19 years non parole

February 14th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The NZ Herald reports:

has been sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 19 years for the murder of baby JJ in Auckland.

The child was subjected to months of torture that included being forced to smoke cannabis, and died after being struck so hard in the stomach that his liver and pancreas split in half.

To me this seems a suitable case for life with no parole. 19 years non-parole is one of the longer non-parole minimums handed out. But it just still seems inadequate.

Tags:

76 Responses to “19 years non parole”

  1. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    Torture and kill a baby = death penalty or preventative detention until death, whichever is cheaper for the State.

    This person offers society nothing.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    DPF, I believe if you go back through your comments index, you will see that I predicted 20 years or less for this prick…As a person who helped pass the law that made LWOP available to a sentencing Judge, I cannot think of a better case than this one for that sentence….I hope the Crown appeals, but my bet is they won’t…..

    And those within it wonder why the hoi polloi hold the entire justice system in contempt….

    I had better stop here before I imperil my practising certificate….

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    David Garrett – Why didn’t you spend your time as a MP reintroducing the death penalty in cases like this?

    Seems that it would have been more productive than that three strikes BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    Hamnida: the simple answer is it would never (and will never) be re-introduced, and to try and do so would be tilting at windmills…we have become far too soft as a society to see death as the rightful and just punishment for anything…If the Nuremberg trials were held here now, no-one would hang! Not even the worst of them….

    The more complex answer is that my time in Tonga – where the death penalty is still on the books, and was last used in 1982 – convinced me that even if we did manage to reintroduce it here it would never in fact be carried out, and probably rarely if ever even imposed.

    In Tonga that is because of the all pervasive influence of the Churches. Here, it would be a combination of the soft society we have become, and the influence of leftist “thinkers” who now pervade our government, our universities (including of course the Law Schools)….and the legal profession.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    David Garrett – I think you would find wide-spread support to hang someone who tortures and beats a baby to death.

    I don’t mean the debatable cases like Bain, Watson and Lundy. I mean the real nasty fckers who pick on the weak and young, and there is no doubt whatsoever about their guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nookin (3,139 comments) says:

    “and there is no doubt whatsoever about their guilt.”

    Who gets to make that call?

    Why would someone like Loffley be more deserving of the death penalty than, say, someone who shot 3 defenseless women as they slept and overpowered and shot a 14 year old boy (leaving Robin out of the equation for the time being and assuming that the murderer survived and was convicted)? Or someone who beat a defenseless woman and young child to death with an axe — or was it a hammer?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. wreck1080 (3,783 comments) says:

    Anyone society that only hands out a 19 year sentence for such crimes must quite like kiddy killers.

    Why can’t the judge just say 8000 years in prison like they do in the US?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    Nookin – A jury could recommend the death penalty. A prosecutor could ask for it. A judge could grant it.

    Surely all three would agree in this case.

    Don’t forget a jury found Bain not guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. KiwiGreg (3,211 comments) says:

    You don’t reduce violence in society by having society impose it.

    I was a long term believer in the death penalty and a late convert to (somewhat lukewarmly in this case….) opposing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (9,596 comments) says:

    At least it’s not nothing. That POS will be spending all of his 20s and all of his 30s in jail. If he gets out he’ll be old and broken.
    With a bit of luck somebody will rape and murder him while he’s inside.

    DG – No state killing in my name please. Call me soft if you like.

    Tempting though it is when you see tales of orcs like this one, there are enough contentious (and contested) murder convictions to make me think our justice system is not accurate enough to entrust with the power of life & death over NZ citizens.

    [But if we must execute people, I would like to see a small rocket launch pad built behind the sand dunes on Papamoa beach. Build little missiles with solid fuel Q motors to launch villains on a short ballistic flight path, so that they splash down 50km out in the ocean at 1200km/h. Should be a pretty quick and painless exit for them.
    And the "expulsion from paradise" theatre of the march along the beach to the rocket would have a certain grim beauty to it. This is one of the best countries on earth, it's a privilege to live here, and our laws are pretty fair. You have to be the very worst kind of dirt bag to get expelled... ]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Dave Stringer (185 comments) says:

    Detention “at Her Majesty’s pleasure, would have been an appropriate solution give we don’t have a death penalty. It goes far beyond the concept of a ‘non-parole’ period and makes it a decision for the monarch, and they alone to make. As far as I know, no one sentenced to it in the latter half of the 20th century or so far in the 21st has been released!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. 2boyz (253 comments) says:

    Sorry seems like a suitable case for a bullet!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dime (9,606 comments) says:

    he should have got 50 years. send a message.

    let him out in his 70s. i think the thought of being let out after 50 years would mess with your head more than an actual life sentence. break him completely.

    i hope he gets raped.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    Several of you seem to miss the fact that this guy COULD have received a sentence of Life Without Parole (LWOP)…that was within the Judge’s power following the law changes passed as part of the three strikes bill in 2010. A law allowing LWOP is the best we on the right are ever going to get….but it is meaningless if a Judge wont impose it. If this guy didn’t receive LWOP what will it take to qualify? How bad does a killing have to be for the Crown to appeal and seek LWOP?

    That is all I dare say on the matter. Others not beholden for their livelihoods to cabals of the righteous ones may not feel so constrained….

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Parlyguy (22 comments) says:

    The death penalty is a non-issue. As David Garrett said, it will never be reintroduced so its foolish to pontificate or speculate on what ifs. However, the non-reintroduction has nothing to do with the “left-ish” everything that Mr Garrett implies. You can’t kill people, because eventually you will kill an innocent person and therefore undo any of the dubious good that you achieved by killing the guilty.

    However, I agree that our judges should be making more use of life sentences without parole (accepting that this will inevitably result in more problems inside our prisons).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. DJP6-25 (1,295 comments) says:

    David Garrett 3:07 Thanks for helping passing that.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    LWOP is not a strong enough sentence. I think you are forgetting that the crime involved torturing and murdering a baby.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Our judges are soft and out of touch. They are a complete and utter disgrace , they make me sick.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    Hammy: It’s not often I agree publicly with an obvious leftie, but Parly guy is quite right…CP is a right wing fantasy…it’s NEVER going to happen…so forget about it, and consider what we can do in a situation where parliament has made LWOP available for the worst cases of murder, and where we as a society are handed instead a sentence that will see this piece of human excrement released eventually…And he will still be dangerous in 20 years; he will probably still be dangerous in 40…

    Do you REALLY think I am not aware that the crime is torturing and killing a young baby? But if I have somehow not made myself clear, I would willingly execute this mongrel myself if it was legal to do so…but it’s never going to be….

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nookin (3,139 comments) says:

    HV2

    I am very aware that Bain was found not guilty. So was Thomas and both could have been executed under a capital punishment regime. I am uncomfortable about having degrees of guilt ( how are you going to explain to a jury the difference between reasonable doubt and near certainty) or death penalty based on the sense of outrage engendered by a crime. When you start mixing it all up you end up with an unworkable and inexplicable cocktail.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dime (9,606 comments) says:

    dg – if the judge had handed down life without parole, do you think it would have been over turned on an appeal? as in, it would deemed to be too harsh of a sentence? by some liberal pussy…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    Nookin: Well said. I considered a new standard “beyond all doubt” or somesuch, when I wrote my book years ago. It would be an absolute shambles. Having the jury decide the sentence – as in some US States – would be a much better option, but for the reasons I and others have already stated, it’s never going to happen, so the debates on different standards of proof and jury vs. judge sentencing are all academic…

    Again, the REAL point is that the law now allows an appropriate penalty for this prick, and he hasn’t got anywhere near it. Bell remains the high point (I think) at 30 years for three murders…not to lessen his crime for a moment, but those three were all adults…this is a defenceless baby, placed in this piece of shit’s care….by what logic should his sentence be 1/3 less than Bell’s? Because he only stomped one baby to death and not three?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Big Tim (20 comments) says:

    David Garrett, thanks for your input

    Do you know WHY the judges never impose life without parole?
    Is it due to their political views?
    Are they scared of getting overturned by the appeal court?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (9,596 comments) says:

    Also, isn’t there a book of sentencing rules, and an issue with precedents from past sentences for similar convictions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. peterwn (3,192 comments) says:

    At the risk of being called a ‘soft c***’ I do not agree with the ‘throw away the key’ brigade.

    He was sentenced to ‘life’. This sentence hangs around your neck for life – you are on parole for life – release conditions can be imposed or varied at any time – you can be recalled to jail if you breach parole or are suspected of committing another crime.

    Big Tim – High Court judges must comply with Appeal or Supreme Court precedents when sentencing – the only latitude they have is to sentence a bit above the norm so the Appeal Court does not consider the sentence ‘manifestly excessive’. S104 of the Sentencing Act applied – 17 years minimum – high brutality – vulnerable person. I am unaware of any case where a minimum over the mid 20′s years has been applied. IMO 19 years seems light, 22 or so would have been better. However this is not critically important in my view.

    In reality he will be in prison for somewhat longer than 19 years – it could be life if he is considered at risk of further offending. I think in any civilised society it is only right and proper to periodically review the circumstances of those who have been jail a long time. Having said that IMO the Parole Board at a hearing should be able to specify up to 10 years before the next hearing – the present ’3 years’ is an improvement on annual hearings.

    As for death penalty – forget it – civilized countries have done away with it and are very unlikely to re-introduce it. In any case, the all-up costs of imposing the death penalty inckuding yo-yo appeals is likely to exceed custody costs for life. Similarly few if any civilized countries impose ‘life means life’ for ‘ordinary’ murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    Big Tim: Firstly, LWOP has only just become available (June 2010) and this is probably the first case which most commentators would agree would qualify for it.

    As for minimum non parole periods, the reason is exactly as you suggest. Judges hate being overturned on appeal, so are always conservative (in the sense of not daring) in their sentencing. And then of course there is the Sentencing Act 2002, passed by the dear Leader’s government, which instructs Judges to give the least onerous sentence that is possible, having regard to various other factors.

    But some Judge has got to lead the charge. The late Justice Giles, once he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, gave sentences that he thought appropriate, knowing – but not caring a damn – that they would be reduced on appeal. We need another Justice Giles

    Peterwn: If you dont know about the Bell case – 33 years reduced on appeal – perhaps you should not be waxing eloquent on this thread

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    No sentencing for the silly bitch who allowed her baby to be killed. That’s the real crime. And stupid shits like Herald reporter Edward Gay pander to the syndrome of victim hood:

    “Around the same time she penned sadly prophetic words on a piece of paper outlining the impact Loffley’s physical abuse had on her and JJ.

    “I am scared for my son … afraid for my son’s welfare … scared he’s going to be hurt and taken away,” she wrote as part of an exercise set for an anger management course Loffley had to attend after beating her.”

    Why do we accept this rubbish from the front line defence of infants. otherwise known as Moms?
    Lawrence wasn’t scared of Loffley so much as wanting to continue to suck off the tit of the state for her addictions.
    Lawrence should have been done for willful neglect. If you can’t get the fuck out of a house of a known abuser then you are not so much a mother as an incubator.
    I hold Lawrence more responsible than Loffley. That bastard will rot in the prison industry and no-one will be better or worse off for it. Lawrence’s ovaries stand to do a lot more damage than Loffley.
    No cunt gets between me and my kids.
    Silly little cunts like Lawrence give motherhood a bad name.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. tvb (4,229 comments) says:

    Within our system of justice this is a pretty substantial response. Too often children are not taken seriously but not so here. He still has to get parole but wait 19 years before he can apply.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    I’m actually happy very with 19 years non-parole. Of course, that’s because it’s much more than these guys usually get. (It’s like your wife being happy with a Valentine’s text message at lunchtime, because she’s use to getting nothing!)

    It’s slightly surprising he wasn’t let off with manslaughter “because I didn’t know a kick to the stomach would kill him”. After all, that’s what happened with Kefu Ikamanu who threw his daughter against the wall before stomping on her and killing her.

    I still don’t understand the reasoning behind having such small sentences, not just in the JJ case but for everything. I meet a reasonable range of people, and every I’ve mentioned this to seems to feel that criminals get away too easy in this country. You even see it here with hamnida and other lefties wanting more punishment. The only people I have met who disagree are a few spoilt law students.

    Does it take a certain type of lawyer to become a judge? Do they have to be unsuccessful in private practice? Do they have to be a known softy to make the grade? What makes them get so out of touch?

    And why are they so worried about another judge changing the decision on appeal? Can’t they see that playing that game ends up meaning that sentences will decrease and decrease? This judge (Kevin Phillips) said he wanted to sentence someone to jail for indecent assault of a child – but he didn’t because it would be appealed! He should worry more about what the public think than his disgusting colleagues.

    And then there’s our politicians. Not just the lefties. What has National done (of its on volition) to discourage crime?

    I hope that one day our judges are held accountable to the people they are supposed to be providing justice for.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    tvb: No-one is arguing it’s not a “pretty substantial response”…the question is what does it take to get a sentence of LWOP? None of the usual mitigating factors apply: no guilty plea – let alone an early one; continuing to claim innocence, therefore by definition no remorse; lying throughout the trial; a previous history of violence, both against this child and others…

    The whole point of this thread – and DPF’s post – is while it may be “substantial” it is nowhere near substantial enough…To put it bluntly, as a society we have valued the life of a two year old little boy at deprivation of liberty for 19 years….Would you think that was enough for your two year old?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rightandleft (650 comments) says:

    Coming from the US I can’t understand why the death penalty is so impossible to bring back in NZ. I’m sure I’ve seen polling that shows the majority of even moderate NZ voters support it. Of course there is the issue of making a mistake, but in cases like this, where the person is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, the death penalty should be an option. The whole argument used in the US, that imposing the death penalty is too expensive, is only the case because the US justice system allows a ludicrous number of appeals. Get rid of the unending appeals and the cost goes way down. As for saying no civilised country uses the death penalty, that’s a difficult statement to back up. The US is a pretty civilised country and it has it. It isn’t just Saudi Arabia using it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. nasska (10,821 comments) says:

    ‘tristanb’ brings up a very good point. Can any of our legal experts let us in on the way judges are shoulder tapped for the job?

    (Probably better for David G’s career if he sits this one out).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. UrbanNeocolonialist (195 comments) says:

    So all punishment/making of examples for others and no rehabilitation then? Violent crime committed by a young man with poor impulse control who likely regrets or will come to regret what he has done greatly with age, and could very well turn into a decent person in the next 10 years (almost all violent crime is committed by men <40).

    If you want to lock him up for life or 20 years + then at (currently) $90,000/year you are talking $2 million – which in effect costs at least 1 life due to the lower budgets for medicine, better roads etc ($2 million/life is about the level used to justify road improvements and public drug/surgery budgets). Then there is the extra half million or so that you will be forking over for the state to support him for the rest of his life, because after 20 years + inside he will probably never be employable, not to mention high likelihood of ongoing re-offending that will cost a lot more.

    So given that cost how many lives do you think we should sacrifice to support a tough-on-crime long-sentences and fuck-rehabilitation stance?

    At 20 years incarceration it would be cheaper to just kill him now because he will be absorbing the tax of 6 workers and probably never contributing anything to society again. Alternatively if squeamish send him to a 3rd world jail for <$1000 per year (plus a bond of some sort to make it in their interest to keep them alive).

    Interestingly NZ spends about $250 per person per year on jails, about the same as the US – even though they have 3x as many prisoners. Our jails appear to cost 3x as much to run per prisoner as the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Big Tim (20 comments) says:

    Surely if there is new legislation in place specifying that life without parole is an option for the worst murderers; that should mean a change in sentencing. Therefore appeals that a sentence is “above the norm” must be irrelevant because previous sentences were under different legislation? (Not meant to be a smartarse question, just genuinely concerned and confused at how our justice system works).
    Loffley going to jail could only serve 3 purposes in my mind – punishment, rehabilitation and the safety of the public.
    Young children will be safe for at least 19 years but then will be in danger again from Loffley.
    As many people have commented 19 years does not seem to be enough punishment for an innocent life.
    The act of torturing a young child until they die is so alien to my way of thinking that I cannot conceive of any real rehabilitation. (I am happy to be proved wrong if anyone has objective evidence).
    As such I just cannot understand this sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    So all punishment/making of examples for others and no rehabilitation then?

    Rehabilitation is a bonus, and it’s in our interest to do it to criminals who are going to be released anyway.

    But remember, the reason we lock them up is for punishment. Rehab should not in any way become an expected right for the prisoner. It is their job to make a change to their life, not some the job of some psychologist.

    A large proportion of criminals are not “young guys making their first mistake”. They are narcissists and psychopaths, who quite frankly don’t give a fuck about anyone except themselves. And they never ever will. They’ll be like that until the day they die, and no amount of rehabilitation can fix that.

    Some people are just bad.

    In terms of cost – it’s sad you value justice for the life of a child at less than $2 million dollars. But aside from that, this person would never become a productive member of society, in jail or out. And the social and financial cost of him out of prison is higher – he’d chew up $2 million dollars in missed court appearances alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Rightandleft (650 comments) says:

    In cases like this I have no interest whatsoever in rehabilitating the offender. He took a child’s life. The only fair punishment is to take his.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    19 x $100,000 = $1,900,000.

    9mm in ear = 5c.

    How many bright, intelligent, under privileged children could this country support into a good outcome if we stopped this nonsense about wasting money on pieces of shit?

    I rest my case your honour. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    So who is thumbs down on supporting children into education then?

    Defence lawyer perhaps? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Shit. Two defence lawyers! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    rightandleft: You make some very good points, particularly about the supposed huge costs of the death penalty vs. LWOP. As you say, that is entirely because of the ridiculous and endless possibility of appeals under the US system. Compare with the UK when they had CP: a person was convicted of murder, and sentenced to the mandatory sentence (which I disagree with) of death by hanging. There was an automatic appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which made its decision quite quickly. If the verdict was upheld, there was almost always an appeal for clemency to the Home Secretary – in reality to the cabinet of the day. It was at this point that many sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. If that appeal for clemency failed, that was it; the sentence was carried out after not less than three weeks.

    Your point about “civilized” countries is a very interesting one. You will often hear lefties arguing that the US is the only first world/democratic/civilized country which still uses CP. What they really mean – but will never say – is the US is the only such WHITE country which uses it. They will never mention Japan, India, Malaysia, Singapore, and most of the small Carribean states, all of whom retain CP, and most of whom use it regularly. They won’t talk about those countries because then they stray into very delicate territory!

    All of that said, and with respect to your origins, the US system is a very poor argument for the efficacy and justice of CP. There are numerous cases – and more all the time now that DNA has become such a useful tool – of people on death row being shown definitively to be innocent, often many years after conviction. For that reason, it’s a bloody good thing the US CP system is so slow and inefficient!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Well seeing that DNA is so efficient now David and seeing we haven’t topped any shit for years lets get CP re-introduced before the bastards cost us too much more! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Rightandleft (650 comments) says:

    DG, I agree that the US has a terrible system for carrying out capital punishment. For one thing the punishment is applied to only a small percentage of murderers and usually to men, especially black men. Then the problem of the appeals means the sentence can take decades to carry out. These two elements eliminate any deterrant effect from the penalty and remove the fairness of it. Singapore has a much more efficient system, though I do also like the old British system you described. Japan does have the death penalty but very, very rarely uses it.

    Personally I like the idea of having a ‘beyond any doubt’ standard for the imposition of the death penalty, but in cases of what we’d call first-degree murder in the US making it automatic whenever guilt is established to that degree. That would eliminate the unfairness of juries being more lenient on women or white murderers than others. That’s why I do like the mandatory sentence idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. alex Masterley (1,494 comments) says:

    Listening to Larry W on the way home, the reporter at the sentencing said the crown solicitors were advocating a non parole period of 17 years for Mr Loffley, and the defence suggested that as a maximum.

    And the judge gave him 19!

    So in a manner of speaking he is nudging the bar up, in such a way as to avoid being rolled on what i suspect will be an inevitable appeal by Mr Loffley.

    What needs to be remembered is that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have in a series of cases whose names i can’t remember set sentencing guidelines that establish sentencing bands for viiolent offending. The judge has to fix a sentence in accordance with those guidlines and bands.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Nostalgia-NZ (4,986 comments) says:

    ‘All of that said, and with respect to your origins, the US system is a very poor argument for the efficacy and justice of CP. There are numerous cases – and more all the time now that DNA has become such a useful tool – of people on death row being shown definitively to be innocent, often many years after conviction. For that reason, it’s a bloody good thing the US CP system is so slow and inefficient!’

    True enough DG, and I’m sure you also notice that the magic tool dna remains experimental as proof of guilt in NZ as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Personally I go with having a category of crime identified as capital such as murder armed robbery or violent rape. With a suspended death sentience on the second conviction mandatory and that suspended sentence carried out expediently on the third conviction of such crime with no right of appeal or discretion of the judiciary involved .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Bit tough on the two extra victims Griff. I’ll go with a 9mm in the ear on the first offence! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Have all you liberal fellows been keeping up with Paul Joseph Dally and his parole crap? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. CharlieBrown (916 comments) says:

    Why don’t they make all murder convictions a life sentence, with parole being the discretionary factor? That way scum will stay in prison for life, but those few people that can be rehabilitated can be released back into society, albeit supervised.

    And hold that mother responsible. She lived with a guy that she new to beat her child. She has absolutely no parental instinct and should ahve her ovaries removed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    You are happy then I take it CharlieBrown to pay extra tax to support a piece of shit at $100,000 a year (and rising) for the rest of his/her useless life while we have trouble paying for children to get a better education and eat well.

    Personally I would be happy for crims to repay their debt to society via donation of body parts either before or after execution.

    The lack of employment opportunity for defence lawyers would of course be very sad.

    I could get over that! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Ya gotta make it palatable to the crim lovers JB who knows maybe one of the douchbags is innocent once.
    Not twice and certainly not three times.
    Bullets cost. I much prefer the polpot method plastic bags are reusable.
    And you could make money by allowing betting how long before they kark it .

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Not if Sonny Bill was the executioner Griff. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    Alex M: Well if that’s accurate….words almost fail me. Who was the Crown prosecutor? Asking only for the mandatory minimum for aggravated murder, for THAT? Good thing I have given up the drink….

    But given sentencing bands and all that Alex, someone earlier made a good point: now that the maximum for aggravated murder is LWOP, at some point some case must break all earlier precedents? Parliament has done all it can….legislation can’t prescribe a sentence of LWOP for any particular case….that is why we have Judges….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. CharlieBrown (916 comments) says:

    Johnboy – nope i’m not happy with that, but you can make prison pretty cheap if you tell the socialist do gooders to shut the hell up. I just would never have enough faith that the state can get it right when it comes to killing someone. There is too much room for corruption. I don’t trust the police and i sure as hell don’t trust the law profession.

    Its not that I’m against the idea that some people deserve to die. Joseph Daly deserves a slow an painfull death. I just don’t believe a system can get it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    The system won’t always get it right CB just as it doesn’t now.

    It really gets down to how much money are we able to afford on worrying if pieces of shit are getting a fair deal or if we should be re-directing that money elsewhere where it can produce good results.

    Continue wasting millions in criminals and their hangers on (lawyers) or invest it in the future of the country, our children.

    I know where I would put the investment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nostalgia-NZ (4,986 comments) says:

    Up your bottom JB?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    I never realised you were that way inclined N-NZ. I’m free on Saturday! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. CharlieBrown (916 comments) says:

    If you can feed a starving african for 1 dollar a day then we should be able to do something similar for the worst prisoners. The prison system doesn’t need to be expensive. And to be honest, I think we can make life in prison worse than the death penalty.

    And wasting millions on lawyers isn’t a problem with the sentencing, it is a problem with the judicial process. Implementing the death penalty won’t stop the parasites from wasting money. The death penalty is just too final for my liking. We have too many corrupt cops, lawyers and politicians than can interfere in the process.

    And if we look at it solely from an economic point of view, why wouldn’t we give the death penalty to life long petty criminals? There are plenty of criminal scum that don’t kill people but are nothing other than a cost and hindrance to society. Like the lovely ladies from rotorua in the video below, we all know that they contribute nothing and steal whatever they can get and will never change. We all know they breed more scum like themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. gump (1,538 comments) says:

    Soulan Pownceby only got four years for murdering his five month old daughter in 1994

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulan_Pownceby

    I am glad to see that the judiciary is taking these cases more seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Nostalgia-NZ (4,986 comments) says:

    Well, a little too free JB, but thanks for offering to be so accommodating.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Toast_them_both (13 comments) says:

    George Baker

    Nostalgia

    Paul Dally

    Clayton Weatherston

    Jason Sommerville

    Taffy Hotene

    Wen Cui

    Mark Lundy

    David Bain

    Anton Dixon

    Raymond Ratima

    Brian Ronald Macdonald

    Michael Curran

    Malcolm Rewa

    Joseph Thompson

    Graeme Burton

    William Bell

    Plus many others you only vaguely remember,

    .

    and unfortunately Arthur Allan Thomas

    Poor Arthur, but if we executed all of these and another 100 odd, it would have been a good start.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. alex Masterley (1,494 comments) says:

    David Garrett.

    If you bothered to report that DPF links to you will see counsel appearing for the prosecution was Phil Hamlin who is one of the most experienced prosecutors (left) at Meredith Connell.

    He is not some-one who came down in the last shower.

    While not being someone who I would regard as being in the same cromwellian mould as yourself he would have been looking for the longest NP period he could get. That is what the crown does.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. southtop (262 comments) says:

    So the death penalty wont fly and it costs way too much to keep them in conventional prison – Potential Solution:
    We have under utilised sub-antartic islands
    the convicted are air dropped onto (or nearby) they choose when to jump. they also get to choose two packs to take with them. one will be a device designed to slow their travel from the air transport to island or sea and the other will be some food items. OR maybe they will choose two of the same variety – their call.
    they them receive monthly food drops from air.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. KiwiGreg (3,211 comments) says:

    Imprisonment isn’t expensive because of the cost of food.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    Any benefit to the offender from being imprisoned is gained within the first 3 years. (That is benefit as ‘punishment’) After that, they become adjusted to their environment, and the world of the prison system. Any family etc on the outside has learned to cope with their situation, and apart from visits etc, basically live ‘life’ without input from the offender.

    Therefore, long periods of imprisonment have only one positive purpose, and that is to protect society from the person who is a risk to it. It also creates a person who has not had to use many basic life skills, has poor social coping strategies, and is very unaware of the type of changes in society that have occurred since they were imprisoned.

    The biggest problem arises when that person must be released back into society. Having been incarcerated for a lengthy period, they are neither socialised, nor have the necessary skills to cope with even some mundane things in the community. The immediate response is ‘stress and anxiety’, and as the inability to handle these was probably a contributing factor to their offence, then the situation is an explosive one.

    Apart from a very small percentage, the majority of this type of offending arises from social causes. Drugs/alcohol, lower socioeconomic status, generational violence as a means of coping etc.

    If we really wanted to make a difference, instead of imprisoning these guys, we would send them to ‘boarding school’ after the first three years of their sentence. Re-programme them. Undo all the harmful behaviours they have learned and teach them skills to cope with life on the outside. Prepare them for the eventuality, because like it or not, our laws state they will eventually be released, and under our current system, not enough is done to rehabilitate and reintegrate.

    Taking an offender from a bad situation, locking them for an extended period of time, and then throwing them back into the same bad environment, is stupidity. If they didn’t have the ability to cope prior to incarceration, they sure ain’t going to cope with it after it.

    The exceptions are of course true pedophilia and psychopaths. The chances of successfully rehabilitating a pedophile are very low. Psychopath – impossible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    Johnboy (9,799) Says:
    February 14th, 2013 at 9:52 pm
    ——————————-

    Sure we could treat them mean, but in doing so we would be keeping ‘keen’.

    Our laws state we must eventually release them in most cases.

    We have a choice, we treat them like shit, don’t teach them anything, and then when it comes to releasing them we put someone twice as dangerous, twice as stressed, and angry, back into the community.

    OR

    We make them learn. We set rules, boundaries, teach them how to cope with the things that made them offend, So that when they are released, instead of being a burden on society, they work, they contribute and the rest of us are safe.

    Some do adjust o.k to prison and come out fine, but many don’t as we see from the recidivism rates. We have the ability with a ‘captive audience’ to actually make a difference to those rates. We do in some areas but not many.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Elaycee (4,318 comments) says:

    David Garrett:

    the question is what does it take to get a sentence of LWOP?

    A very good question…. what does it take for some scumbag to get a sentence of Life Without Parole?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    Elaycee (3,286) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 8:11 am
    ———————————-

    Like the sentence of preventative detention, the Crown would have to prove that there was no chance of them being rehabilitated. As long as there were external causation/contributing factors to the offending, then their chances of successfully arguing for LWOP are lessened.

    For example, if the offender had a bad drug habit, then the reasoning is, that without that habit, he/she would not re-offend. The Crown could counter balance that with the argument that the offender has suffered sufficient damage due to their drug habit, that future offending is more probable, and so on.

    It is a complex balance, and one that has to be weighted very heavily against any likelihood of rehabilitation before they will take such steps.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. nasska (10,821 comments) says:

    Judith

    You mention two ways but there is a third…..remembering that we are not discussing kids flogging milk money but serious violent offenders, we could drag our judges kicking & screaming into the real world. Then after a short acclimatisation they could be introduced to their paymasters (aka the taxpayers) & together with the government of the day shown what a maximum sentence looks like.

    Then we would see most of the predatory scum you weep for locked up until death or enfeebled by old age. The hell with the expense…..we pay taxes & we want to be protected from society’s garbage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. rouppe (932 comments) says:

    To me, part of the problem is the justice system. I read the other day of a mother whose daughter was killed in a hit and run. A year ago. The driver was caught but the case has still not in front of a judge. That is appalling. It takes too long to get cases heard. The sentences seem to not have enough punishment in them. I believe it sets the scene for the public’s dismay witht he performance of the justice system.

    Letters of apology are often read out, but they are read by the lawyer and quite frankly I don’t believe the offender actually wrote them as the language seems to be above most of their cognitive levels. If I were unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one of those apologies, I’d want it spoken by the offender so I can assess their sincerity.

    Speaking of which why are offenders allowed to hide their faces in the dock? They are there to be publicly scrutinised and should be forced to stand in open view. By physical means if necessary.

    As someone who has served on several juries, it is hard enough to convince all the jurors to have the courage to find a guilty verdict let alone think there would be a unanimous decision on a sentence. That will never work, we really need judges to develop a backbone. And while Sian Ellis is in charge, that won’t happen.

    Lastly, prisons ought to reflect real life. I firmly believe that there ought to be 3 tiers of prison life. You enter in the middle tier, which would be somewhat more austere than now. You get decent food, access to entertainment, and some privileges. If you contribute significantly to prison life, through work, or helping others, or being a positive leader, you move up to tier 1. More comfort, maybe even some freedoms, which would actually enable your ability to provide contribution being made. However if you are an arse, or a trouble maker, or refuse to do anything, and are a useless layabout, you go to tier 3. There is less food, probably more like leftovers after the others have eaten. You do not have access to entertainment, or visitors. You are excluded, even from your other tier 3 inmates so you can’t make even more trouble. Life becomes difficult, unpleasant, and a clear pathway back to tier 2 is left open.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    nasska (5,674) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 8:34 am

    we could drag our judges kicking & screaming into the real world

    Best of luck with that. The ‘old boys’ network is a very ‘tight’ one. The only thing that effects them is when they get the ‘no vacancies’ sign from the prisons, so they adjust their sentencing to suit. (In general)

    I do not weep for the predators at all. I am just realistic. As long as our laws determine a person must eventually go free, I want to know when that happens my loved ones are safe. If assisting these people in turning their lives around, ensures that, then I’m happy because those I love are at least a little safer (there of course will always be dangerous people).

    It is VERY unlikely for many reasons, that the law will ever be changed to what you want. Therefore, we have to find ways of ensuring a safer society by working with what we have. It’s not defending anyone, it’s commonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    i wonder if this gentleman is back walking around in a suburb near you ?
    His profile omits the fact that he also killed an innocent old lady in a head on traffic “accident” that
    he caused.
    (death toll, three so far, probably a few more to come)

    http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/sxdb/stonestephen.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Graeme Edgeler (3,273 comments) says:

    Several have asked: What does it take to get life without parole?

    I suspect we will find that the answer is serious previous convictions, or a mass murder. One victim, in respect of someone without serious previous convictions is likely never to be serious enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    Perhaps the following from the Sentencing Act may be of use. The sentence of LWOP is a separate sentence from those already available, but rather a specific order regarding parole. Note the ‘least restrictive’ see 8g (followed by 10A). However in any sentencing it has to be in line with other similar sentences being giving, or it is going to be challenged.

    7 Purposes of sentencing or otherwise dealing with offenders

    (1) The purposes for which a court may sentence or otherwise deal with an offender are—

    (a) to hold the offender accountable for harm done to the victim and the community by the offending; or

    (b) to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility for, and an acknowledgment of, that harm; or

    (c) to provide for the interests of the victim of the offence; or

    (d) to provide reparation for harm done by the offending; or

    (e) to denounce the conduct in which the offender was involved; or

    (f) to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence; or

    (g) to protect the community from the offender; or

    (h) to assist in the offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration; or

    (i) a combination of 2 or more of the purposes in paragraphs (a) to (h).

    (2) To avoid doubt, nothing about the order in which the purposes appear in this section implies that any purpose referred to must be given greater weight than any other purpose referred to.

    8 Principles of sentencing or otherwise dealing with offenders

    In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court—

    (a) must take into account the gravity of the offending in the particular case, including the degree of culpability of the offender; and

    (b) must take into account the seriousness of the type of offence in comparison with other types of offences, as indicated by the maximum penalties prescribed for the offences; and

    (c) must impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate; and

    (d) must impose a penalty near to the maximum prescribed for the offence if the offending is near to the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate; and

    (e) must take into account the general desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing levels and other means of dealing with offenders in respect of similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances; and

    (f) must take into account any information provided to the court concerning the effect of the offending on the victim; and

    (g) must impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the hierarchy of sentences and orders set out in section 10A; and

    (h) must take into account any particular circumstances of the offender that mean that a sentence or other means of dealing with the offender that would otherwise be appropriate would, in the particular instance, be disproportionately severe; and

    (i) must take into account the offender’s personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background in imposing a sentence or other means of dealing with the offender with a partly or wholly rehabilitative purpose; and

    (j) must take into account any outcomes of restorative justice processes that have occurred, or that the court is satisfied are likely to occur, in relation to the particular case (including, without limitation, anything referred to in section 10).

    Section 8(g): amended, on 1 October 2007, by section 6(2) of the Sentencing Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 27).

    9 Aggravating and mitigating factors

    (1) In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following aggravating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:

    (a) that the offence involved actual or threatened violence or the actual or threatened use of a weapon:

    (b) that the offence involved unlawful entry into, or unlawful presence in, a dwelling place:

    (c) that the offence was committed while the offender was on bail or still subject to a sentence:

    (d) the extent of any loss, damage, or harm resulting from the offence:

    (e) particular cruelty in the commission of the offence:

    (f) that the offender was abusing a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim:

    (fa) that the victim was a constable, or a prison officer, acting in the course of his or her duty:

    (fb) that the victim was an emergency health or fire services provider acting in the course of his or her duty at the scene of an emergency:

    (g) that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age or health or because of any other factor known to the offender:

    (h) that the offender committed the offence partly or wholly because of hostility towards a group of persons who have an enduring common characteristic such as race, colour, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability; and

    (i) the hostility is because of the common characteristic; and

    (ii) the offender believed that the victim has that characteristic:

    (ha) that the offence was committed as part of, or involves, a terrorist act (as defined in section 5(1) of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002):

    (hb) the nature and extent of any connection between the offending and the offender’s—

    (i) participation in an organised criminal group (within the meaning of section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961); or

    (ii) involvement in any other form of organised criminal association:

    (i) premeditation on the part of the offender and, if so, the level of premeditation involved:

    (j) the number, seriousness, date, relevance, and nature of any previous convictions of the offender and of any convictions for which the offender is being sentenced or otherwise dealt with at the same time.

    (2) In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following mitigating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:

    (a) the age of the offender:

    (b) whether and when the offender pleaded guilty:

    (c) the conduct of the victim:

    (d) that there was a limited involvement in the offence on the offender’s part:

    (e) that the offender has, or had at the time the offence was committed, diminished intellectual capacity or understanding:

    (f) any remorse shown by the offender, or anything as described in section 10:

    (g) any evidence of the offender’s previous good character.

    (3) Despite subsection (2)(e), the court must not take into account by way of mitigation the fact that the offender was, at the time of committing the offence, affected by the voluntary consumption or use of alcohol or any drug or other substance (other than a drug or other substance used for bona fide medical purposes).

    (4) Nothing in subsection (1) or subsection (2)—

    (a) prevents the court from taking into account any other aggravating or mitigating factor that the court thinks fit; or

    (b) implies that a factor referred to in those subsections must be given greater weight than any other factor that the court might take into account.

    (4A) In subsection (1)(fb), emergency health or fire services provider means a person who has a legal duty (under any enactment, employment contract, other binding agreement or arrangement, or other source) to, at the scene of an emergency, provide services that are either or both—

    (a) ambulance services, first aid, or medical or paramedical care:

    (b) services provided by or on behalf of a fire brigade (as defined in section 2(1) of the Fire Service Act 1975) to save life or property.

    Compare: 1985 No 120 s 12A

    Section 9(1)(fa): inserted, on 18 September 2012, by section 5(1) of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Act 2012 (2012 No 74).

    Section 9(1)(fb): inserted, on 18 September 2012, by section 5(1) of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Act 2012 (2012 No 74).

    Section 9(1)(ha): inserted, on 31 October 2003, by section 3 of the Sentencing Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 109).

    Section 9(1)(hb): inserted, on 1 December 2009, by section 4 of the Sentencing Amendment Act (No 3) 2009 (2009 No 49).

    Section 9(4A): inserted, on 18 September 2012, by section 5(2) of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Act 2012 (2012 No 74).

    Additional aggravating factors in cases involving violence against, or neglect of, child under 14 years

    Heading: inserted, on 17 December 2008, by section 4 of the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Act 2008 (2008 No 109).

    9A Cases involving violence against, or neglect of, child under 14 years

    (1) This section applies if the court is sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender in a case involving violence against, or neglect of, a child under the age of 14 years.

    (2) The court must take into account the following aggravating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:

    (a) the defencelessness of the victim:

    (b) in relation to any harm resulting from the offence, any serious or long-term physical or psychological effect on the victim:

    (c) the magnitude of the breach of any relationship of trust between the victim and the offender:

    (d) threats by the offender to prevent the victim reporting the offending:

    (e) deliberate concealment of the offending from authorities.

    (3) The factors in subsection (2) are in addition to any factors the court might take into account under section 9.

    (4) Nothing in this section implies that a factor referred to in subsection (2) must be given greater weight than any other factor that the court might take into account.

    Section 9A: inserted, on 17 December 2008, by section 4 of the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Act 2008 (2008 No 109).

    10A Hierarchy of sentences and orders

    (1) The hierarchy of sentences and orders set out in subsection (2) reflects the relative level of supervision and monitoring of, and restrictions imposed on, an offender under each sentence or order.

    (2) The hierarchy of sentences and orders, from the least restrictive to the most restrictive, is as follows:

    (a) discharge or order to come up for sentence if called on:

    (b) sentences of a fine and reparation:

    (c) community-based sentences of community work and supervision:

    (d) community-based sentences of intensive supervision and community detention:

    (e) sentence of home detention:

    (f) sentence of imprisonment.

    Section 10A: inserted, on 1 October 2007, by section 7 of the Sentencing Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 27).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pharmachick (229 comments) says:

    Its been said above, but I’m adding my voice so that we all stand up and be counted. And maybe, just maybe, some PC Pollies and/or soft judiciary types start to hear it.

    PREVENTATIVE DETENTION for this scumbag “offender” (yes I know I’m yelling… maybe they’ll hear me more easily…). What was done to that tiny child was torture on a level similar to The Camps and the Gulags and, I might add; by rendition.

    Graeme Edgeler (who more than likely knows) says that he suspects only a mass murderer or a person with serious previous convictions will get LWOP/Preventative…. is there a single judge with integrity and a solid understanding of justice that wants to stand up for the rest of NZ and our abhorrence of this behaviour? Nahhh didn’t think so.

    So sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    I would love to see NZ establish the crime of murder by degree, and therefore adjust the sentencing maximums to match those degrees.

    This type of murder must indeed be the worst. Not only was the child a victim, and robbed of years of life, but the community and family were denied any potential they might have added. On top of that the child, a weak and defenseless being, was tortured by a person in a position of care. Surely that involves some degree of psychopathy to torture a child in such a manner?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Asuka (3 comments) says:

    Quite frankly you shouldn’t judge what you have heard from the media. Its not all correct and if you feel you can make judgements then you should know all the facts first. The punishment and penalties for such a crime yes should stand but in this case as you do not know what actually happened then you shouldn’t judge on what the sentence was. The media can blow things quite out of proportion and in this case has. No-one here knows what happened on that day or the days leading up to it.

    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.