Three strikes for burglaries

March 2nd, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Audrey Young reports:

Burglars will be sent to prison for a minimum of three years without parole on the third conviction under new policy announced today by leader Jamie Whyte.

A lot of people may be surprised to know that a very similar policy is the law of the land in the United Kingdom, and was passed by a Labour Government.

Under the UK law an adult burglar convicted of their third burglary must be given a sentence of at least three years in prison unless the court considered there to be “exceptional circumstances”. I’m unsure if the UK law is also without parole, but that appears to be the only possible difference.

So this proposal isn’t some far right extremist policy. It is a law put in place by a left-wing Government in the UK – just one that was hard line on law and order.

It is unclear how many people would be affected in New Zealand by such a law, and what the cost would be. ACT deserve some criticism for not having any estimates at all about impact and cost, but the UK experience suggests it may not be that great.

In 2012 there were 2,693 convictions for burglary (as the primary offence). Around 40% of them or 1,055 received a custodial sentence. That suggests repeat burglars are already mainly getting prison sentences.

How long is the average sentence for burglary, if custodial? A report to 2006 found an average sentence of around 15 months. This is for all custodial sentences for burglary. I imagine it is longer for those on their third conviction.

So there would be some costs associated with this policy, with more burglars in prison and for longer. The potential benefits though are that while in prison, recidivist burglars are not robing people’s homes, and also that the law may discourage recidivist burglars from carrying on.

A report in the Daily Telegraph found that from 2000 to 2008, only 3,018 people had been convicted of a third burglary. The burglary rate halved in the decade to 2010.

So what would be the expected number of third strike burglars in NZ, based on respective populations. They have around 15 times our population so one might expect over an eight year period 200 recidivist burglars to get a third strike. That suggests the costs of such a policy could be relatively modest.

Tags: , , ,

127 Responses to “Three strikes for burglaries”

  1. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    A lot of people may be surprised to know that a very similar policy is the law of the land in the United Kingdom, and was passed by a Labour Government.

    The political system of the UK is not the law of the land of England

    lex terre: The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks Dictionary of Law, 5th edition)

    NZ’s civil judicial system promotes a perverted secular version of the common law, and fails to recognize the natural rights of the people as a result of this corrupt jurisprudence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I am generally not a fan of mandatory sentencing, as I think it makes for bad law. There must be some discretion available to the judge to avoid injustice (I have no real issue with three strikes because there is plenty of warning with strikes one and two). I would also note that our definition of burglary is (from memory) much broader than that of the UK.

    Depending on where you are in NZ, we already have a general policy that you go away on the second time around. That can vary between community/home detention (generally in the upper North Island) to prison (more likely as you go south).

    One technical question that the ACT people here might be able to answer, does the policy mean third conviction literally, or third as in the third time you are before the Court for a burglary offence? A lot of young guys can rack up 3 burglary convictions in their first sentencing, which might normally see them getting a sub-2 year term of imprisonment, but this woudl rack it up to a minimum of 3 years if it is meant literally.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Burglars will be sent to prison for a minimum of three years without parole on the third burglary conviction under new policy announced today by Act leader Jamie Whyte.

    It’s a pity he didn’t know these details when he first announced it on The Nation. He looked un-prepared.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    UT, seriously, can you please give up on your misreading of English legal history? Please? For all of us…

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    If burglars simply organised themselves politically they could plunder the rest of us with the full support of the state and of the police. Rather like state-sector unions, and Labour Party members in general.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wikiriwhis business (3,998 comments) says:

    ‘A lot of people may be surprised to know that a very similar policy is the law of the land in the United Kingdom, and was passed by a Labour Government’

    I’m not surprised to know that. Under globalism (UN agenda 21-TPP) the western world is coming under uniform laws. Economies are being adjusted to uniflrm conditions. PC laws concerning smoking, child discipline, hugging in schools, food labelling are becoming systematically similar throughout the west.

    All these young street beggars are having their lives stolen from them by the system. This eventually will have people queueing up to enter internment camps when the likes of Mayor Brown raise rates to unsustainable levels and create national homelessness. Exactly why he’s being protected from prosecution by the system.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    As rape dectectives will tell you – burglars view women half naked while sleeping, they then get their courage up at the next burglary by touching a half naked women, and finaly they rape one.

    Lots of rapists first started out as burglars.

    Home burglary is a very serious matter to police.

    Burglars are ‘rape culture’! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. deadrightkev (468 comments) says:

    “ACT deserve some criticism for not having any estimates at all about impact and cost”

    Who cares? The impact is positive for the citizens of NZ which was supposed to be the governments first priority last time I looked.

    The crooks will be behind bars after three burgs and those that previously had 250-300 burglary offences (we all read about them) wont be able to run up that carnage.

    Its time to start thinking preventative and zero tolerance because it will be far cheaper in the long run.

    If National can hand over hundreds of millions to iwi for highly dubious treaty claims we can spend a few hundred million making people safer.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Steal a little/and they’ll throw you in jail.
    Steal a lot/and they’ll call you King.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Floyd60 (92 comments) says:

    I think ACT would get more traction if they included repeat tax cheats as well. A maximum custodial sentence with no chance of parole for these individuals would seem to be a more ethical stance.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. jakejakejake (134 comments) says:

    Legalise cannabis and incest so police can focus on serious crimes like burglary.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    UT, seriously, can you please give up on your misreading of English legal history? Please? For all of us…

    Can’t handle the truth, eh FES? The law of the land (aka common law) is inherently theistic – an oath involves deity. Is it not hyprocritical of your kind to acknowledge deity when making an oath and subsequently reject deity by promoting a secular version of the common law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    The crooks will be behind bars after three burgs and those that previously had 250-300 burglary offences (we all read about them) wont be able to run up that carnage.

    Really? I haven’t.  Could you give me some examples, please, of people with 250-300 burglary convictions?

    an oath involves deity

    I affirmed my oath when I became a lawyer, no mention of a deity at all, so your point must be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    When I read the burglary imprisonment figures in your post yesterday DPF I assumed they were NZ’s and not the UK’s…as FES well knows, burglary is one of our most common crimes – and even more than serious violence, affects the poor disproportionately, for all the reasons I listed yesterday.

    I quite agree that Whyte blundered by not – as Vance said in this morning’s SST – having at least some basic facts on the proposal at his fingertips. It created a very bad look having an ACT Board member having to run around the conference giving the detail PG refers to above.

    A lesson ACT can learn from this – and with Prebble back on board they might learn some! – is that law and order policies are very important to voters, and not just those from the right (Whyte was reportedly very surprised that the extension of 3S to burglary got more media interest than the proposed repeal of the RMA). That man has a helluva lot to learn, and not much time in which to learn it…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. DJP6-25 (1,387 comments) says:

    Prebs has his work cut out as campaign manager. I hope he can turn the situation around quickly. He should drum into all candidates that ‘journalists’ are working for Grebour, unless proven otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I affirmed my oath when I became a lawyer, no mention of a deity at all, so your point must be wrong.

    If you made no mention of deity then you made an affirmation, not an oath. The point remains valid for lawyers who did make an oath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    as FES well knows, burglary is one of our most common crimes – and even more than serious violence, affects the poor disproportionately, for all the reasons I listed yesterday.

    Yep, I agree with that.  I think that it is also our least solved crime (ignoring the idiots who go on about low rape convictions: if 90% of rapes are unreported then ipso facto they cannot be solved by Police).

    On the UK sentencing:

    Third Dwelling House Burglary 3y unless there are particular circumstances which relate to any of the offences or to the offender and would make it  “unjust” to do so.

    So it only relates to domestic burgs, not commercial ones, and has an element of discretion built in. 

    I note that the UK Sentencing guidelines set out a 3 year starting point for a Category 1 burg (defined as greater harm and higher culpability), regardless of number of convictions.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    If you made no mention of deity then you made an affirmation, not an oath. The point remains valid for lawyers who did make an oath.

    Are you suggesting that I am less of a lawyer than those of my colleagues who swore their oath?  Are there two forms of law, one for affirmers and one for oath-takers? Do you want to take us back to the days of the Hundreds?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. lolitasbrother (691 comments) says:

    oh dear back to the populist cry of Stephen Franks and Rodney Hide. Lets compete with USA,
    Lock them up in privatised jails, hey lets Farrar pay your $100,000 per year here for the cost of one lock up,
    you need to Farrar because i will not.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    UT has stated….

    ….”NZ’s civil judicial system promotes a perverted secular version of the common law, and fails to recognize the natural rights of the people as a result of this corrupt jurisprudence.”….

    then….

    …”If you made no mention of deity then you made an affirmation, not an oath. The point remains valid for lawyers who did make an oath.”….

    May I suggest that you surrender now & accept your capitulation as the price that must be paid for you to retain your sanity. Otherwise I fear that by 3pm you’ll be reduced to a gibbering wreck calling for the men in white coats to take you away. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    It is a law put in place by a left-wing Government in the UK – just one that was hard line on law and order.

    It was the most authoritarian UK government in recent history, creating approximately one new criminal offence for every day it held power.  It is not a good role model for any form of law and order policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    nasska,

    :D fair point, will do, and given my occupation I must confess that I am on the run from the white coats as it is!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. peterwn (3,271 comments) says:

    To put this in perspective. When colour TV was introduced in the early-mid 1970’s, a colour TV cost about $20k in today’s money, and many got stolen and flogged off in pubs. Some people started screaming out that it served the ‘rich-pricks’ right. The police and others pointed out that many of the sets were stolen from people of modest means and it was a great blow for them. Is suspect nowadays that is is still ‘ordinary’ households that bear the brunt of burglaries since higher end households are more likely to have more physical security, monitored alarms and possibly hidden cameras.

    The policy could therefore down well with middle of the road voters who do not care less about the views of Kim Workman, Professor John Pratt, etc. As far as ordinary Kiwis are concerned, they can jump in the lake. The sort of logic ordinary people understand is if someone spends twice as long in jail, the offender’s rate of offending will be halved and overall offending will be reduced further as others will be deterred from offending.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    FES: Graeme E said yesterday that “recidivist burglars” would face a starting sentence of 3-7 years…how many burgs (in separate sentencing episodes) would a burglar have to have been convicted of to face a sentence of that lenght? I suspect it is a great deal more than three..??

    DJP: Rodney Hide is of the view that NONE of the journos in this country can be trusted to give those on the right fair treatment…as I have said here often, I found I got the best shake from the females at “Red Radio”…

    Peterwn: Well said…but was a colour TV really that costly in real terms 40 years ago??

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    FES: Are you suggesting that I am less of a lawyer than those of my colleagues who swore their oath?

    No.

    FES: Are there two forms of law, one for affirmers and one for oath-takers?

    Only in the sense that those who exercise the privilege of making oath should abide by the correlative duty of recognizing the role of deity in law.

    FES: Do you want to take us back to the days of the Hundreds?

    No. My point is that the hypocrisy is a consequence of the corrupt jurisprudence of the state. The relevance of the hundred court is that it was a means of curbing the power of the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Ugly: Take your meds FFS…we are trying to have a coherent discussion on ACT’s newly and hastily announced policy…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    lolitasbrother @ 1.45pm seems to think that $100K is a lot to pay to keep a burglar in jail. While I agree that it’s a drain on the taxpayer the cost has to be balanced against the savings.

    For a kick off it’s fairly unlikely that a serial burglar will have much contact with a workplace so the state is paying out the dole. If our misunderstood brother is adult & single that will be a little over $12K/year.

    The big payout comes when we consider what they are not doing when they’re incarcerated. “Stuff” published an article in 2012 giving an average value per burg in Auckland of $5400. The latest figures I could find for reported burglaries, NZ wide, was 81000 in 1999.

    A prolific burglar at large has a cost that makes $100,000/yr seem a bargain.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Singapore

    has the best approaches for dealing with crime and multiculturalism

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly: Take your meds FFS…we are trying to have a coherent discussion on ACT’s newly and hastily announced policy…

    Are you one of the muppets who believes that ACT’s policy might have some relevance to the law of the land?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    how many burgs (in separate sentencing episodes) would a burglar have to have been convicted of to face a sentence of that lenght? I suspect it is a great deal more than three..??

    Depends on how many burg convictions are added at each sentencing (they tend to collect them in groups), but as few as 2-4 seperate sentencings (depending on where you are in the country) could see sentencing as a recidivist.  Spacing of the sentencings is also important, as the closer they are together the quicker the offender will be classed as recidivist.

    Does the ACT policy extend to all burgs, or just domestic ones?

    I also note that parole is often granted much more quickly in the UK than here, meaning that the jurisdictions are not always directly comparable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    it’s fairly unlikely that a serial burglar will have much contact with a workplace so the state is paying out the sickness benefit.

    There you go, nasska, fixed that one for you!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    FES: Thanks for that….I have just been informed by a reader of this thread that there is a recidivist burglar in the Palmerston North area who has almost FOUR HUNDRED burg convictions (dont know over how many episodes) and for his most recent two, got 2 years nine months…He will almost certainly not be unique in the country..

    I dont know exactly what ACT’s 3S burglary policy is…and nor I think does anyone else! It seems to have emerged out of the blue yesterday…

    Ugly: Yes, I am a total muppet…now take your pills…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    So fucken what.

    Isle of Man still lashes burglars without the courts say-so – the Police Sargents simply perform the duty when they see fit. England doesn’t care. Neither does anyone who lives there. Most are respectable retiree types.

    Riff raff should be punished serverly at the first opportunity.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I have just been informed by a reader of this thread that there is a recidivist burglar in the Palmerston North area who has almost FOUR HUNDRED burg convictions

    I am not sure that I quite believe that, to be honest.  Are there any links to the case?  If it is true then it would be extremely rare, and that last sentence would have to have been either a single burg or after a long time of going straight.

    Still, I could be wrong, but my instinct is not to believe such a claim without evidence.

    EDIT: To accumulate four hundred burglary convictions would probably take either 20 years or more (given the amount of time that would be spent in prison after each sentencing) or else a very determined and very poor burglar in a shorter period of time.

    FURTHER EDIT: 

    Isle of Man still lashes burglars without the courts say-so – the Police Sargents simply perform the duty when they see fit. England doesn’t care. Neither does anyone who lives there.

    Yes, because of course we should be encouraging the Police to engage in serious assaults of arrested persons whenever they see fit.  The law, as we all know, does not apply to the boys in blue…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Fentex (974 comments) says:

    So this proposal isn’t some far right extremist policy. It is a law put in place by a left-wing Government in the UK – just one that was hard line on law and order.

    There’s a logical fallacy many people make – the political or ideological heart or effect of a policy is not defined by who promotes it.

    Whether one places a policy ‘left’ or ‘right’ on an ideological standard is beside the point of what side of Parliaments house it’s supporters sit, and in the U.K in particular proceeding as if Blair’s New Labour was Left wing at all is somewhat of a folly all it’s own.

    How about promoting support for a policy on it’s merits?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ F E Smith (3,234 comments) says:
    March 2nd, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    I agree, however, often the same event receives multiple charges depending on the circumstances, I doubt they are all the same offence type – probably a variety of property crime offences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    FES: I have urged my informant to put up the link…I’m afraid I dont know how…suffice it to say my informant is very reliable, and not given to making things up…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,199 comments) says:

    We’ve had part of this conversation before F E Smith, in particular how some of the burglary numbers are by ‘arrangement’ to
    ‘clean up’ outstanding unsolved crimes – any legislation such as this would put a stop to that really quick. You mentioned the UK and Parole, I read earlier that they also have a ‘whole of life’ option available in some cases of murder convictions which I didn’t know about. But the interesting bit was that the Secretary for Justice (or whatever term the UK counterpart is,) has the power to order the release of lifers, presumably ‘whole of life’ lifers as well. I’d need to read it again but it seems that prerogative to release may not be limited to cases of compassion (pending death.) I read it on Halsbury’s, along with a view on the history of ‘tougher’ sentences and the minimum parole periods having been a concession when the UK dropped the death sentence. It’s very interesting and you probably already know all about it, however, it seems that discretion to release by the Secretary is potentially very important when the political emphasis is taken away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Nostalgia-NZ (5,199 comments) says:

    ‘How about promoting support for a policy on it’s merits?’

    Good point fentex, how about not making it a political issue at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    This may or may not work..

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7872339/Burglar-convicted-hundreds-of-times

    That doesn’t appear to be a “link” as such, but that’s the location of the story….

    Well blow me down…There you go FES ….Note the 388 convictions are for BURGLARY…he has 420 odd in total…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Fentex (974 comments) says:

    Only in the sense that those who exercise the privilege of making oath should abide by the correlative duty of recognizing the role of deity in law.

    While UT is correct that ‘Oath’ in it’s archaic meaning required referring to something sacred they are wrong to connect a persons oath to the requirement of a deity overseeing law. Your oath is how you plight your honour before the law, it is not the basis for the law under which you may be judged.

    Although religious bigots generally don’t care to make the distinction there’s no need for anyone to cede them privileges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    burglary is one of our most common crimes – and even more than serious violence,

    Let’s not forget that burglary is merely entering the building with the intention to commit an imprisonable offence, it does not necessarily involve the stealing of objects. People can and are charged with burglary for offences that have had nothing to do with stealing, and the charge often accompanies charges for whatever act they did commit, or were intending to commit. Often sexual offending also results in a burglary charge.

    The maximum penalty for burglary is ten years imprisonment, not 7.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    388 offences does not necessary mean they were all burglary or that they are connected to 388 separate criminal acts.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    ..And note that Mr 420 down the line is 41 years old…he clearly didnt “grow out of it by 30″ as lots of “experts” here tell us is invariably the case…I believe the oldest sex offender in a NZ jail is over 80…considered too dangerous to release..

    Judith: I was waiting for your hastily scribbled comment…I suggest you READ the fucking story…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. freedom101 (504 comments) says:

    Bring it on. To have three burglary *convictions* you must have committed dozens of burglaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. peterwn (3,271 comments) says:

    David Garrett – As far as I remember a fairly ordinary colour TV cost about $2,000 in the early 1970’s and inflation would have been roughly ten fold between then and now.

    I have just checked with the Reserve Bank’s CPI calculator:
    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary_policy/inflation_calculator/

    This yielded $25,500 cost 2013Q4 for an item costing $2,000 in 1972Q1. So I think my $20,000 guesstimate is quite good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    DG, that is quite phenomenal.  I am quite literally astonished.  I do note that he has been offending for coming up to 30 years, though, so it has taken quite some determination.  He must be quite appalling at his trade…

    However, the judge could not remember seeing anybody with such a big history.

    That really is the point I am making.  Such an offender is not a common sight in the Courts.  It is not, as someone alleged earlier, common to rack up 250 or 300 plus burg convictions.

     Judith,

    burglary is merely entering the building 

    And let us not forget that a ‘building’ includes a closed yard!  And you make a fair point; many people who commit violence or sexual offences on the property of another person are also charged with burglary.

    388 offences does not necessary mean they were all burglary or that they are connected to 388 separate criminal acts.

    I think that perhaps you mean incidents, rather than acts?  388 offences by their definition means 388 separate criminal acts.  However, it is possible to commit numerous criminal acts in one incident.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    peterwn: that is astounding! But then of course one could buy a house in a provincial city for $10-12K into the ’80’s, so it’s probably right…I certainly recall our poor working class family had a b&w set well after most people we knew had colour..and I recall that even then, may people rented TV’s…a business that is now completely gone…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    he clearly didnt “grow out of it by 30″ as lots of “experts” here tell us is invariably the case

    To be fair, many of them do, although using 30 as an arbitrary age is incorrect, in my view.  And it definitely is not “invariably the case”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ DG

    I’m pleased you wait for my comments… just as I will wait for your next one… where in the article does it say he has 400 burglary charges as you stated? Even the 400 + charges mentioned do not specify what type, and include those committed whilst under the age of 17 years, as an adult (17+) there were 388. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ F E Smith (3,236 comments) says:
    March 2nd, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    My experience on the age thing has always been an average of 35 years… usually (but not always) the closer they get to 40, there is a change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ F E Smith (3,236 comments) says:
    March 2nd, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    Yes you are quite right about the ‘building’ thing, it can even be a ship, shed, caravan etc… I should have extended it, I’ve even dealt with a ‘tent’ burglary.

    And you are right about the ‘act’, I just wasn’t sure how to describe the actions occurring in one particular ‘event’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Judith, if you are too stupid to read the article and correctly digest its meaning, I am not going to lead you through it line by line…it is quite clear to me (as it also clearly is to FES) that the man has 388 convictions for burglary and 439 in total…

    How many “mistakes” has he made in your view?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. peterwn (3,271 comments) says:

    David Garrett – I also meant to say that a (then) young lawyer I know (he is now a QC) was upset that a magistrate said ‘as far as I am concerned, anyone who buys a colour TV in a pub for $200 is guilty of receiving’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    peter: I think that was a fair comment though wasnt it? I remember the days when all sorts of stuff was sold or raffled in pubs…about the only stuff which was legitimate was the bag of mullet or snapper raffled off for 50 cents or $1 a ticket….everyone knew that the car stereos etc. were hot…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ DG

    Well to me, it reads that he has 388 convictions ‘to his name’, committed over the age of 17 (which as you know appears on PC sheet) and a total of 439 when those committed as a youth are added. NOWHERE does it define that there are 400 convictions for burglary, just that he is a prolific burglar.

    I do know what some of his other offences are, but as you know, I cannot tell you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Judith: Why dont you just piss off if you can’t admit the obvious? Your mate The Killer has quietly withdrawn from this fray…for once perhaps his behaviour is worth modeling..

    And the fact that you suggest you actually know the bloke (and you may well do) makes your bluster even more worthless…you’re using a pseud honey.. you can “tell us” anything you like without consequence…I know you like to suggest you are tremendously important, but you almost certainly are a nobody… I think we have collectively figured out you’re a probation officer or “counsellor” or summat…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett (4,774 comments) says:
    March 2nd, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    Why don’t you piss off yourself – I have as much right to be here as you do. My name could be Judith for all you know… and for all I know your name could be Joe Bloggs and you are using the name David Garret, although why anyone would want to do that is a mystery. Fact is, you don’t really know who anyone is on here and whether they are using their correct name or not – so grow up.

    I don’t know the guy, but I’ve viewed his rap sheet – you are wrong, and your abuse shows just how much you hate that.

    NOW I’ll ask again, where in the article does it state he has 400 burglary convictions?

    PS You are partially wrong, I am not a counsellor or a probation officer… but I am something

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I must say that I read it as 388 convictions for burglary, but on re-reading it I can see the vagueness of how it was worded.

    I think that was a fair comment though wasnt it?

    Have to say that I agree with this.  A $200 colour tv in the pub back when they were new just had to be hot.  Not that I remember those early days of colour tv very well, we still had a black and white set in 1981!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ DG

    I may be a nobody, but I’m a nobody without any criminal convictions – and we all know you can’t say the same! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    It doesn’t say he has 400 convictions for burglary, and I haven’t said it does

    …the article begins with reference to 388 convictions (the headline is about burglary)..then it goes on to mention the latest “two more added to his bulging list”..then later still there is the reference to “a total of 439 convictions”….my 12 year old daughter has just read the article and understands it perfectly…as I am sure you do….

    But blow me (not literally, please) why am I wasting time with an anonymous internet troll? I think my toenails need cutting…

    Oh! I am bleeding…a conviction for assault in a kangaroo court in Tonga for which I was fined $10 and my “victim” – who admitted assaulting me – was fined 100…but you know all that…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ DG

    So I was right … the article does not say 400 convictions for burglary, nor does it state that all his convictions are burglary, and as it has been pointed out, burglary is often added to other offences which occurred at the time … this criminal has other convictions for things associated – whilst primarily he can be considered a burglar, he has convictions for similar things concerned with the possession of tools, loitering, resisting arrest and so on… I would have thought with your experience you would have realised that… obviously not.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Isle of Man still lashes burglars without the courts say-so

    Yeah but they is bred hard on the Isle of Man.

    They consider it sport for motorcyclists to head butt stone walls at 300 km/hr while riding in the clouds :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett (4,775 comments) says:
    March 2nd, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    So its another ‘excused’ offence is it?

    So stealing an identity, assault and drink driving mean nothing … the first because it occurred 30 years ago, despite the fact you never bothered to come clean… the second was a violent offence but you were ‘wronged’, and the drink driving… I suppose the cop tested you wrong did he?

    And what about lying to the law society… did they just mis-understand what you said ? Jeez David, you’re a treat … bad things just keep happening to you huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Someone mentioned Singapore earlier…Does anyone know if they sentence to the lash for burglary, and/or what the rate of burglary per 100,000 is up there?

    I always find it wryly amusing whenever a westerner is sentenced to “the cane” up in those Asian countries…the current wisdom is physical punishment is not a deterrent, but you inevitably find said westerner and his cohort of bleeding heart supporters makes a huge song and dance about it, and try to get the government involved…

    I know “birching” was used as a sentence here into the 40’s or perhaps later…but of course that would have absolutely nothing to do with our extraordinarily low crime rate at the time…

    Edit: My mistake…a drink driving offence…guilty as charged

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. lolitasbrother (691 comments) says:

    This is great and typical. you want to pay $100,000 , to keep a burglar in jail.
    I earn less than $40,000 a year, and do good to the community but if a burglar comes in I will just kill him.
    No money down.
    But feel free with you incarceration programs and your way of losing votes

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    ..and under the current law you would go to jail for manslaughter …if you were lucky…next bright idea?

    But I do believe we accept far more readily the costs of building a prison in this country…I have visited Sherriff Joe’s “tent jails” in Arizona, and they are built for a fraction of the cost of ordinary prisons…I see no reason why we cant establish POW camp type prisons south of Turangi…bloody cold in the winter, but so was southern Germany…

    He also feeds inmates for less than USD1 per day…using food that is past its “best by” date but prior to “expiry date”…Again, no reason we couldnt do the same…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Let’s say for the sake of peace & rational argument that half of the convictions of the burglar in DG’s link were for burglary. If he was an average burglar with an average value per offence of $5400 that would give him a career total of about $11,880,000 in today’s money.

    Since the major gripe about ACT’s proposal is the cost of imprisonment it is worth pointing out that our poor misunderstood brother could be accommodated at the Dept of Corrections finest facility for about 120 years before NZ Taxpayers Inc. were out of pocket.

    Bugger the punishment angle alongside the rehabilitation. What we need is to be protected from the predations of this arsehole & his ilk.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Nasska: Very well said as usual…and as a non violent offender, our prolific burglar would be a perfect candidate for “POW Jail #1″ to be built 35 k’s south west of Turangi…I am actually quite serious…why DO we just accept without argument that millions of dollars needs to be spent on prisons? My memory is a little vague, but I’m pretty sure Sherriff Joe’s jails cost about $100,000…Stephen Franks, who was with McVicar and me on the trip, also noted the stark difference between the behaviour of the Arizonan inmates compared with here..And no, the guards actually in contact with the prisoners were not armed…the prisoners just knew that acting up would be met with 14 or 30 days “in the hole”…funnily enough they behave like angels..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ nasska

    The cost to our country is huge – both from the loss (value/insurance etc) and from the cost of imprisonment. In my opinion NO convicted offender (once all avenues of redress have been exhausted) should keep their stuff, they should have all their possessions etc sold and the money used to firstly re-pay the victims and then to pay towards their keep.

    Despite industry arguing against it, all prisons should have some form of industry so that prisoners are made to work, pay board, and victims (also towards the cost of keeping the prisoners family if welfare is required.

    Bugger confiscating items from the proceeds of crime only – if they have possessions of value/money/investments they should lose them – and if that is hard on their families, well perhaps they should have thought of their family before they started offending. If the property is in joint ownership – either the partner buys them out, or its sold – with the share owned going into the ‘fund’.

    I think its appalling that a person can keep their property whilst their victims left without – and its also appalling the costs we are paying to keep healthy people in prison, that could be earning an income to pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    nasska, is there some reference for those figures that you quote? It is just that I don’t see many people charged with burglaries averaging $5400 per burg, although it might just be that I have only ever represented incompetent burglars!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    FES: Yes, I must confess I did wonder about those calculations myself!

    But reassure me FES…it’s glaringly obvious that the Horowhenua burglar has committed 388 burglaries and has 439 convictions in total, right? ‘Judith” is genetically programmed to take issue with anything I say….just need to reasure myself that my faculties are intact…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    I Googled for an average value & this was the first NZ link.

    Ref: http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6562171/Burglars-cash-in-on-Auckland

    I’ve made a bad miscalculation in my 4.04pm….should read $1,188,000…..apologies all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Nasska: That sounds a bit more like it! On your figures burglary seemed like a pretty good occupation…even factoring in the compulsory “holidays” every couple of years…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Good god is someone trying to pretend they have noticed the Crime Tsunami
    that has swamped NZ and destroyed it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Little Judith (or perhaps the Killer) STABBING away at those down buttons whenever they see my name….too funny…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    …and now they desist…just to “prove” it wasn’t them after all!

    Ah, there he/she is…

    I dont have the kids next weekend Killer…so come on out, if you dare…I’ll share a little something with you…My big achievement in life so far is 3S….if I could get your parole revoked and have you back where you belong I would be/die a happy man….

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ DG

    Wrong again, but I give you one right now just to prove you are wrong … as usual

    You need to so something about your obsessions DG, there are plenty of times I’ve agreed with you … you really are a paranoid wee thing aren’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Just say something mean about Colin Craig, the Great Messiah who has come to save God’s groupies DG.

    That’s usually worth about ten red ticks per hour from the addled. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ nasska

    Its a bit of a giggle really, as soon as someone mentions the fact they notice and mind whether they get votes, they reveal they have a ‘thing’ about them, and make themselves immediate targets.

    It’s like a blardy playground … still nice to know who it upsets, I usually don’t bother, I said when it was introduced it was a stupid and childish system, I still stand by that …

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Judith

    I revel in them…..it proves that I’ve got up someone’s nose. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I shall test the theory.

    Does anyone else think Colin Craig looks like a sparrow?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    A slow start Judith…..probably all at vespers. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Nasska: LOL…I suspect other than her embracing of The Killer (who seems to have gone very quiet) our “judith” doesnt have much of significance happening in her life…kids all grown up; husband probably got tired of her ages ago..

    but on the “ticks” thing, I just find it screamingly funny that there are people here who downtick me if I say “It was July in Dorset, and the bluebells were in full bloom”….(the members of the brethren who are here will know what I mean by that little peice of whimsy)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    DG

    When DPF introduced the new “Karma” system he went to pains to encourage people to consider the worth of the argument put forward rather than the subject. Regrettably there are a few here who leapfrogged his wishes & ignore the debate or the theme in favour of going for the author.

    In any case Baity downgraded the system for all time last year when he was caught using multiple identities & browsers to inflate his worthless contributions.

    Ignore the wankers & wear the crap with good humour….that really grinds their gears. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I have to say that those figures seem high, but I note that they come from insurance claims so I take them with a large pinch of salt!! Methinks there might be a bit of insurance fraud going on there, or else the insurers are talking replacement value rather than actual value.

    Most people who are prosecuted for burglaries would, I think, consider themselves doing well if they averaged $5400 per burg. The reality is, based upon what I get to see, a lot less. You just don’t often see claims of tens of thousands dollars worth of lost items when reading reparation reports that come along in disclosure.

    The other thing to remember is the stolen property is not worth anything like its face value when being sold to a fence (or at the pub).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    FES: Are there still “fences” in the traditional sense? I suppose there must be, since public bars – at least in the cities – are pretty much a dead thing….our local doesnt even have the traditional bookie! (No TAB there)

    Actually one of the most interesting periods of my life was being a “bookies runner” in New Plymouth 100 years ago…fascinating to see the effect of piss over several hours on quite decent blokes…

    And you must know the “it was the bluebell season in dorset” quote…or didnt you attend your equity lectures as thoroughly as moi?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    ….” the stolen property is not worth anything like its face value when being sold to a fence (or at the pub)”….

    Agreed….but surely the real value is the amount the householder has to pay to replace what is stolen. Even if the property is insured there are costs in time & money involved with the replacement plus the hassle of dealing with insurance companies who are invariably dedicated to making life difficult. It would be interesting to see what sort of monetary value that would represent.

    Where some of the discrepancy probably occurs is when the target is a householder without personal effects insurance. They would probably be poorer & the loss of their laptop or TV, although lower in value, wouldn’t show up in the statistics I quoted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Nasska: the real tragedy of burglary is PLU have insurance…and some of us are not averse to inflating the claim a tad…your average solo mum in Mangere isnt insured, and she has saved for the deposit, and run short to keep the payments up on her TV and the laptop she bought for her kids…THEY are the people for whom burglars are a scourge…

    but Judith knows that…she is a passionate advocate for victims you know…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Probably most people will estimate their losses a little on the generous side DG but the insurance companies are not out to lose money either. If they do they just whack up the premiums next year so the insured pays eventually. Worth considering is that many policies offer ‘new for old’ in their contracts to entice the punters & most householders face a fairly heavy excess on any claim as well as a loss of a ‘no claim’ bonus.

    But I agree that it is the less well off who suffer disproportionately from burglary. They usually have zero bargaining power with the insurance companies & live in areas where, for some, crime is a way of life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ nasska

    Yes it is a bit slow … a bit like some of the posters!

    @ DG

    The person you refer to as a ‘killer’, probably has a busy life – I’ve never met him so never got the chance to embrace him, but if I did, I’d have no problem with that, I’d trust him a hell of a lot more than someone that holds a grudge and seems to be paranoid and obsessed about what others think of him. You really don’t seem to be able to get through a post without mentioning me … ‘that’s nice’.

    I suspect people give you ticks because they know it annoys you – a damn good reason to do it … I shall have to adopt the option.

    As far as my life is concerned, I have a hell of a lot going on, having already achieved more than you have in life, I’m adding to that with another big plus this year … not that it is any of your business, strange thing is, I find it really disturbing that you should think about not just what I do in life, but the state of my relationship … you really are one of the most unbalanced posters on here … I suspect most don’t think past what is said on here, and certainly not what people are doing and who they sleep with in their private lives – you really are a bit of a creepy dude.

    @ FES
    Yes you are right, the profits are not as big as people like to make out – and as I said before, not all charges of burglary are about stealing items. Then of course, many burglars are only caught for a few of their actual crimes.

    @ nasska

    You are also correct, but it’s quite surprising how ‘valuable’ an item can suddenly become when there is an insurance payout on offer!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Judith….go and find a big black dog..

    You have indicated before that you know The Killer and think he is a thoroughly reformed individual…the fact that you dont actually know him – and claim to be terribly sympathetic to victims – just makes your attitude to my interactions with him that much worse…I would have thought that an empathetic person like you might take objection to a Killer saying “Yawn” when the anguish of his victim’s (that’s the second of them) family is mentioned…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ DG

    I said I’ve never met him, I don’t have to meet someone face to face to know them.

    I don’t bother discussing you with him because you are just not that important to me, but I suspect the yawn is not about the people, but that he, like many, are sick to death of your self-righteous attitude.

    You repeatedly goad other people about their crimes, but when it comes to your own, you down play them, excuse them, demonstrate you couldn’t give flying f* about the victims, and generally get very prissy.

    That makes you a hypocrite of tremendous proportions – something that would make any person with more than two brain cells ‘yawn’.

    And then there is the ‘what you don’t know you make up’ and post it to try and make yourself look informed about other posters. You’re just a nasty ‘little’ man, with a 30 odd year history to confirm it

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    I see…what an amazing individual you must be, to know people intimately without having ever met them! You are a really stupid tart “Judith”…and yes, it DOES annoy me that I actually engage with you…You’re a bit like Philu…you know it’s like wrestling a pig, but you do it anyway….

    And now we are onto my limited stature! I think you’ll find your mate The Killer is considerably shorter than me…perhaps that’s why he always shoots from across the road..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ DG

    LOL @ You.

    Where did I say I knew him intimately?

    My word, you are keeping true to your history …. fraudulent using of other people’s names, and now exaggerating …
    Must be tough living in a world that doesn’t appreciate you for the wonderful person you think you are huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Back in the ’80’s in CH-CH the police were concerned about all the stolen property getting sold in pubs, and also with ‘customers’ giving ‘shopping lists’ to burglars ect.

    The CH-CH Courts then gave out maximum sentances to those found guilty of receiving stolen property ect. And the Press wrote up on the matter.

    It drove down the demand for stolen goods, and I recall that within a couple of months no one at my local pub was selling stolen goods. Prior to that you could by all sorts of electrical products – car stereos, tvs ect.

    Strong sentances imho work – they stop MOST people doing the wrong thing MOST of the time – which is all that the law can ever do – about anything!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ DG

    and you are right, engaging with you is just like engaging with a pig … the ‘smell’ is very similar. ;-)

    What’s it like having a PC sheet DG…. really pisses you off that doesn’t it… can’t play the high and mighty card with one of those can you? LOL I just love the way you bite.

    You hate people goading you, and yet you do it non-stop to others … hypocrite with a rap sheet … you should get that on a t-shirt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Harriet

    Another good idea is to come down hard on the receivers of the goods, and ruin the market. If there was no one to buy the goods, there would be no profit in stealing them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    That was the aim Judith.

    The NSW Police put drug dogs through train stations, pubs, parks – and even gay niteclubs – to get rid of the demand for drugs[albeit they also do it because people 'flaunt' their drug taking and that is not a good look for the police or the law.]

    I think it was a lawyer who said to the media “that there are more drugs in niteclubs on weekends than in gang HQ’s” [probably because bikies arn't stupid enough to keep too many there] but his point was one of ‘demand and supply’ – and you do have to target the demand side of the equation – not just the dealers – or burglars and recievers in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. freemark (580 comments) says:

    I’m with you DG, Judith is but a cowardly pseudonym. Doubtless the only reason for his/her support of criminal scum is that he/she may get a vote if they are not behind bars.
    Psychopaths who need to proclaim loudly and often how much they “care” are invariably caring only for their own place at the public trough..Judith is one of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    Create a new-slow learners penalty. Jail them for the first and execute the bastards for the second offence! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    I’m happy to do it for say $1500 a hit. A man needs a hobby and some sort of retirement income! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Being that busy is not a retirement JB. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    While UT is correct that ‘Oath’ in it’s archaic meaning required referring to something sacred they are wrong to connect a persons oath to the requirement of a deity overseeing law.

    Straw man. I never mentioned the oath of a person, I was speaking of an unqualified oath, i.e. the oath of a man. The difference in law between a man and a person is that at common law a relationship exists between a man and the deity or divine being or beings responsible for his creation, but this is not the case for a person. Due to this distiction a person has diminshed legal status compared to a man, and the civil process of describing a man as a person is a libel.

    Also, the meaning that I used was not archaic in the sense that it is not longer relevant. Here’s a recent definition from Black’s which illustrates this point:

    affirmation,n. A pledge equivalent to an oath but without reference to a supreme being or to “swearing”; a solemn declaration made under penalty of perjury, but without an oath

    Your oath is how you plight your honour before the law, it is not the basis for the law under which you may be judged.

    My point was that an oath is the basis of the duty to recognize the role of deity in law.

    Although religious bigots generally don’t care to make the distinction there’s no need for anyone to cede them privileges.

    When a judge or lawyer starts arguing on the basis of need they are floundering (my alternative interpretation of Bracton’s maxim).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Prince (105 comments) says:

    I had hopes for the ‘new’ Act party. But immediately they are stuck in the old groove of crime & punishment. Sticking to the economics they could have a positive influence, As it is here, they appear like a bunch of rich old white men trying to protect their stash.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. wikiriwhis business (3,998 comments) says:

    “For a kick off it’s fairly unlikely that a serial burglar will have much contact with a workplace so the state is paying out the dole. If our misunderstood brother is adult & single that will be a little over $12K/year.”

    WINZ is not going to let anyone collect 12k a year. They find any little thing enough to suspend you

    That’s why there’s a whole fourth tier of jobless/blacked out numbers out of the system. Then the govt claims unemployment is down

    you know this and perpetuating systematic deprivation and closed opportunities to Kiwi’s.

    your arguments are hugely hollow and shallow of the insubstance of Mein Kampf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Prince: Which is the “Old ACT” you so admire; the one which never had any focus on law and order policies?

    Three Strikes, one law for all, and zero tolerance policing all date from Prebble’s time as leader more than ten years ago. For some reason people like you have a complete blind spot on this…Law and Order policies have always had a prominent place in ACT philosophy for the very simple reason that they are completely compatible with “classical liberal” philosophy, which holds that no citizen has the right to adversely affect another – and most especially, that a person’s body is sacrosanct. Is it also why one of the prominent principles in ACT’s constitution is “The first duty of any government is to ensure the safety of its citizens”.

    What part of all that do you find difficult to grasp?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Longknives (4,742 comments) says:

    You ‘Crim Huggers’ on here ever been burgled?
    Ever come home to find a dirty stinking criminal has been in your home? your bedroom? your kid’s bedrooms?
    Trust me- It’s not a pleasant experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    ‘Knives: Particularly when that burglar has shat all around your house…I am told the Police’s standard advice is to throw away any opened food containers…because the burglars may well have pissed in them… Next to serious assault and sexual violation, burglary probably has the greatest impact on people…and as most people seem to “get”, more poor people than PLU are victims of it…

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

    David Garrett : “What part of all that do you find difficult to grasp?”.
    The part that 99.5% of the rest of NZ also fail to grasp.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Fentex (974 comments) says:

    Your oath is how you plight your honour before the law, it is not the basis for the law under which you may be judged.

    My point was that an oath is the basis of the duty to recognize the role of deity in law.

    You suggest that requiring a person makes an oath forms a duty to find a place for a deity in the administration of law? I can see how oaths requiring swearing on something sacred can confuse a person who thinks the sacred must be their deity, and lead one to believe this implies their deity has a place in law.

    Thankfully today we do not have to live with such confusion for those we require assert truths have no need to pretend to sacred superstitions to make binding promises of truth telling. But even if they did you’d still be making a mistake to think their sacred object is what you also hold sacred.

    The unwillingness of people to accept others hold something different sacred and close to their hearts as themselves is why we no longer accept argument, precedent and bigotry predicated on superstition and religious allegiance as pre-eminent in law.

    Although religious bigots generally don’t care to make the distinction there’s no need for anyone to cede them privileges.

    When a judge or lawyer starts arguing on the basis of need they are floundering (my alternative interpretation of Bracton’s maxim).

    Speaking of duties, feel free to replace ‘need’ with ‘duty’ in my comment if ‘need’ displeases you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Prince: Ah…Obviously I have overgenerously credited you with a few clues…so you think ACT is on .5% because of its focus on law and order as ONE of its key policy areas? And that 95.5% dont support ACT for that reason?

    Well, I have it on very good authority that on recent focus group testing, 3S is the policy most identified positively with ACT, and more so with urban females over 30 who, to be fair, probably fear violent crime more than is justified. But that certainly doesn’t support your view does it?

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

    David Garrett. Actually it does support my view. I agree 3S is the policy most positively identified with ACT, which is the problem. ACT is seen as the ‘get tough, law and order party’. People may think it would be good to impose tougher sentences, but they will vote National because they’re ‘pretty good’ in that area, and the economy is more important, so they’ll take the middle road.
    Act need a circuit-breaker, and currently law and order isn’t it. Focus on the level of Govt spending, waste and tax cuts for middle NZ. That’s where the votes are.
    But by all means continue to pursue your special interest. Just don’t expect to poll over 1%.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Prince: Yes, you make valid points…but remember that in 2008 ACT got almost 5% (4.65 from memory) when 3S AND Zero tolerance policing were the lead policy planks…If it hadn’t been for the shenanigans post 2008 we would have campaigned on one law and order policy, charter schools, and something economic in 2011… Absent said shenanigans I have no doubt we would have improved on the 2008 result…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You suggest that requiring a person makes an oath forms a duty to find a place for a deity in the administration of law?

    English not your first language, Fentex?

    I repeat: you introduced the therm “person”, I did not. Man and person are not equivalent terms. An early edition of Blacks illustrates this:

    person: A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. (Black’s 2nd (1910))

    Also from the Bible:

    what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! Psalm 144:3
    .. which regardeth not persons .. Deu 10:17

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Ugly: what drug are you on man?? If it’s a prescribed one it clearly isnt working…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Prince: Yes, you make valid points…but remember that in 2008 ACT got almost 5% (4.65 from memory) when 3S AND Zero tolerance policing were the lead policy planks

    That’s 3.65%.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    David, it comes back to knowing the difference between the law of the land and rules made by a bunch of muppets who don’t know their arse from their elbow. If the NZ parliament was truly sovereign it wouldn’t make blatantly false representations or stand between a man and his remedy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Graeme E: Yes, of course you are right…touch of wishful thinking there!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Fentex (974 comments) says:

    You suggest that requiring a person makes an oath forms a duty to find a place for a deity in the administration of law?

    English not your first language, Fentex?

    I repeat: you introduced the therm “person”, I did not. Man and person are not equivalent terms. An early edition of Blacks illustrates this:

    I was responding to your claim “The law of the land (aka common law) is inherently theistic”, which you seem to support by insisting that the using of oaths in common law establish the presence of deities.

    I know of Lockes distinction between a Person and Common Man (as well as animals and spirits) but not of any such thing in common law, although I have read articles where people also make the distinction. As I understood them the distinction was between people who are individuals and entities that may just be legal fictions such as incorporated bodies, an obvious distinction in modern English between a person and a corporation.

    The Common Law is the law of precedents set by courts, and new law made by courts in the absence of precedent and statutory legislation. It does not require deities, though in the past when making new law courts often did pass judgements in the context of their time and political organisation, thus past law was influenced by religion.

    Today a court might hear a case that was once directed by religious sentiment, but in modern times with changed circumstances the precedent may not stand – for example where once a church might have sued a person for their tithe, and a court have awarded one, such a case today (if no statutory guidance existed) would be refused (though perhaps not in Germany where a citizen has to opt-out of tithing) because today, thankfully, religions do not rule.

    It is merely accident of timing that any religious sentiment can be found in the decisions that form common law, and their precedent would be uniformly over-turned today except the modern eminence of statutory law makes that largely irrelevant.

    That people have, and will in future, swear oaths says nothing – an oath is their plighting of honest intent as sworn on what is sacred to them. There is no requirement that be sacred to courts or any other participant.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I was responding to your claim “The law of the land (aka common law) is inherently theistic”, which you seem to support by insisting that the using of oaths in common law establish the presence of deities.

    I clearly supported that claim when I quoted Blacks in my first post:

    lex terre: The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks Dictionary of Law, 5th edition)

    I know of Lockes distinction between a Person and Common Man (as well as animals and spirits) but not of any such thing in common law, although I have read articles where people also make the distinction. As I understood them the distinction was between people who are individuals and entities that may just be legal fictions such as incorporated bodies, an obvious distinction in modern English between a person and a corporation.

    The distinction is evident from the etymology of “person” and the common law distinction between personal property and real property. The distinction is also implied by the fact that a flesh and blood person has the same legal status as a legal fiction like an incorporated body, which is a creation of government, and governments in turn are creations of people. The notion that people and persons have the same status implies that the created has the same status as the creator, which leads to absurdity in matters of responsibility of the creator for the created.

    The Common Law is the law of precedents set by courts, and new law made by courts in the absence of precedent and statutory legislation.

    This falsehood is promoted by the corrupt secular state. Again, from Blacks: “… In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath”.

    It does not require deities,

    It requires at least one; the sources of the law (Blackstone, Bracton, Coke, et al) make that abundantly clear. If deity did not exist then common law natural rights could not exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    This dirge takes “threadjacking” to a whole new level…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    David, my posts were in response to DPF’s mistake in original article re the law of the land. You wouldn’t want that to go uncorrected, would you?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Fentex (974 comments) says:

    The notion that people and persons have the same status implies that the created has the same status as the creator,

    You continually cite religious authority. To cut to the chase, I do not accept it and will stand against any who attempt to impose it.

    The Common Law is the law of precedents set by courts, and new law made by courts in the absence of precedent and statutory legislation.

    This falsehood is promoted by the corrupt secular state.

    It is not a falsehood. You may again try and claim authority from Blacks Dictionary of Law by it’s definition of Common Law, but I do not accept this apparent definition of Common Law as equating to Trial By Oath (a.k.a Trial By Ordeal) and I doubt many do. I suspect a claim that our Common Law is really Trial By Ordeal and therefore a judgement by some ineffable authority is simply a claim that religious superstitions should hold sway in our public life and offices.

    I will happily stand to arms to resist that nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Nostalgia-NZ (5,199 comments) says:

    It’s a superseded (superstitious) formality left behind in the middle ages isn’t it Fentex?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You continually cite religious authority.

    You’re delusional. There is no such thing as religious authority because belief and authority have nothing in common.

    Reason is the life of the law ~ Coke

    It is not a falsehood. You may again try and claim authority from Blacks Dictionary of Law by it’s definition of Common Law, but I do not accept this apparent definition of Common Law as equating to Trial By Oath (a.k.a Trial By Ordeal) and I doubt many do.

    It is a falsehood because the state description of the common law omits the source of natural rights (and consequently the state injures these rights). Do you seriously believe that trial by oath is the same thing as trial by ordeal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Fentex (974 comments) says:

    Do you seriously believe that trial by oath is the same thing as trial by ordeal?

    Not identical, but logically the same – submitting to gods authority. By Oath by inference one is afraid to blaspheme, by trial by assumption god actively decides the matter.

    There is no such thing as religious authority because belief and authority have nothing in common.

    If I misunderstood you, that you spoke to peoples belief without meaning to assert religion as truth then I was mistaken. However I cannot see any logically meaningful distinction between assertions that Common Law is about the validity of oaths within sacred traditions and one that religion has authority through either being true or virtue of belief in it’s truth.

    Either is anathema to me and rejected, regardless of documentation of it’s presence in historic culture.

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