There’s nothing particularly controversial in what she said. And I’m not convinced she’s crossed a line into forbidden territory. Judges make comments about sentencing matters all the time. They are often involved as speakers at conferences and law seminars. That a judge should have an opinion on something directly relevant to her job is really not that controversial.

However, her message clearly doesn’t appeal to the usual suspects, becauses it exposes them as fools.

Dame Sian has certainly not formed relationships with people in all areas of the justice system and actually discussed what does and doesn’t work with them, and she by no means is versed in how other countries implement justice policy and what effects they have seen.

Her speech seemed considered and wise- her judicial experiences contributing in no small part, I should think. Perhaps one day she might contribute to a ‘school of penology’ if one were to be formed. We surely need one, if this debate is any indication.

The slur about ‘political appointment’ was simply that- so what’s your contribution to this most concerning issue?

The notion that “she spoke outside her field” is ludicrous.

You may have also overlooked that Elias’s brother-in-law, Jim Fletcher, was murdered in Papamoa some years ago, so I imagine she also has some experience with what victims go through as well.

When she gave that speech she spoke outside her field (and made an ass of herself in my opinion.)

I guess that is what you get when you make political appointments to the bench.

Family breakdown is one of the most consistent determinants of disadvantage in society at large…

http://www.physorg.com/news163090610.html

The bottom line, she said, is that children in high-conflict married households tend to do no better than those in stepfather and single-mother families. How well parents manage their anger and conflict is obviously important for the outcomes of children, but, she stressed, policy initiatives that promote marriage “need to take account of how variation within marriage relates to child well-being.”

http://www.counselorlink.com/divorce-children/

Should we stay together for the kids? The answer from research is this: in a low conflict marriage, you can stay together for the kids with a reasonable hope that your sacrifice will pay off. In a high-conflict marriage, on the other hand, you can separate or divorce with confidence that you have helped your children escape the seriously damaging consequences of fighting between parents. Used wisely, both the questions and the answers can enrich the decision-making process and make your client’s time in therapy more useful and productive.

Not really all that consistent. If people are considering divorce it’s probable that they exist within a high conflict marriage which is more damaging to the children than the divorce.

We don’t get a police state from actively working to decrease crime by supporting the people who have children, community reeducation on what causes crime etc.

You know, When I read F. A. Hayeks’ The Road To Serfdom I was able to point out a real life example to his book – the USA under George W, Bush. Everything that he describes as happening under socialism was happening under a massive right-wing, anti-socialist government.

It’s Labour who have “kicked for touch’. Again: Not good enough.

Agreed Rex, Labour should be shouting the speech, the facts and their support of Elias and finding better methods to decrease crime from the rooftops.

Good stance but the replies in this thread and everywhere else show that the bulk of the population is not prepared to look beyond their own self interest, let alone the vast majority of liberally minded politicians.

Family breakdown is one of the most consistent determinants of disadvantage in society at large yet successive governments have made it easier for families to split and separate. Labour’s introduction of the DPB offered a financial incentive for parents to separate yet the miserly benefit payments lead to poverty and disadvantage compared to the income in a household where one or more of the parents are working. I doubt anyone in the Labour Party really cares that much about the downsides of creating new categories of welfare and state dependency, they are far more interested in the political power they can buy through expansion of the State bureacracy.