a similar standard – presumably it is still National Party policy that ‘no nukes’ is Gone by Lunchtime…? :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “presumably it is still National Party policy that ‘no nukes’ is Gone by Lunchtime…?”

    Sadly, no. That would take a level of courage and commonsense that seems to be missing in the Nats.

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

    @Weihana @ 12:09

    I think you missed my point. Crime has always been around and drugs is recent modifier to behaviour but cannot be seen as a the prime cause. You fell right back in to the it’s something to do with their environment problem with respect to criminals. Drugs are so easy, lifestyle etc.

    I am referring to significant repeat offenders here.

    I agree in that criminals occur more frequently when kids grow up around the wrong people. I saw it when I grew up. It was almost always the family. Plenty of other kids with financially poor parents turned out upstanding citizens as they had good family.

    But ignoring cause for the moment – once they’re made that way many aren’t generally fixable. If it wasn’t drugs it would be something else. That’s the point – protect the rest of us from them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Dexter (308 comments) says:

    “Attempting to murder a policeman should have been a life sentence”

    Attempting to murder anyone should be. I’ve never understood why we reward failure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. thedavincimode (6,877 comments) says:

    AG (1,317) Says:

    April 17th, 2012 at 11:56 am

    “…Off to do real work now.”

    AG (1,317) Says:

    April 17th, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    ….

    No doubt staying behind tonight to make up for the time spent blogging …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,606 comments) says:

    slijmbal,


    Crime has always been around and drugs is recent modifier to behaviour but cannot be seen as a the prime cause.

    Crime has always been around I agree, but not at the levels it has risen to in the latter half of the 20th century. Despite a general decrease in crime since the 90s, it is still high compared to the first half of the 20th century. I agree drugs aren’t the cause because drug use and abuse was around long before it became popular to criminalize the activity.

    Consider the first half of the 20th century where…

    “…many of the drugs regulated under the Dangerous Drugs Act had medical uses and, despite the restrictions, were readily available on prescription. Health records from this period suggest that various drugs covered by the Act were liberally prescribed, particularly once prescriptions were publicly funded after 1941. Heroin was, for example, readily available on prescription in an oral dose form and was used widely in linctuses until the mid-1950s in New Zealand. Regulations made under the Dangerous Drugs Act during the 1940s permitted doctors to prescribe up to 16 oral doses of heroin in one prescription. By the end of the 1940s New Zealand was one of the highest users of heroin per capita in the world.”

    http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/review-misuse-drugs-act-1975?quicktabs_23=media_and_speeches#node-2080
    (Chapter 4)

    But somehow we didn’t have the high crime rates despite widespread drug use. But since the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Nixon’s “War on Drugs” a new approach was tried. No longer did drug users get their fix from their doctor but now they had to get it from more nefarious sources. Not surprisingly money which was funneled into the criminal black market spurred further crime and we can see a general trend around the world of crime rising in response to the “War on drugs”. The United States has the highest rate of imprisonment in the western world and we are only second to them in locking people up.

    Yet despite the war on drugs achieving the exact opposite of what it intended it is still held as the accepted wisdom. Its advocates are simply impervious to its obvious failure and its harmful effects.


    You fell right back in to the it’s something to do with their environment problem with respect to criminals. Drugs are so easy, lifestyle etc.

    Absolutely. The money to be made in the drug trade is a huge incentive for people to involve themselves in gangs. Once a person is involved their life will take a very different course than it otherwise would have. Whatever negative personality traits they have will be encouraged and nurtured.


    But ignoring cause for the moment – once they’re made that way many aren’t generally fixable. If it wasn’t drugs it would be something else. That’s the point – protect the rest of us from them.

    I agree. But far too much focus is placed on tough sentencing reform which will have relatively minimal impact on public safety, whereas absolutely no notice is given to the failure of drug prohibition which has helped create this problem in the first place.

    If you legalize the drugs, the gangs are much less powerful, they are therefore much less able to attract members, and consequently many young males are much more likely to have a future that is not dominated by their involvement in gangs.

    So yes, if someone stabs a cop, almost kills them and disables them for life, they should be locked up for much longer than 12 years. But lets not pretend that this is going to address the fundamental problem because it won’t. The United States is only too eager to lock more and more people up and it does little to reduce crime because it doesn’t address the twisted incentives created by the drug war.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,571 comments) says:

    Do you have tenure Andrew Geddis? You seem to be backing quite a few dodgy horses lately. Be it the Wild Greens vandalism or in this case the so called rights of a very nasty criminal who seems hellbent on never being rehabilitated.
    You wouldn’t be so cavalier if you were a victim of his 105 other convictions against others. Is this cushy university lifestyle pushing you so far up the ivory tower that you’ve lost touch with reality?

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