Strike Two

April 29th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The controversial “” legislation has seen a young man jailed without parole and warned that if he steals another skateboard, hat or cellphone he will spend 14 years behind bars.

In issuing Elijah Akeem Whaanga, 21, his second strike, Judge Tony Adeane told the Hastings man his two “street muggings” that netted “trophies of minimal value” meant his outlook was now “bleak in the extreme”.

“When you next steal a hat or a cellphone or a jacket or a skateboard you will be sent to the High Court and there you will be sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment without parole,” Judge Adeane said.

Justice Minister Judith Collins said the case showed the law was working. Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar agreed, saying the sentence of two-and-a-half years’ jail with no parole was “fantastic”. 

Victoria University criminology professor John Pratt said the case “highlighted fundamental problems” with the law.

“Was this really the type of offender that the three strikes law was meant to protect us from?”

Whaanga’s offending stretches back to 2006, including burglary, theft, resisting arrest and indecent assault. He served a short prison sentence in early 2010.

Stealing is not a strike offence, but aggravated robbery is. From what I can see Mr Whaanga has had four strike offences so far – but two before the legislation was passed.

If he does not commit any more strike offences, then he won’t get the maximum sentence with no parole.

I’ll freely say that Whaanga doesn’t appear to be the worst criminal out there, but I don’t judge a policy on sole cases. And if he is stupid enough to get a third strike, then the Judge does have discretion to make him eligible for parole if it would be manifestly unjust not to do so. So if he does another aggravated robbery and gets the maximum 14 years, a Judge could still make him eligible for parole after four years and eight months.

By the end of last month there were 2684 offenders on their first strike and 17 on their second strike.

This may be because it is early days, but the very small number of second strikes compared to first strikes *might* mean that the hoped for deterrent effect is working.

In around five to ten years we will get some fascinating data looking at reoffending rates before and after the three strikes law. That is if Labour and Greens do not repeal it before then – as they have promised to do.

UPDATE: Commenters have said that Mr Whaanga has a total of 72 previous convictions, so shorter sentences do not seem to have worked with him.

Tags: ,

120 Responses to “Strike Two”

  1. iMP (2,315 comments) says:

    Read the kid’s rap sheet. 72 offences, violence, beatings…. he doesn’t just steal skateboards, he whacks people over.

    [DPF: Is there a source for his 72 offences. That is a key piece of info]

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    Unfair, very unfair. The bastard is innocent. I reckon colonialism is responsible for his misfortune.

    Actually, a bullet now will save us money and further trouble.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Keeping Stock (10,162 comments) says:

    I blogged about this yesterday. It is grossly misleading reporting by Marty Sharpe from Stuff to suggest that Whaanga could get 14 years for stealing. It is the manner in which he steals that is crucial here.

    Whaanga is one of a number of young punks who think that they can get whatever they want by using violence and intimidation. It is entirely his choice now when he emerges from prison in 2 1/2 years time whether he continues to use violence, or whether he mends his ways. If Three Strikes and the threat of a 14-year lag is not enough of a deterrent, then nothing will be. The ball is in his court now, and that is exactly how it should be.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. berend (1,671 comments) says:

    Can the taxpayer please stop paying the salary of Victoria University criminology professor John Pratt?

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    So Professor John Pratt doesn’t think that someone who commits “burglary, theft, resisting arrest and indecent assault” is someone the public should be protected from?

    Hmmmm, I wonder if he would mind if people start wandering into his office at Victoria University to punch him in the face before taking his phone. He might change his mind pretty quickly.

    http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacs/about/staff/john-pratt

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. gravedodger (1,527 comments) says:

    If only the crim cuddlers and elitist dreamers would spend time getting alongside this POS and convince him exactly what another act of thuggery will mean we might get somewhere.

    However it is so much easier to sit on their toadstool and pontificate.

    I wonder if they would think different if it was their grandmother who happened to be using her Iphone when the POS made another stupid decision?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ZenTiger (425 comments) says:

    What does that say about the media when they downplay that he has multiple convictions for beating people up, has a conviction for sexual assault, has 78 or so previous convictions, recruits accomplices to help with his aggravated robberies, beats up kids (13-14 year olds) and commits offences pretty much every time he gets back out of prison.

    And who here thinks that he has faced the courts for EVERY offense he has ever committed?

    So, the media wants to focus on a skateboard, and misses the point that he his a repeat offender who resorts to violence as his MO, time and time and time again. Disgusting.

    Looks to me the three strikes law is working, because he still has a choice if he takes strike three or not.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. radvad (689 comments) says:

    The only people who go to prison are those who choose to do so. If you choose to commit an imprisonable offence then you choose the likely consequence.
    Cause and effect, action and consequence are what real life is about. The left hate that as it gets in the way of their mission to change us into their image.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    I doubt the law will be repealed, but I doubt it will be successful either.

    The criminal offence the offender is charged with will be lessened if, as you have pointed out above, the actual behaviour did not border on the exteme. Rather than be charged with aggravated robbery, the charges will be challenged, and most likely result in a lesser charge/s.

    The Courts frequently make adjustment to remedy any inappropriate imbalances.

    This three strike law will not work to prevent crime other than through keeping offenders in prison so they cannot reoffend. It will not deter violent criminals from repeating the behaviour, simply because acts of violence are emotionally based and not thought through rationally. Murders would not be committed if the offender stopped to think of the many years they would spend in prison. Like the removal of the excuse of provocation – this law change is fraught with problems.

    Although, perhaps it should be applied to drink driving offences where innocent people are killed as well – full sentence – no parole, and the same with white collar crime – look how many lives are destroyed by finance company managers ! If we must have it, then lets have it across the board – all third offences.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    I suggest that Prof John Pratt volunteers to have Whaanga board with him and his family in lieu of his current sentence.

    After that time concludes, we’ll ask Pratt if he’d like to upgrade his generous hospitality to cover for the third strike sentence, if/when it eventuates

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Elaycee (4,322 comments) says:

    The key comment:

    If he does not commit any more strike offences, then he won’t get the maximum sentence with no parole.

    100% correct.

    The panty waists of the world (who have a propensity to want to cuddle criminals), need a reality check – no-one is actually forcing these morons to commit crime. If someone does the crime, they need to accept the consequences. And if that means they have ‘achieved’ their third strike and they’re sent away for an extended period, then so be it. No-one can say they weren’t warned!

    I have no problem at all knowing my tax dollars are spent keeping these recidivist morons off the streets. No problem at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    @ Judith,

    Keeping offenders in prison so they cannot reoffend reduces crime. Look at the major reasons crime fell in the US. Steven Levitt writes:

    “The theory linking increased imprisonment to reduced crime works through
    two channels. First, by locking up offenders, they are removed from the streets and
    unable to commit further crimes while incarcerated. This reduction in crime is
    known as the incapacitation effect. The other reason prisons reduce crime is
    deterrence—the increased threat of punishment induces forward-looking criminals
    not to commit crimes they otherwise would find attractive. Empirical estimates of
    the impact of incarceration on crime capture both of these effects.

    The evidence linking increased punishment to lower crime rates is very strong…

    Using an estimate of the elasticity of crime with respect to punishment of 2.30
    for homicide and violent crime and 2.20 for property crime, the increase in
    incarceration over the 1990s can account for a reduction in crime of approximately
    12 percent for the first two categories and 8 percent for property crime, or about
    one-third of the observed decline in crime.7

    http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    The only people who go to prison are those who choose to do so. If you choose to commit an imprisonable offence then you choose the likely consequence.

    What imprisonable offences did Peter Ellis, Arthur Allan Thomas, and David Dougherty choose to commit?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    It is grossly misleading reporting by Marty Sharpe from Stuff to suggest that Whaanga could get 14 years for stealing.

    Is it the fault of the reporter, or the fault of the judge? This is a direct quote:

    “When you next steal a hat or a cellphone or a jacket or a skateboard you will be sent to the High Court and there you will be sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment without parole,” Judge Adeane said.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    @ Graeme Edgeler, I don’t think that is the issue in this case. No one is disputing he committed these crimes. The issue is the appropriate punishment.

    Given this man’s repeated bullying behaviour it seems only a long period of incarceration will protect people from him. He’s insanely lucky not to have been imprisoned for a far longer period already.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RightNow (6,798 comments) says:

    Judith says: “If we must have it, then lets have it across the board – all third offences.”

    Absolutely agree. Anyone who racks up three convictions isn’t learning. Just keep them away from the rest of us for as long as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    What imprisonable offences did Peter Ellis, Arthur Allan Thomas, and David Dougherty choose to commit?

    Long bow, much?

    You of all people should no better than to cite edge cases in refutation of a principle.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    You of all people should no better than to cite edge cases in refutation of a principle.

    The claim was that the only people who go to prison choose to commit crimes. A single case where this wasn’t the case absolutely refutes this.

    Me, of all people, knows that the criminal justice system is not infallible.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (9,606 comments) says:

    No, maybe he’s not the worst criminal out there, nor the poster child for Why We Need Three Strikes.

    But he’s still a dirty piece of shit.

    Enjoy the two and a half years you dirty piece of shit.

    Take a bow Mr David Garrett… you did a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    ***Me, of all people, knows that the criminal justice system is not infallible.***

    @ Graeme Edgeler,

    Granted, but unless you are suggesting there should be no punishment for crime I’m not sure that is anything more than a red herring in this discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. RightNow (6,798 comments) says:

    RRM – I’m trying to remember how long ago it was that you actually sounded like a lefty. Weren’t you really a ‘sleeper agent’ for the right the whole time?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    Granted, but unless you are suggesting there should be no punishment for crime I’m not sure that is anything more than a red herring in this discussion.

    I’m not using it to advance the discussion on sentencing policy. I’m using it to refute a claim falsely made in support of a particular sentencing policy.

    When considering what sentencing policy should be, ignore arguments like that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. RRM (9,606 comments) says:

    RightNow – you might be surprised how many of us lefties don’t attend cuddle a criminal day…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Graeme,

    I agree. Our justice system is not infallible.

    I suspect all systems are fallible.

    But that’s not the point.

    You were citing rare examples of that infallibility as a reason to not have Whaanga voluntarily upgrade his 78 offences to a long stint in prison. That was, and remains, a long bow.

    Perhaps Whaanga could come and live with you instead? You and Prof. Pratt would have week-about.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nigel (514 comments) says:

    No doubt this guy deserves serious jail time, but 14 years, sorry he’s a poster child for the stupidity of three strike policies & the struggles our existing system faces trying to reduce Recidivism rates.
    Fundamentally I just don’t get why people think big prison sentences work as a deterrence, if they did US prisons would be empty & that great UK experiment of exporting criminals to Aussie would also have removed crime from the UK ( permanent deportation being a particularly long sentence ).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. brad123 (18 comments) says:

    How likely is it when a third strike eventuates that the Court of Appeal will hear it? In other words, if this guy gets out, bashes somebody and takes a cellphone, and is charged with aggravated robbery and is sentenced to 14 years with no parole, would the COA be likely to reduce the sentence? Likewise for Life without Parole as murder on a second or third strike, it will be somewhat of a legal precedent when this eventually occurs so it will be interesting to see how it is all played out in court.

    Or in the case of aggravated robbery with 14 years no parole, would the prosecutor’s discretion apply and Police may drop the violence aspect of the charge in order to avoid the full force of the third strike provision? I understand in California, the majority of third strike cases were actually avoided via ‘striking a strike’ or sentencing a third striker as a second striker in order to avoid some injustices otherwise so I guess we will have to wait and see how this is all implemented here in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nookin (3,157 comments) says:

    My understanding is that the earlier offences involved assaults including head injuries. As soon as you start talking about head injuries, I take the view that it is no longer open for an offender to claim that nobody in fact died or suffered lasting injury. Usually it is a matter of luck (or bad luck). The fact is that he used violence and could well have been extremely lucky not to have been facing more serious charges.
    The judge was between a rock and a hard place in terms of his warning. It was not really open to him to suggest that the next time the offender decided to pinch a skateboard, he should not use any violence. I suspect that although the incorrect interpretation could be placed on the actual words, the thrust of his comment was to point out quite clearly that this guy was very much on thin ice.

    @radvad
    “The only people who go to prison are those who choose to do so. If you choose to commit an imprisonable offence then you choose the likely consequence.”

    As Graeme has pointed out, this is not necessarily true and never will be true. We are never going to get to the stage where there is one hundred percent accuracy in terms of convictions. Radvad does make a valid point, however. Nobody is compelling this guy to commit another offence. If he does come up on the 3rd strike, it is likely that it will be a matter of choice. He now has a very significant disincentive and he knows that he is walking and extremely fine line.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Colville (2,152 comments) says:

    Take a bow Mr David Garrett… you did a good thing

    Absofuckinglutley.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. labrator (1,821 comments) says:

    Here I was thinking that no one could defend this nasty piece of work but alas, Danyl’s on his side.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    A point that most have missed – certainly including this reporter – is that one of the main aims of the law is to PREVENT mongrels like this from graduating from street level offending to serious violence, or worse. William Bell didn’t start offending by robbing the Panmure RSA and killing three people – he racked up 102 convictions first, some of them for serious violence, and at least two strike offences (agg rob and kidnapping) during his criminal career prior to 2001.

    This guy is actually EXACTLY the sort of villain I had in mind when I drafted it (Graeme E, please dont trot out the old chestnut about attempted murder not being on the list because someone copied a draft wrongly). 3S was and is primarily designed to: 1) Act as a specific and general deterrent, i.e the prospect of 14 years without parole deterring Whaanga and others like him from reoffending similarly; AND/OR 2) as an incapacitating mechanism for those who cannot learn from strikes one and two; keeping the community safe from Whaanga and others like him by locking him away from the rest of us.

    I hope Whaanga doesn’t become the first strike three…I genuinely hope no-one does, because general and specific deterrence has worked…but if he or someone like him does become the first, I won’t be disappointed. And I will debate Professor Pratt anywhere, any time.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Keeping Stock (10,162 comments) says:

    Take a bow Mr David Garrett… you did a good thing.

    I couldn’t agree more. David Garrett’s political legacy will be the Three Strikes legislation, and in seeing it passed into law he achieved far more in less than a full term in Parliament than many of the time-servers there will achieve in their political lifetimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Northland Wahine (655 comments) says:

    I totally agree Keeping Stock.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Grrr. Correction: “You were citing rare examples of that fallibility ..”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RightNow (6,798 comments) says:

    Nigel
    “No doubt this guy deserves serious jail time, but 14 years, sorry he’s a poster child for the stupidity of three strike policies & the struggles our existing system faces trying to reduce Recidivism rates.”

    Nigel – until our system figures out how to reduce recidivism rates, persistent violent offenders should be kept away as long as possible, not let loose every couple of years to prove they still want to smash other people.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    @ Nigel,

    The US crime rate dropped significantly because of increased incarceration rates.

    http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Yoza (1,654 comments) says:

    “When you next steal a hat or a cellphone or a jacket or a skateboard you will be sent to the High Court and there you will be sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment without parole,” Judge Adeane said.

    What a stupid judge. Why would you tell a violent recidivist it is in their best interests to ‘silence’ their next victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Bob R (974) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 11:08 am
    ———————————
    And yet, until this year, crime rates have continued to climb here in NZ in recent years despite increased incarceration rates?

    Can you explain ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    @ Judith,

    Are they?

    “When New Zealand’s population increase is taken into account, police said it resulted in a 5.9 per cent decrease.

    Police said it was the lowest number of offences since the 1988/1989 year, and the lowest crime rate per head of population since before electronic records had been maintained.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7752184/New-Zealand-crime-at-two-decade-low

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    Bob R links to Levitt’s paper, which has to be the most cited but least read paper by lefties with an agenda. Levitt is the guy who pointed to more readily available abortions as being an apparently significant factor in the precipitate drop in crime in the US from the early nineties. It is that hypothesis for which he is always cited.

    Those who actually bother to read his paper will find that he lists SIX factors – in order of importance – which he believes are responsible for the drop in crime in the US. More readily available abortions is last and least at number 6; numbers one and two are more comprehensive policing (Think New York and “broken windows”) and more punitive sentencing policies, i.e three strikes and other “sentence enhancement” schemes.

    And before we get PROFESSOR Geddis breathlessly pointing out that New York had the greatest crime drop of all, and it is not a 3S state, New York does have a sentence enhancement scheme, it’s just a lot more complicated than our version of three strikes. New York State had the greatest drop in crime precisely because they hit the problem at both ends – Guilaini and Braddock refused to accept that the city was un policeable, and the legislature did their bit by passing sentence enhancement laws that doubled sentences and other things for repeat offenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Bob R (975) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 11:19 am

    ————————-

    That is the latest report – an anomaly = what about the previous years which demonstrate quite the opposite
    ( I did say apart from this year meaning the last report figures which I didn’t make clear, sorry)

    19 years out of 20 increased crime rates/increased incarceration rates – which disproves what you said above.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. edhunter (510 comments) says:

    So what we’re saying to poor young Elijah is the next time you steal a skateboard, instead of just giving the bloke a whack & a kick and then do a runner with said skateboard you may as well get your moneys worth and earn a 14 yr sentence by administering a near fatal beating maybe using the skateboard as a blunt instrument. If the bloke dies Que Sara Sara a good defence lawyer will get the charge whittled down to manslaughter anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    @ Judith,

    Perhaps you could read Levitt’s paper? The mechanism on how incarceration reduces crime is reasonably clear.

    You have to ask – what would crime rates in NZ be like if we had lower incarceration rates?

    The US followed advice from well intentioned people and reduced prison sentences. Have a look at the results in Levitt’s paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chuck Bird (4,741 comments) says:

    @edhunter

    As I understand manslaughter carries a maximum of life.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Bob R (976) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 11:35 am

    I have read Levitt’s paper. I agree with some of what is said, and disagree with other bits. I am fully aware of the literature available in this argument – from both angles.

    I don’t agree with the assertions you make. The empirical evidence here in NZ, does not support the conclusions made – NZ has the second highest rate of incarceration in the OECD – and yet despite owning that place for several years, it is not reduced our offending statistics – which up until this year have continued to grow at alarming rates. Clearly imprisonment alone does not work – we need to find alternatives that do = and please don’t think I am suggesting a soft touch – just an effective one that covers the requirements and circumstance of our country.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    @ edhunter,

    Anyone who would contemplate “getting their money’s worth” by beating somone to death for a skateboard is someone who civilized society should be protected from.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    David Garrett: “This guy is actually EXACTLY the sort of villain I had in mind when I drafted it”

    I was thinking the same when I read comments on the article yesterday, something to the effect: is this really whom the three strikes law was intended to capture?

    And my immediate thought was: yes, this is exactly who the three strikes law was intended to capture.

    I disagree with the law, but so far, it is operating exactly as intended. Whether it works is something we’ll have to wait to see, and whether it’s worth the money is an entirely different question.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RightNow (6,798 comments) says:

    edhunter – it does seem to be a catch 22 situation – tell him next time he commits a violent crime he gets a small punishment, or tell him next time he gets a big punishment.
    The better solution would be to lock him up for life (or lobotomise him) before he commits another violent crime, don’t you agree?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,366) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 11:38 am

    —————————————

    I suspect that would be of little importance to the victim who died, who if given a choice would have preferred to have lost his skateboard rather than his life.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RRM (9,606 comments) says:

    Yoza –

    Or we could tell the violent recidivist the same thing he’s already been told many times: that if you do it again, nothing particularly bad will happen. I think the very fact that there is recidivism says something about how well this works?

    Your move, Sir…

    (IMHO if the state becomes a pushover for criminals, afraid to impose tough sentencing for fear of what on the run criminals might do, then we are surrendering to thugs and bullies, and that is not on.)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    ***NZ has the second highest rate of incarceration in the OECD – and yet despite owning that place for several years, it is not reduced our offending statistics – which up until this year have continued to grow at alarming rates. Clearly imprisonment alone does not work***

    @ Judith,

    I don’t think anyone is saying prison alone will stop crime. The question is whether crime would rise more with lower sentences.

    In terms of our incarceration rate in the OECD, you can’t compare diverse populations that have undergone different patterns of gene-culture co-evolution. The selection value for violence has had different payoffs across different societies.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/1/10.full

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/genetic-pacification-in-medieval-europe.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    RightNow (5,259) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 11:42 am
    ——————————–

    The better thing to have done was handled his first offence in such a manner that prevented him from seeing the need to commit more.

    Our attention and expense should be going to first time offenders, to ensure they do not become habitual criminals. And I mean starting at the first offence – despite of age (no pussy footing around until the offender is 17 years of age)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nigel (514 comments) says:

    Umm David Garrett NY crime rates were dropping before Guilaini & Braddock ( starting in 1990, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/sep/01/how-much-credit-giuliani-due-fighting-crime/ ), absolutely no doubt Guilaini changed the morale of the NYC police dept & how it fought crime, but isolating/determining how influential each individual step was, that seems a tough thing to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    edhunter: That scenario was also raised as a concern in California when their law was being debated in the early 90′s. In addition, there were dire predictions from lefty “experts” who said homicides of police would skyrocket, as desparate second strikers about to be arrested for their third strike offence shot it out with the cops rather than be taken and sent off for 25 to life – that being the third strike sentence there.

    In fact, none of that came to pass, and homicides on cops actually declined slightly after 3S, quite appreciably when the rise in population over the periold after 1992 was factored in. So while yours is a completely rational concern, unless our crims with their hats on backwards behave very differently from LA crims in similar attire, it wont happen.

    Why do lefties often begin their posts with “umm” ??

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Bob R (978) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 11:44 am

    In my experience any deterrent effect from imprisonment ceases after the first few months. After that they adapt and it becomes a lifestyle for many.

    Imprisonment only serves the purpose to keep the dangerous away from the rest of us, in most cases.
    If you can’t live by the rules of society, you are removed from it. Simple really – except that our laws do not keep the vast majority in prison for ever, and sooner or later they are released. The longer you keep them there, the more likely you are to release someone that is vastly ill prepared to live in society.

    I don’t know the answer, but I do know that the current situation is not working, and basically never worked – anywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Chuck Bird (4,741 comments) says:

    I hear Labour and the Greens are talking about repealing the 3 strikes law if they get elected. I wonder if they are game to back it election policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. edhunter (510 comments) says:

    Cheers David I didn’t actually believe a single word I wrote back there, but it seemed the easiest way to get a porper answer to a statement I’ve herard espoused ad nauseum.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    ***Imprisonment only serves the purpose to keep the dangerous away from the rest of us, in most cases.
    If you can’t live by the rules of society, you are removed from it. Simple really – except that our laws do not keep the vast majority in prison for ever, and sooner or later they are released. ***

    @ Judith,

    That is an argument for increasing the length of sentences for the most dangerous offenders :) The research by Adrian Raine on the neurobiology of offenders is interesting. Maybe drug or gene therapies in future may offer some other alternatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird,

    They should be careful. Liberal law and order policies are not generally popular in any case, and as someone generally not in favour of three strikes (believing that one strike may be sufficient to impose a very strong penalty or that even after three strikes it may be excessive) I have come around quite a bit on David’s legislation. It appears pretty well structured and cases like this don’t exactly warrant a lot of sympathy. He’s a thug and is getting what he deserves.

    If the left want to do something meaningful in this area they should push a liberal line on cannabis. That’s if they have the balls which I expect they do not.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. KevinH (1,142 comments) says:

    For once I agree with David Garrett, Whaanga is exactly the type of offender who with his current form can graduate to the more serious criminal offending such as murder, and he needs to be dealt with immediately under the 3 strike rule before he goes on to murder you, a member of your family, or a close associate.
    Judge Tony Adeane was prudent in warning Whaanga and would presumably have no hesitation in jailing this young man for an extended period if he appears before him again on serious charges, the safety of the community is of greater importance in this matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    I get so tired of this bullshit claim that “NZ has the second highest imprisoment rate int he OECD..” For a start it’s simply not true, no matter how often it is repeated – in fact we are about fifth, behind Spain, Italy, France, Greece and Germany I think) and even if it was true, so what? The stat is meaningless without also comparing the rates of serious offending in various countries.

    I will try and make it easy to follow. Imagine two countries, both with 10 million population. One has 100 homicides a year and locks up 8500 people for 10 years or more. Another country the same size has 200 homicides a year and locks up 8500 people for 10 years or more each year. One has a high imprisonment rate relative to its crime rate, the other much lower.

    The stupid stat – even if it was correct – is utterly meaningless without a crime rate to go with it. In fact, our homicide rate in the 90′s – at about 1.5 per 100,000 per year (it has declined since) was HIGHER than anywhere in western Europe. That being the case, our imprisonment rate should have been the highest in the OECD, not fifth or sixth as it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Bob R (1,354 comments) says:

    *** The stat is meaningless without also comparing the rates of serious offending in various countries.***

    Good point.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. dime (9,607 comments) says:

    BAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA outstanding!

    this dipshit may want to try moving to aussie. cause its a matter of time before the 3rd strike and thats going to hurt bad!

    what happens if he smacks someone over in prison? will that be a 3rd strike?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. dime (9,607 comments) says:

    DG – do the strikes last forever?

    say in 30 years he does something bad, its still strike 3?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Bob R (979) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 11:57 am
    ——————————-

    I don’t deny that at all Bob. However, eventually we are going to have to let that person out – after having paid $75,000 a years (plus) to keep them in there.

    In this current example – what if when Whaanaga committed his first offence he was given intensive supervision – perhaps even one person assigned to him alone – where he was removed from the environment that supported his offending lifestyle, and given the skills etc to conduct his life in a proper manner. Even if we had spent $200,000 in doing that, we would still be saving the country a lot of money – and saving a lot of victims from being hurt in the future.

    This focus on the third offence is stupid – and not productive not too mention expensive.

    The first offence is what requires the attention – before offending becomes the only choice for many. Once a person has a rap sheet with repetitive offences they are almost certainly going to have difficulty turning their life around.

    One of the worst things we have in this country is the ability to allow people under 17 to be attended to by youth courts and family group conferences. This is the time when the biggest difference can be made.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. ByterNZ (26 comments) says:

    I couldn’t believe the article when I read it, seeing that they kept focusing on the small stuff that he stole, instead of the fact that he was *beating people up in the street* to steal it! That’s pretty much the most dangerous kind of criminal, someone who could put your body or your life at risk at any time when you’re walking down the street. That’s the kind of criminal (repeat *violent* offender) that 3 strikes was created for in the first place.

    I must stop reading Stuff on Sunday, that’s when some of the most off-the wall articles are published.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    I get so tired of this bullshit claim that “NZ has the second highest imprisoment rate int he OECD..” For a start it’s simply not true, no matter how often it is repeated – in fact we are about fifth, behind Spain, Italy, France, Greece and Germany I think)

    Last I checked – I’ve called people up on this bogus claim before – we were 7th, behind the following OECD countries:

    United States, Israel, Chile, Estonia, Poland and the Czech Republic.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    I’m not sure I entirely agree with David. Even including the homicide rate alongside the incarceration stat it could still be meaningless.

    Perhaps we should be asking “why does one country have more criminality than the other?”. This would be an especially troubling question when comparing countries of similar culture and background.

    Moreover, it should be considered that much of the incarceration in the United States, for instance, is a problem in its own right. Just as a street level criminal who isn’t dealt with appropriately may graduate to more serious acts of violence, so too can someone go down that path after being put into a correctional facility for minor offending. The correctional system has the potential to do both harm and good.

    To imprison someone is a very serious matter. It can be the difference between a future full of opportunities and a future with very limited opportunities and increased incentives to commit more crime. The good thing about David’s legislation is that the strike offenses appear carefully chosen. You will not get ridiculous years in prison for selling pot, for instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    dime: DG – do the strikes last forever?

    say in 30 years he does something bad, its still strike 3?

    Yes. Unless a conviction is overturned on appeal, it’s strike consequences last forever.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    dime: Good questions there. Firstly if he “smacks someone over in prison” with a weapon, and his convicted of assult with intent to injure, then yes, that will be his third strike. In fact one second striker came very close to graduating thus recently; for reasons unknown the cops withdrew the strike charge and charged him with a lesser one.

    Yes, the strikes last for ever…he is on his final warning for the rest of his life. If he commits a third strike offence again – ever – it’s off to the pokey for him for the maximum penalty for whatever offence he is convicted of.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler (2,859) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
    ———————————

    The figure was published by the MOJ a couple of years back.
    Not sure where they got it from.

    reports like this repeat it http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_94/Synod_Prison_Task_Group_Incarceration_in_NZ.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dime (9,607 comments) says:

    “Yes. Unless a conviction is overturned on appeal, it’s strike consequences last forever.”

    that could maybe be a touch harsh then. forever is a long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    Firstly if he “smacks someone over in prison” with a weapon, and his convicted of assult with intent to injure, then yes, that will be his third strike.

    Assault with intent to injure is not a strike offence. Nor is assault with a weapon.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Colville (2,152 comments) says:

    that could maybe be a touch harsh then. forever is a long time.

    Giving some poor bastard brain damage by punching them in the head lasts forever too.

    Lock the criminal scum away.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    Graeme E: Thanks for that…I got the countries wrong, but the position about right.

    Judith: If you knew half as much as you claim about “the system” you would know the MOJ officials are dishonest lefties who make things up…They made up numbers re the supposed impact of 3S on prisoner numbers… claiming they would be in the thousands rather than the few hundred that are the real predicted figures. They would have got away with it too, only Rodney Hide and Peter Keenan are economists by training, and thus “numbers men”, and were able to call them on their bullshit figures.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    Sorry Graeme, I should have been more precise with you here…aggravated injury, aggravated wounding; wounding with intent to injure; wounding with intent to cause gbh….if Whaanga is charged with and convicted of any of THOSE while in for his current spell, that will be his third strike.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Longknives (4,629 comments) says:

    “The Parole Board said he had behaved well in prison, where he had resided in the Maori Focus Unit. He had completed a drug programme and a Maori therapeutic programme..”

    After being pampered and given special treatment because of his race in Prison he came out and mugged two innocent people…I’m sure that was very ‘Therapeutic’ for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    Firk, this is no fun! Where are all the lefties, the ones who actually know something, and provide a bit of a challenge?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,627) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 12:27 pm
    ——————————-

    So that makes them all dishonest lefties, does it?
    The figures were released during Nationals watch – Isn’t Ms Collins the minister – she doesn’t appear to be very efficient if all the people below her are ‘dishonest’ – but then maybe she is not in a position to be too picky.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Longknives (2,407) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    —————————–

    The time to give him attention was well gone – he needed that on his first offence, not 50 + later.

    No one offends by mistake. Every person who commits an offence has shown their disregard for the law, and for their fellow human beings. That is when they should receive the most attention.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. dime (9,607 comments) says:

    Judith – you really are batshit crazy.

    that is all.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. radvad (689 comments) says:

    The only people who go to prison are those who choose to do so, THE ONLY EXCEPTION BEING THOSE WRONGLY CONVICTED.

    There, fixed it for you and sorry for causing your knickers to get twisted.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. pq (728 comments) says:

    fararr says, or repeats,

    The controversial “three strikes” legislation has seen a young man jailed without parole and warned that if he steals another skateboard, hat or cellphone he will spend 14 years behind bars.

    pq says .. thats great farrar, $NZ100,000 per year for idiot skateboarder, that’s 2 million once the appeals are finished.

    Lets you pay the money farrar, pay here farrar

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    The figure was published by the MOJ a couple of years back.
    Not sure where they got it from.

    reports like this repeat it

    That’s appalling. Their citation is the International Centre for Prison Studies. I could understand if they were using out-of-date, or incomplete information, but the International Centre for Prison Studies also happens to be the place where I’m getting my figures from!

    http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poprate

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. pq (728 comments) says:

    if it comes to the question, why don’t we just shoot him, pay me, I will do it, won’t cost you too much

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler (2,861) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    ————————-

    Figures can be manipulated to win any argument – and are frequently done so by ALL of our political parties, including the current regime.

    The worry is when the manipulation of figures is used to support law changes that have consequences, and not always positive ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. F E Smith (3,309 comments) says:

    Ok, late to the party, but, fwiw, the fact is that agg rob is agg rob. It doesn’t matter what is taken. Most agg robs don’t get more than a few smokes, a few tens of dollars, or the odd tv, so to say that a person shouldn’t get a 14 year sentence for stealing a skateboard is just plain wilful blindness. The value of the item taken does not define the offence.

    It is exactly what he would deserve.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. peterwn (3,194 comments) says:

    Seems to be some confusion on what constitutes ‘three strike’ offences.
    The ‘three strikes’ offences are here:
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0009/latest/DLM3023002.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_sentencing+and+parole_resel_25_h&p=1

    Neither theft nor ‘lower end’ assaults is sufficient to activate a ‘strike’, but combined (ie ‘robbery’) they are.

    There might be some justification to trim the list (and make an addition) – possibilities being:
    S234 Robbery – delete as strike crime.
    S235 Aggravated robbery – delete S235(b) & S235(c) as strike crimes – they do not involve actual violence (In the present case I think S235(a) applied, so my idea would not help the offender).
    S177 Manslaughter – allow wider judicial discretion than ‘manifestly unjust’ – I have in mind manslaughter due to serious negligence especially a ‘third strike’ offence where there is no ‘common thread’ with the first two strikes.

    S36 & S36AA of Land Transport Act 1998 (Dangerous / reckless driving causing injury / death) should be made ‘strike’ offences.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    ..And I have just rejoined the fray…

    To be fair to the batshit woman (although I dont know why I should) imprisonment rates as between various countries are notoriously hard to measure – for one thing you need to know whether remand prisoners are included in the tally, and – at least when comparing to the US, which this bullshit stat does – “the United States” is actually 50 different legal systems for prisoners accused of violent crime, with 50 different penal policies.

    The one thing we CAN say for certain is we are NOT (sorry about the caps, I can’t be bothered with that fancy stuff you need to bold or italicise words) the “second highest imprisonment rate in the western world/OECD” which is the claim you see most often. Endless repetition of a falsehood doesn’t make it any less false.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Rightandleft (652 comments) says:

    The longer career criminals like this idiot are locked up for, the safer the rest of us are. The sentences criminals get in NZ are laughably short by comparison to most US states. I find it confusing that so many people are concerned about violating this poor criminal’s rights by actually locking him up for the full time he is sentenced to after he has violated so many innocent people’s rights without any concern for the effects of his actions on them. The doubt these concerned academics live in high-crime areas where they’re actually likely to run into such people. Nice of them to pontificate from the safety of their ivory towers and middle class suburbs. I also wonder if the move to silly restorative justice in many schools will have any effect on crime rates in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nostradamus (3,080 comments) says:

    PQ:

    pq says .. thats great farrar, $NZ100,000 per year for idiot skateboarder, that’s 2 million once the appeals are finished.

    Lets you pay the money farrar, pay here farrar

    Try reading the article again:

    Whaanga punched the victim in the head multiple times before taking $68. For that he earned his first strike in December 2010 and was sentenced to jail for two years and one month.

    Punch to the head = violence. Strike one.

    He was freed on parole in April last year. The Parole Board said he had behaved well in prison, where he had resided in the Maori Focus Unit. He had completed a drug programme and a Maori therapeutic programme and was released on a number of conditions for six months.

    Four months later he committed two aggravated robberies with two separate accomplices.

    The first involved taking a skateboard, hat and cigarette lighter from the victim after trying unsuccessfully to remove the victim’s jacket. The second involved Whaanga kicking the victim in the back of his leg and taking his hat and cellphone.

    Whaanga pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery and was sentenced in Napier District Court on April 18.

    Two aggravated robberies = violence. He even pleaded guilty to them. Strike two.

    My question for you, PQ, is which approach would you prefer:

    1. The three-strikes legislation, which is the current law of the land, continues to be applied. There are two possibilities: Whaanga stops commiting violent crimes, or Whaanga continues to commit violent crime. If he stops commiting violent crimes then, on one view, the three-strikes legislation has acted as a deterrent. If he continues to commit violent crime, then the three-strikes legislation will continue to be applied and he’ll be locked away again. While he’s locked away, he can’t continue to commit violent crime.

    2. We make a special-case modification to address your concern about taxpayers paying $NZ100,000 per year or, as you claim, $2 million after appeals. Whaanga comes to stay with you and your loved ones. Everyone else hopes and prays that you and your loved ones don’t become the victims of violent crime at the hands of Whaanga. Still, if he commits violent crime again and you or your loved ones become a victim (or victims), then we reinstate the three-strikes legislation and lock him away again.

    Which is it PQ – 1 or 2?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Nigel (514 comments) says:

    My guess is someone has taken Maori incarceration rates ( 701/100,000 ) and from that said we are second in the OECD.
    Though obviously enough that’s a very misleading take on the stats (edited to add the last sentence ).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. RRM (9,606 comments) says:

    pq (707) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    if it comes to the question, why don’t we just shoot him, pay me, I will do it, won’t cost you too much

    Now you’re talking!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Nostradamus (3,080 comments) says:

    (An off-topic diversion in response to RightNow…)

    RRM – I’m trying to remember how long ago it was that you actually sounded like a lefty. Weren’t you really a ‘sleeper agent’ for the right the whole time?

    Out of sheer curiousity, I’ve just gone back and checked, and this was RRM’s first contribution to Kiwiblog:

    RRM (7,020) Says:

    September 14th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
    Clearly then it’s all part of a left wing, tree-hugging, dope-smoking, queer-loving conspiracy to bring foreign terrorists into the country.

    Or was the security risk certificate removed simply because the guy is not a security risk…?

    (BTW would we have been right to arrest all Irish immigrants back when the IRA were running their campaigns in the UK? Or is it mainly the darkie ones we don’t like here?)

    With an outstanding contribution like that, I’m sure RRM would say he’s always been misunderstood :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. scrubone (3,074 comments) says:

    There are a dozen costs that are hard to calculate, but very real, with someone like this around.

    I had a colleague who’s house was broken into by a fellow just out of jail and with the usual long string of convictions. In the short time he was out he clocked up police time, court time, time by colleague had to take off work, insurance costs, costs not covered by insurance etc etc.

    And in the case of this fellow, you’ve got hospital time for those he attacked. And ACC. And time off work, ongoing rehabilitation, etc, etc the list goes on. If he has to leave his job, his employer then has to stump up for the cost of finding someone else, training them and so on.

    It’s bizarre that anyone would run around talking about the cost of prison when that’s so obviously only one side of the coin.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. peterwn (3,194 comments) says:

    David Garrett – a bit off-topic, but I think the USA has 56 or penal policies:
    The 50 states
    Federal Government
    District of Columbia
    Puerto Rico
    American Samoa
    US Federal Government Administration Branch (pertaining to Guantanamo Bay detention, etc)
    US Military (eg Guantanamo Bay detention)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,232) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    Congratulations for thinking about the victim/s. So many seem to ignore what crime does to them. They don’t seem to figure in most peoples thinking.

    Three strikes leaves three victims at least – dealing with the offender on the first offence will hopefully prevent leaving more.

    Why is it we have to wait for so many lives to be ruined before we make a serious effort?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Chuck Bird (4,741 comments) says:

    Judge Jeanine Pirro Slams Jihad Mom: Lady, You Shouldn’t Be Allowed Here”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkzNL69L_h0

    I wonder what it would cost to get Judge Jeanine to come down here to train our judges how to put violent offenders in their place.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. peterwn (3,194 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird – Just appoint Judge Tony Adeane as Chief District Court Judge with the expectation he spends 2 days a week visiting courts and sitting on the bench with the local judges. Tony has the right idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Chuck Bird (4,741 comments) says:

    @peterwn

    Did you see the utube video?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    Nigel: This “second highest imprisonment rate in the OECD” chestnut has been around as long as I have been writing on matters criminal and penal, and that is at least 15 years. I have never heard any breakdown of the figures to make it clear it refers to Maori only..in fact you usually don’t even see the relative numbers, just this bullshit claim….In fact the US is about 800 prisoners/100,000 of population, and we are about 180-200. So roughly ONE QUARTER of the US rate of imprisonment…but as I said this morning, the stat is meaningless without the crime rate to go with it.

    Another thing: it is often claimed that we are a more punitive society than we were. Wrong. Thirty or forty years ago the penalty for assault on a woman, or carrying a knife without lawful excuse was ALWAYS a prison sentence. Not now.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    24 hours is a long time. What I observed as the flaw last year, and which DG wasn’t sure about, was the likelihood of sentences attending a 2nd strike that might be ‘shorter’ for that reason. Whether that is true or not, it raises the real possibility of an offender somewhat ‘thanking his lucky stars’ for maybe receiving a sentence 2 years or so (as it seems might have otherwise been the case with Whaanga) less but acutely aware of what waits around the corner. While I still think there is merit in criticising the catch phrase the ‘worst of the worse’ actually resulting in ‘fish’ lower down the chain, if what Garrett says about his ‘hope’ that nobody receives a third strike because they will be deterred presents itself in a more positive light toward reducing re-offending. This also doesn’t detract from the argument that many prisoners reportedly don’t understand 3 strikes anyway, but as I pointed out yesterday, in different words, when the dog starts to bite it will get their attention. How’s that for a ‘provisional’ 180?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Chuck Bird (4,741 comments) says:

    <blockquote Wrong. Thirty or forty years ago the penalty for assault on a woman, or carrying a knife without lawful excuse was ALWAYS a prison sentence.

    David, in this age of equality why who the penalty be different foe assault on a woman by a man be different than assault on a man by a woman?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. OneTrack (2,759 comments) says:

    Judith – “Why is it we have to wait for so many lives to be ruined before we make a serious effort?”

    We dont have to wait before we make a serious effort. Engage with Corrections and propose a scheme which will address the problem at the front door. No problem. And three strikes can continue pick up the failures at the other side.

    In other words, do both. However, you seem to be saying/implying we should only invest the time at the start, instead of three strikes. Apologies if I have misunderstood..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    That’s a whole different argument Chuck, and one worth having..the point I am making is the oft repeated claim that we are MORE punitive now than then is simply nonsense.

    In my maiden speech I referred to a case involving Elton John’s manager when they were touring here in 1974. For a “push and shove” assault, the manager got a month in Mount Eden, confirmed on appeal by the then Supreme (Now High) Court…the Judge said something like “this sort of behaviour might be acceptable in England but it’s not here…appeal dismissed, off to the castle with you.” My criminal lawyer colleagues will confirm that there is no chance you would get a month in the pokey for common assault now as a first offence. I dont know the tariff, but at a guess a small fine and/or a couple of hours community work.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    And the prize for the most condecending and self serving comment of the
    month goes to…… Judith @ 3.34

    Almost enough to make you puke your ring. In fact it would make you puke.

    Judith said to scrubone.

    “Congratulations for thinking about the victim/s. So many seem to ignore
    what crime does to them. They dont seem to figure in most peoples thinking.”

    Implied message, “you and I are among the few who think of the victims.”

    As dime rightly pointed out. “batshit crazy.”

    A condecending, self important idiot birdbrain.

    scrubone must be sooooo gratefull to have congratulations from such an effing idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    OneTrack (367) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 8:10 pm
    ————————–

    What I am saying is if the effort and expense was put in at the stage of first offence, there would not be so many that get to a third offence.

    Unfortunately our system frequently takes a soft approach to first offences – it is at that stage that we have a chance to make a difference, and ensure there are no more victims – but we don’t, we wait until there is a list of victims and a series of offending before we are prepared to spend money (over $75,000 a year).

    There are certain characteristics that can be identified that indicate which offenders are likely to continue offending. If we target those people – even if it means assigning expensive intensive supervision, there is a very good chance that offender will not continue and start committing increasingly serious offences.

    But it would take some hard line stuff. Possibly removing the young person from the environment that encourages offending and so on.

    The current example has four offences that would have qualified him for the three strikes rule (i.e. four serious offences) however he has a heap of lessor offences – and a truck load of victims behind him. Perhaps if some real effort had been put in when he first started offending, those victims would be saved.

    Sure keep the 3 strikes if you must, but unless we pick up young offenders before their criminal activity becomes a habit, we will soon run out of prisons.

    By young I mean none of this 17 years old rubbish. IF they offend at 12 they get the hard line – they get the attention. 12 year olds know right from wrong and if they are offending, then they are more than likely in an environment that is not conducive to leading an law-abiding lifestyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    See what i mean.
    Judith @ 8.24

    dime picked it.

    batshit crazy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,632) Says:
    April 29th, 2013 at 8:10 pm

    I dont know the tariff, but at a guess a small fine and/or a couple of hours community work.
    ————————————-

    Only if the judge was having a bad day. At most I would say a small fine. Community work would require it to be supported by prior convictions and actual physical injury (minor) or property damage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    From memory I think there might have been a search for drugs or similar involved in Elton John’s manager’s conviction, which obviously would have aggravated the push and shove. Of course it was also of a time when ‘rock and roll,’ ‘long hair,’ or ‘gaymanship’ – as Elton is, wasn’t high up on the ‘mercy’ stakes even to the tune of ‘Yellow brick road.’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    Your memory is wrong,,,just as it is conveniently wrong about a lot of things…but dont worry, your bleeding heart mate Judith is here to protect you

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Hey, batshit crazy Judith.

    So all the effort and expense should be put in at the stage of the first offence, right ?

    What a stupid, batshit mad, unworkable, silly stupid idea.

    i haven’t got the time to list all the times you have contradicted your silly self.

    Try your silly contribution @ 8.30 against your idea that “all the effort …..at the first offence…”

    You silly, silly woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    Thirty or forty years ago the penalty for assault on a woman, or carrying a knife without lawful excuse was ALWAYS a prison sentence. Not now.

    Thirty or forty years ago most assaults on women were “just a domestic”.

    Not only did you not go to prison, the police wouldn’t arrest, or even investigate.

    We are much harsher now on male assaults female than we were forty years ago. For a start, we actually treat domestic assault as worthy of the intervention of the criminal law.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kacang (36 comments) says:

    Stupid to just quote the $75,000/year to keep arseholes like this in prison, without balancing the savings while he isn’t out committing crimes, e.g.
    - Cost of police investigating the crimes,
    - searching for and arresting the crim,
    - searching for and arresting crim again when he jumps bail and doesn’t turn up to court,
    - paperwork in setting up prosecution evidence,
    - cost of medical care for victims,
    - cost of lost wages while victim is off work or attending court,
    - cost of prosecutor, judge, court staff, probation and medical reports etc etc etc
    This does not even start to put a figure on the emotional costs to the victim and his friends and family.

    I think it’s money we’ll spent.p

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Kacang (36 comments) says:

    Oh yeah, also don’t have to pay his Unemployment Benefit while he’s away

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Keeping Stock (10,162 comments) says:

    When Judith refers to thinking about victims, does she include Robin Bain’s wider family?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    The sensitive wee man in snivelling again. Elton John’s manager pushed a reporter, wow. Garrett thinks people need protecting from him, very angry fellow who lives in domestic bliss.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    Still putting the boot into Bain Keeping Stock, you’re right and the system is wrong. Sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (8,725) Says:
    April 30th, 2013 at 6:11 am
    ———————————–

    The victims of crime that most concern me are those that have to live everyday with the injuries, losses, memory and trauma. Those that are deceased are at rest, and nothing can change that. I do not believe in the afterlife. Their surviving family members are however also victims, having lost loved ones.

    I could extend that further regarding David Bain, but I do not wish to encourage you to turn yet another unrelated thread into a place for counterspin and JFRB members to continue with their proven lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    Way to go Judith. The ‘big’ boys are trying to menace you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. flipper (3,773 comments) says:

    Geez….

    The tone of this thread is deserving of a fourth strike.
    Keeping Stock and others attacking Judith: If you cannot, either because you do not have the ability, or are just so far into space that you need to resort to personal abuse, then the time has come for you to add your ledger, and depart.

    And, partially off topic, and on a more “serious” note, I confess to having “physically assaulted” ELTON JOHN.

    In 1984, just before he married Renate Blaue, we collided at an elevator door in the Sydney Sebel Townhouse hotel.

    I was running late for an appointment and charged out of the lift car, as he charged in. Since I had more momentum, and was somewhat bigger, he was sent sprawling. Apologies all round. John picked himself up, apologised (as did I), and disappeared to one of his (several) suites. If there was a minder(s) around, he was not in evidence.

    The story does not end there. We met again, under less “stressful” circumstances, in Wellington a few days after his wedding to Renate. We (my wife and I) had an enjoyable, extended conversation with both John and his wife. But that is a matter that will be the subject of an “episode”, to be aired at another time, and in another place. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.