Garrett defends murder increase law

Written By: - Date published: 12:05 am, April 21st, 2010 - 37 comments
Categories: crime - Tags: ,

We were, um, graced with the presence of ACT MP David Garrett on The Standard yesterday. Last time we saw him, Garrett was proposing sterilising the poor. Today, he was trying to defend the 3 strikes policy, which should really be renamed the murder increase law in light of the secret advice the Government received from the Ministry of Justice.

Here is what Garrett had to say:

Only one problem with the comments on this .the FACTS derived from 16 years experience in California where the law is much stricter as Graeme Edgeler has pointed out.

FACT: Homicides decreased from 4,095 in 1993, the year before “three strikes” to 2,392 in 2002 (Source: CA Dept of Justice and CA Dept. of Corrections)

FACT: The population of California increased by about 25% during that period (it is difficult to estimate accurately because of the high number of illegal aliens in the State) which means the reduction is more than 60% rather than the 50% approximately the raw figures would indicate.

FACT: Homicides of Police have remained essentially static between 1986 (6) and 2001 (6) with a high of 10 in 1995. (Source: Homicide in California 1986-2001.

My response in the comments:

FACT: Official advise from the Ministry of Justice delivered to Simon Power on the 16th of December last year said that three strikes in the States may have increased homicides and that finding is applicable to New Zealand’s 3 strikes

FACT: Justice was prevented from submitting to the select committee on a law it will have to administer. Unheard of. (perhaps, you can tell us more, Mr Garrett)

FACT: After receiving this paper, Simon Power ceased to be lead minister on the legislation even though it’s his ministry. (I know you know something about that Mr Garrett).

QUESTION: How long have you known that the official advice is that the 3 strikes law may increase the homicide rate?

QUESTION: When were you planning to tell New Zealand?

r0b adds:

FACT: In Mexico homicides decreased from a high of 17 per 100,000 in 1997 to less than 10 per 100,000 in 2007.

FACT: Mexico has no Three Strikes law.

FACT: Much of the crime in California and Mexico is drug and gang related, and a lot of factors have been in play to reduce this kind of crime.

FACT: Trying to draw conclusions out of raw numbers from California is simplistic nonsense, the official advice provided to government didn’t fall in to that ignorant trap.

And so we see something of the level of thinking that is behind this dangerous law. Garrett’s blindness to inconvenient facts is very worrying given his ideologically-driven determination to push through the 3 strikes law.

The Government has been told that 3 strikes may decrease the overall crime rate but that may be at the cost of increasing the homicide rate. The Government must be asked if that is a gamble that they are willing to take.

37 comments on “Garrett defends murder increase law ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sam 1
    21 April 2010 at 12:19 am

    How is someone so fucking stupid an MP?

    • Zorr 1.1
      21 April 2010 at 1:08 am

      Looking at it the wrong way Sam…

      For some people the stupid is a qualification for office! We don’t want none of that high falutin’ universitah thinkin’ here!

    • Rex Widerstrom 1.2
      21 April 2010 at 5:32 am

      Because I was ranting about Garrett to a friend who is an intelligent young woman, a former youth MP, degrees in (or studying toward) sociology and psychology and telling her that she should recapture her youthful idealism and go back into politics.

      And she looked at me and said “You want me to spend my time ‘debating’ with someone that stupid… amongst people who, even if they don’t believe him, are prepared to go along with him for their own ambition. Ummmm… no thanks”.

      I can see her point. Stupid begets stupid. What sort of intelligent, educated, fiscally conservative but socially liberal person would want to join the Act caucus now? Or actually, what sort of intelligent arch conservative? I can only imagine what the next list will throw up, considering they didn’t field a full slate last time…

      • Pete 1.2.1
        21 April 2010 at 9:15 am

        “what sort of intelligent arch conservative?”

        Um, Rick Giles AKA “I think my argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about it”.

        No, scratch that, erase the ‘intelligent’ part THEN the answer is Rick Giles, and I suppose all the other Young ACT wannabes.

  2. Lizzy 2
    21 April 2010 at 1:32 am

    One side – more police killings by far which confirms my belief that lowlifes are often rational and self serving in how they select targets.
    http://fix3strikes.org/research.html

    SSTs side – http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Submissions/sprbjwalsh.htm
    It appears the main effect on violent crime when seen comes from voluntary migration of the criminal fraternity. It might be easier just to annex some Pacific banana republic, and offer one way transport, since Aussies won’t take them.

    Impotent window dressing may sum it up – like most of the paper shuffling down Welly way.

  3. Rex Widerstrom 3
    21 April 2010 at 5:39 am

    If I might repeat my suggestion of yesterday…

    Last I heard, Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation (PARS) were having their government funding cut after 50+ years.

    Left groups should fundraise to buy them a house… in the same street as Garrett. But only on the condition that it’s used as a halfway house for the worst of the worsrt – the two time rapists, armed robbers and the like.

    If he’s true to his beliefs Garrett ought to welcome them with open arms. After all, if 3 strikes is a startlingly effective deterrent, he will thus have as neighbours the group least likely to offend.

    If he moves, he’s exposed for the hypocrite he undoubtedly is. Win / win, no?

    • Pascal's bookie 3.1
      21 April 2010 at 7:46 am

      🙂

      Not just left groups either. Donations from ACT supporters in general, and Garrett in particular, shouldn’t be any problem..

  4. Jenny 4
    21 April 2010 at 7:31 am

    Has this issue been raised in the House yet?

  5. the sprout 5
    21 April 2010 at 9:28 am

    I’m glad we don’t have to be precious about it anymore and we can now start calling MPs of the ACT Party what they actually are: Fascists. Plain, simple, accurate.

  6. Jim Nald 6
    21 April 2010 at 9:36 am

    National, with their range of policy calls, seems to have been stealthily or opportunistically feeding and fueling rednecks and fascists ???

  7. The Voice of Reason 7
    21 April 2010 at 9:54 am

    An interesting meeting coming up in Palmy:

    COME TO THE PUBLIC DEBATE ON THREE STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT.

    David Garrett (Act MP) will debate Iain Lees-Galloway (Labour MP, PNth) on the merits of the government’s proposed 3 Strikes policy. A panel of three experts will provide commentaries.

    THE PANEL:

    Fr. Jim Consedine (former Prison Chaplain)
    Garth McVicar (Sensible Sentencing Trust)
    Audrey Lang (Field Director, PARS PNth)

    WHERE?
    Catholic Diocesan Centre, Te Rau Aroha off Amesbury St. behind the AA building and the Cathedral on Broadway

    WHEN?
    Saturday May 8th
    Between 1 and 4 pm

    Bring a gold coin donation please. Questions will be taken from the public after the speakers have finished. Tea and biscuits will be served at the conclusion of the formal activities.

  8. Ianmac 8
    21 April 2010 at 11:04 am

    It seems a bit odd to be having a debate to counter the increasing of sentencing. The debate should be about how to have Sensible Sentencing which minimises Sentencing. Somehow the worst of our criminals have been accepted as represented all criminals, yet a huge proportion are not in this category at all. They mostly need to learn to read and learn job skills.

  9. tc 9
    21 April 2010 at 11:14 am

    Crikey the resemblance is quite frankly scary……..that facists gene pool is truly ankle deep .

  10. Fisiani 10
    21 April 2010 at 11:23 am

    Mosely Fascists…..mmmm. Reasoned logical measured arguments. Watch the polls rocket up for Labour after this great post.

  11. Tom 11
    21 April 2010 at 11:39 am

    The resemblance between Garrett and Mosley is striking, as it that between Hide and Mussolini. Is it possible they are both clones? Do they qualify for a Brazillian passport?

  12. Brett Dale 12
    21 April 2010 at 1:02 pm

    So how many strikes would labour allow?

    • mcflock 12.1
      21 April 2010 at 1:40 pm

      None – they don’t reduce important issues (with lives at stake) to the level of a game.

    • mcflock 12.2
      21 April 2010 at 2:09 pm

      which is also why Labour only signed international declarations when they actually had the intention of implementing them.

    • Ari 12.3
      22 April 2010 at 9:12 pm

      They’d allow judges to actually decide what sentences would be, as per the proper separation of powers, most likely.

  13. Brett Dale 13
    21 April 2010 at 3:40 pm

    mclfock: so no strikes at all with labour???, it wouldnt matter if you had done 1 or 500 vioelnt crimes

    • Bright Red 13.1
      21 April 2010 at 3:45 pm

      Labour wouldn’t pass a crime policy that increase murders.

    • mcflock 13.2
      22 April 2010 at 10:42 am

      Brett, my impression of labour (as the lesser of two evils) is that they regard the term “strike” as inapplicable to a complex area such as crime. Each case, and each criminal, should be judged on their own merits. Arbitrary rules negate this principle, and giving them a sporting-oriented catchphrase shows stunning ignorance and callous indifference.

      And that is *without* the possibility that the arbitrary rule, according to a govt summary of research relevant to the area, could well and up killing people.

      “Three strikes and you’re out”. What a fucking stupid way to consider crime, punishment, justice and their causes in society.

  14. Fisiani 14
    21 April 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Didn’t Labour pass a law to reduce incarceration time and let hardened criminals out on parole after serving just 1/3 of their sentence. That is a Labour crime policy that DID increase murders.

  15. Ablative 15
    21 April 2010 at 4:40 pm

    When Helen Clark is compared to Mugabe the left (rightly) complains that this is shrill and disproportionate.

    Yet somehow it is OK to compare Garrett to Mosely?

    It seems that Kkkklarkkk, Helengrad and lickspittle are all OK again.

    [lprent: I don’t know that it is. But that was how the author chose to portray him (albeit with a disclaimer). Surprisingly there hasn’t been much discussion that I’ve seen on that point.

    Personally I’d have compared him to a chamberpot – a true symbol of the 19th century and asked if anyone could tell the difference. ]

    • GONEMAD 15.1
      21 April 2010 at 5:38 pm

      That’s interesting as a lot of people still compare Helen Clark to the contents of a chamberpot after a night on the lager and vindaloo.

      [the things we put up with in the interests of free speech – sigh. –r0b]
      [lprent: I don’t, but despite recognizing that IP signature, I’ll let the dickhead luser have his say (as idiotic as it is). You got to him first r0b… ]

    • uke 15.2
      21 April 2010 at 6:50 pm

      Err, Clark and Garrett are hardly in the same league.

      Garrett is a bizarre extremist with whom the fascist comparisons are actually reasonably close.

      “Helengrad” was never remotely on-target, although one might have mistakenly thought so given its gleeful adoption by the MSM.

  16. Anne 16
    21 April 2010 at 6:07 pm

    There’s only one true comparison… Neanderthal man. Have a good look at Garrett’s face. The similarities are astonishing. The only difference is: he wears clothes. Thank god for that!

  17. burt 17
    21 April 2010 at 10:46 pm

    Cheer up people, the business of govt is what govt decides it is. Where is it written than parliament are bound to act on advice from the judiciary? Sorry for being so 2006 about this but really, parliament are the supreme law maker and they decide what laws are enacted.

    As a point of interest, can new sentencing law apply to cases already heard but not sentenced when the law is enacted?

    • Armchair Critic 17.1
      21 April 2010 at 10:59 pm

      “As a point of interest, can new sentencing law apply to cases already heard but not sentenced when the law is enacted?”
      I wouldn’t think so. I understood that, in general, one was sentenced based on the laws in force at the time the crime was committed. But I am not a lawyer. Do you know of something specific?

    • Marty G 17.2
      21 April 2010 at 11:27 pm

      no that would retroactive

      muppett

    • Marty G 17.3
      21 April 2010 at 11:29 pm

      “Where is it written than parliament are bound to act on advice from the judiciary”

      The Ministry of Justice isn’t the judiciary. And no-one’s saying they’re bound to act on the advice, we’re saying they’ve been advised of this what the hell are they doing taking this risk?

      God damn you’re dumb. I mean, you get banned for a while and go away and it’s easy to forget but then you’re back and I’m like “damn, that guy’s a fucken dumbarse”