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?

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.