Labour does not want to let them all out

Written By: - Date published: 11:48 am, June 1st, 2018 - 170 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, blogs, crime, David Farrar, dpf, labour, Media, national, prisons, spin, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

The three strikes legislation, the brainchild of dead baby identity stealing former ACT MP David Garrett, looks like it will soon be no more.

The legislation was a sports slogan masquerading as a serious penal policy.  Its genesis is in the US of A where an informed considered approach to criminal justice is subservient to good old boy tough on crime toting politicians.

It basically has a list of offences where first time up a defendant will be given a warning, second time up an offender serves the imposed sentence without parole and third time up unless it would be manifestly unjust an offender has to serve the maximum sentence for the offence.

This has resulted in anomalous results.  In a local case the result of which was described by Andrew Geddis as being batshit crazy an offender on his third strike was sentenced to seven years for pinching a prison guard’s bottom.  And in America one legendary case involved an offender who was sentenced to 25 years for stealing a piece of pizza.

The basic problem is that under these schemes Judges have no discretion to deal with the nuances of a case and work out a result that is fair and just.  The underlying pretext is that all judges are too soft and the heavier the sentence the better.

Of course the concept is, to use a well known legal phrase, bollocks, and no attempt to intellectually justify it has worked.

And this is why it is rational and just to repeal this law.

Andrew Little’s justification for the repeal of the law is reported in this Stuff article:

Justice Minister Andrew Little has signalled what could be the beginning of the end of New Zealand’s three strikes law.

Speaking to media at the Beehive on Wednesday evening, Little said a proposal was going to Cabinet in about 10 days time to endorse a repeal of the controversial law.

“It will then go through the normal legislative, Parliamentary process. We are not doing wholesale reform until we get a good public debate going.”

He said the tough line the justice system was currently taking on criminals was “not working”.

“I think there is an acceptance now that it just doesn’t work,” Little said.

He also announced a proposal that less serious offending would be more likely to be dealt with by way of community detention.

“If you have a sentence of two years or less, you’re at the lower end of offending … we can still do something with you, so it’s better that you’re out in the community.”

The move is just the start of the reform process needed if Labour is to achieve its goal of reducing the prison muster by 30%.

It would be great if there could be an informed civilised debate about our criminal justice system but judging by this hysterical post by National pollster David Farrar the chances of this are remote.

The heading, “Labour wants to let them all out” is embarassingly wrong.  Note to David.  Labour is proposing to do away with a law that creates arbitrary unjust results, not grant people on their third strikes their freedom.

He is also wrong when he says this:

The three strikes law has actually seen reoffending rates drop for those convicted of a first strike. The answer to over crowded prisons is not to let violent criminals with a high risk of reoffending out early. The answer is to reduce the reoffending rate.

I don’t know if Farrar is being disingenuous or if he is confused.  Reoffending rates are dropping throughout the western world.  There are many theories about the reduction including improved nutrition and reduced lead levels in petrol.  And the analysis of the effectiveness of the three strikes law has concluded that there is no statistical evidence that it is working.  Farrar is (a) postulating that the introduction of something is causative of something else when there is no link and (b) ignoring the statistical analysis on the subject, and (c) stating that prisoners will be let out early when they will only be let out according to a determination of the criminal justice system rather than being detained continuously for batshit crazy reasons.

Then Farrar put up this piece by David Garrett where he complained about the “mainfestly unjust” exception to the third strike and claimed that there should be an automatic sentence for third strike offenders no matter what.  Twenty five years for stealing a piece of pizza?  The dude ought to have known better.

Let’s tweak the model slightly.

If , hypothetically speaking, someone has admitted previous offending for stealing the identity of a dead baby and assault and then faces a drunk driving charge why shouldn’t they serve the maximum jail sentence for drunk driving if they are convicted?  Please note I have not been able to ascertain if a conviction actually occurred but the principle is the same.  After all according to the proposal a comprehensive three strike system will provide deterrence to repeat offenders.  Why limit it to more serious offending?  Or does Garrett have some arbitrary distinction between “good” people and “bad” people and the offences they commit?

Good on Andrew Little for being brave and sane at the same time.  But don’t expect the ongoing debate to be civilised or rational.

Update: And National has just borrowed Farrar’s phrasing and confirmed they will go full wingnut.

170 comments on “Labour does not want to let them all out”

  1. r0b 1

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104391874/National-would-reinstate-three-strikes-retrospectively-punish-offenders

    National would reinstate three strikes, retrospectively punish offenders

    Simon Bridges says if it was in government National would reinstate the three strikes law and make sure any existing strike offences were not wiped from the record.

    “You do the crime, you do the full time,” Bridges said.

    Antidote to this poison:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104363382/times-up-for-three-strikes

    Time’s up for three strikes

    Starting with the name, three strikes was a political gimmick produced by a minor party desperate for attention and relevance. There was no shortage of experts slamming it as misguided and pointless when it was proposed. The Law Society argued that it was better to give the judiciary more discretion than enforcing long sentences and even National’s Justice Minister at the time, Simon Power, seemed sceptical.

    But now he feels he has to strut and posture stupidity that he probably doesn’t believe himself. Sad.

    • mickysavage 1.1

      Thanks r0b. So absolutely no chance of a rational debate then.

      • Michelle 1.1.1

        why the fuck are we listening to this d… head isn’t he the one that stole a dead childs identity his credibility is shot never mind his opinion it ain’t worth shit

    • mickysavage 1.2

      And retrospective …

      So much for the Bill of RIghts.

      “25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure
      Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:

      (g) the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty …”

      • dukeofurl 1.2.1

        Home detention is for sentences up to 2 years NOW

        Farrar is doing his usual lies when he claims otherwise

  2. Gosman 2

    I’m curious whether it would be acceptable to label Metiria Turei from now on a ‘Benefit cheat’ every time her name comes up or would that be considered rude?

    • Ad 2.1

      Try it three times and you’re out 🙂

    • mickysavage 2.2

      She hasn’t made a career out of being tough on crime.

      • Gosman 2.2.1

        She attempted to make political capital (and initially succeeded) out of her cheating the benefit system. She used it to argue that she was a champion of beneficiaries. In that sense she is even worse than Garrett as he showed remorse for his actions.

        • Stuart Munro 2.2.1.1

          Bullshit – she stood up for the powerless that a generation of politicians have betrayed, at considerable personal risk – and was punished for it by worthless and vindictive rightwing assholes like you.

          The NZ rightwing, having imposed poverty and misery on the greater part of the population, chiefly by lying their arses off, are desperate to prevent any consideration or discussion of the outcome of their austerity policies, as this would inevitably lead to a firm punitive response.

          So, Andrew McKenzie throws people out of their houses using spurious pseudoscientific nonsense – gets bonuses.

          Metiria raises the issue of the insufficiency and punitive administration of benefits – Gosman and his fellow trolls hit the fucking roof. In spite of the fact she has contacted Winz and undertaken to remedy whatever is required.

          Because the failure of neo-liberalism must be attributed to its victims, not its culprits. Culprits like Gosman.

        • Anne 2.2.1.2

          You are effectively claimimg that Metiria is a criminal because she once cheated WINZ out of a few hundred dollars Gosman.

          Well, I’m going to make a claim about you. You are a criminal because sometime in the past you cheated IRD out of some of the tax you owed. How do I know? Because everybody has.

          What’s the difference to what Metiria did? NONE.

          • chris73 2.2.1.2.1

            It wasn’t what she did, it was her actions after that caused the problem

            • Stuart Munro 2.2.1.2.1.1

              Rubbish.

              You don’t give a fuck about dishonesty offences – you’ve never complained about the rorts of any of the Right.

            • greywarshark 2.2.1.2.1.2

              Chris 73 It is the actions of lying governments that caused Metiria Turei’s contentious tactic . And what did she do. She worked and tried too hard to satisfy the measly-minded government. She showed that she could do well when they wanted to stop her succeeding.

              Governments said they wanted mothers to work and then prevented them from getting training that would enable them to make a decent living for themselves and their child or children. Metiria was not even practising tax avoidance where people who have money don’t want to pay reasonable tax on it. Metiria was earning more money to pay for her education, which the country should have been providing free.

              Your kneejerk discriminatory recriminations reflects your poor judgment in turning a practical necessity into a moral outrage.

              I remember hearing of a mother in the USA who was desperate to get the sort of education for the skills to get a good paying job and income for her and her child. She lived in a car while she attended college or university. There aren’t many men who care to go to that sort of painstaking effort to be a good parent providing well for their child. No wonder there is such an outcry from men about this woman!

          • Baba Yaga 2.2.1.2.2

            How much? Over what time period?

        • Tricledrown 2.2.1.3

          Gooseman dancing on a pin head Garrett’s tough on crime stance should have meant he should have admitted his crimes and taken responsibility, from the party of personal responsibility.
          But political science 101 shows fringe politicians are fringe loonies Garrett and Gooseman both of the same far right less than •5% support party

        • lucy 2.2.1.4

          But according to Wikipedia Garrett has committed two crimes “he has a conviction for assault in Tonga in 2002.[7] He was discharged without conviction three years later for stealing the identity of a dead child to obtain a passport. ” for neither does he appear to have done time and as he is still working as a lawyer in Tonga he has not even been removed from the bar as he is obviously does not meet the “fit and proper person” test. That does not show much remorse!

      • Baba Yaga 2.2.2

        She made a career out of arguing for leniency for benefit cheats.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.3

      I’m curious as to why you’re trying to divert from the incompetence of National and other RWNJs…

      Oh, wait, no I’m not.

    • james 2.4

      You can, but it tells us more about you than her.

      • Gosman 2.4.1

        Yes calling failed politician’s names based on long past misdemeanors would reflect badly on the person doing so I agree.

    • paul andersen 2.5

      what is even ruder, is that this policy was payed for by CCA(american private prison owners) who used garret as the bagman. funded through senceless sentencing trust, into the nats poodle, ACT.. instead of w*nking on about turei, you should be furious that our democracy could so easily be bought, and brought into disrepute by garret and ACT. if you had the courage of your convictions, you should be demanding to know where your favourite party gets its dosh from(more and more offshore, are YOU happy with that?)come on gossy, dont put up strawman arguments, answer THIS question!!

      • Rosemary McDonald 2.5.1

        “what is even ruder, is that this policy was payed for by CCA(american private prison owners)”

        Citation/link please. Not disputing the claim, but I’m just a little OCD about evidence to support such claims.

        Garrett is a hypocrite, as well as a miserable apology of a human being.
        SST are extremists, and its a pity they seem to be the only voice for victims heard by the media.

    • Sabine 2.6

      I am curious whether it would be acceptable to label Bill English from now on a “Benefit Fraudster’ everytime his name comes up and no, i would not that consider rude.

      see, i fixed it for ya.

    • I’m just wondering , gosman,… if your enthusiasm for tough three strikes policy’s extends to retrospective criminality as well…

      New Right Fight – Who are the New Right?
      http://www.newrightfight.co.nz/pageA.html

    • Tricledrown 2.8

      Gooseman MT was open and honest and asking for reform in welfare.
      Where Garrett lied and Denied also a violent criminal.

    • reason 2.9

      You leave out the context and environment created by ruthless richardson and her national governments calculated criminality Gosman …. deliberately putting all those NZ kids into poverty.

      “The evolution of child poverty in New Zealand is associated with the Rogernomics of 1984, the benefit cuts of 1991 and Ruth Richardson’s “mother of all budgets”,

      ” These benefit cuts meant that they would not even provide enough money for a beneficary to be able to afford the reccomended amount of calories in a day.

      It was said that “The 1991 cuts to benefits led to child poverty hitting 34 per cent in the mid 90s.” and still today we have some of the highest rates of child poverty in the OECD.”

      …”In 2009 then Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English was caught claiming a ministerial housing allowance for a Wellington property he already owned through a family trust. After public anger mounted, he was eventually forced to repay $32,000 to the taxpayer. (“Bill English buckles over housing allowance”, Dominion Post)

      This despite his ministerial salary of $276,200 per year – plus perks, gold-plated super scheme, and free/subsidised air travel after he retires from Parliament. (“Key backs $900-a-week subsidy for English home”, NZ Herald)

      Meanwhile, Metiria Turei, a 23 year old solo-mum, struggled to make ends meet and put food on the table. All this during Ruth Richardson’s infamous benefit cuts. Thousands of families were forced deeper into poverty, and the effects are still with us today with rising homelessness. ”

      And to put the boot in further … Gosman styles .. \There’s the highest tax rate in NZ,… leveled against solo mums other job seekers / poor … “People on the jobseeker benefit can earn up to $80 a week after which they are docked at a rate of 70 cents for every dollar earned..

      .. Parts of the welfare system have not been updated, with some abatement and eligibility thresholds still at the same levels they were 20 to 30 years ago.”

      It should be useless property speculators taxed at 70% …

      Stop Gosman from being such a greedy speculative bludger

      https://iso.org.nz/2013/12/10/stop-the-war-on-the-poor-crashing-nationals-party/

      https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/358529/benefit-abatement-rates-a-disincentive-to-work

      https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/benefit-docking-rates-disincentive-work

  3. Puckish Rogue 3

    “This has resulted in anomalous results. In a local case the result of which was described by Andrew Geddis as being batshit crazy an offender on his third strike was sentenced to seven years for pinching a prison guard’s bottom. ”

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/86818649/seven-years-jail-for-prison-bum-grab

    ‘Campbell approached the officer from behind and grabbed her right buttock, squeezing it hard, and holding on for about one to two seconds. ‘

    The guy was already in prison and just decided to grab the prison guards bum, theres a difference between a bum pinch in a nightclub (I’ve had my bum grabbed before) and embarrassing a prison officer like this, the prison officer needs to be respected, the prisoners need to know prison officers are off limits so minimalising the prisoners actions like this are not helpful

    Labour are on the wrong side of this.

    • mickysavage 3.1

      What penalty did you think this should have resulted in? Maximum sentence is 7 years and is reserved for the worst cases.

      • Puckish Rogue 3.1.1

        7 years, prisoners need to understand that prison officers are off limits

        • mickysavage 3.1.1.1

          Even though on the scale of offending this was not high? Contact to clothes and one only fleeting incident.

          • Puckish Rogue 3.1.1.1.1

            Was the prisoner unaware of the three strikes law?
            Was the prisoner unaware that sexually assaulting a prison officer is not allowed?
            If the prisoner knows all this then why shouldn’t the maximum penalty be imposed

          • Tuppence Shrewsbury 3.1.1.1.2

            #metoo Mickey. You can’t minimise sexual assaults to justify your point of view on a political issue

            • mickysavage 3.1.1.1.2.1

              It is the Criminal Justice system. First thing you do is look at how serious the offending was on the scale of potential behaviour. Are you saying that every offence of a sexual nature should attract the maximum sentence?

              • Tuppence Shrewsbury

                sexual offences I do actually. It’s a particularly intimate form of violence against another person. Anything that deters it is welcome. But particularly so if it’s a third strike offence it.

                Otherwise you are pretty much telling sexual predators there offence will always be treated as a lesser offence

                • Tuppence Shrewsbury

                  Are you saying it’s ok to minimalise sexual assault to achieve political aims?

                  Arse grabbing ok but pussy grabbing not?

                  • mickysavage

                    It is not minimising, it is a matter of getting it into perspective. Some indecent assaults are worse than others.

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      On that, any word when the findings will be released, should be about this month some time

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/102409863/labour-party-review-of-sexual-assault-handling-to-take-up-to-three-months

                    • Gosman

                      Is grabbing them by the p***y worse than grabbing them on the a**?

                    • mickysavage

                      It all depends on the circumstances Gosman. What I am pointing out is that there is a scale of offending, some minor, some major. To punish them by the maximum possible penalty makes no sense.

                      Argue the US case involving taking the pizza. Did this justify a 25 year jail sentence?

                    • Gosman

                      NZ’s 3 strike law was designed completely differently from the US version for the very reasons you mention. It only applies to serious violent offending and the penalty for the third strike is nowhere near as harsh. You may as well argue that we should get rid of penalties for theft because Saudi Arabia chops hands off for that crime.

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      Isn’t that the whole point of manifestly unjust, for situations as you describe not simply because the judge happens to not agree with it

                    • Gosman

                      What I can’t understand is how the judiciary are using the ‘Manifestly unjust’ clause should mean lefties who want less tough sentencing should feel justified that the 3 strikes law is not leading to unjust outcomes. Instead they want to ditch it completely thus handing the right a stick to beat them with (if you pardon the metaphor).

                    • Tuppence Shrewsbury

                      create a misdemeanor sexual offence then. but this move is throwing the baby out with the bath water just to create some good slogans.

                    • McFlock

                      That’s what you claim you can’t see, Gos.

                      What you’re hoping nobody else sees is your slide that a provision against “manifestly unjust” sentences means that no merely “unjust” sentences will happen.

                    • mickysavage

                      TS

                      create a misdemeanor sexual offence then. but this move is throwing the baby out with the bath water just to create some good slogans.

                      You would need millions of offences if you needed to have accurate categorisations of all possible levels of seriousness.

                      Take for instance an assault. This can go anwhere from a light slap that causes no marks to a haymaker that causes significant bruising. Your suggestion would require multiple offences of assault and accurate charging.

                      Why not have one offence which allows a sliding scale of seriousnesss within it. As long as the sliding scale is recognised.

                    • Tuppence Shrewsbury

                      MS

                      Ok, but who decides where an offence lies on that scale? and at what point is it deemed serious enough for it to be considered beyond the pale?

                      This is a far better suggestion than rushing to throw out the three strikes law. All it is going to take for this to blow up is one person, who would be considered to be on their 3rd strike or worse to commit one crime that makes the papers, and labour will get done.

                      Proper done too.

                    • McFlock

                      Ok, but who decides where an offence lies on that scale? and at what point is it deemed serious enough for it to be considered beyond the pale?

                      Maybe we could have one or even three people at every trial who make sure the arguments are properly and justly conducted, ensure procedure is followed so as to minimise prejudice in the verdict, and even declare a verdict if it is not a jury trial?

                      That learned individual could also assess the severity of any offence and determine the appropriate sentence on a case by case basis, with all due regard and consideration for parliament’s legislative wishes and consistency with previous cases…

            • Gabby 3.1.1.1.2.2

              Even if it’s a waitress with a ponytail tuppy?

        • Macro 3.1.1.2

          Don’t be ridiculous!

        • Macro 3.1.1.3

          Sexual Assault includes such acts as Rape – sexual intercourse without consent – as well as inappropriate touching.
          What you are equating is a pinched bottom with rape. Yes they are both offences which cause pain and anguish for the victims but one is one is far more serious than the other.

          • I Feel Love 3.1.1.3.1

            Pony tail or hair pulling for instance, deemed a worse physical assault than a pinched arse mebe?

            • AB 3.1.1.3.1.1

              Sounds good to me – 7 years for pony-tail pulling as a 3rd strike.
              If the perpetrator has already been asked to stop at least twice, does that make it a third strike, or can we only count actual convictions?
              Oh – and can we please add asset confiscation too?

  4. Sanctuary 4

    Farrar has gone full infowars since the election.

    The disease of arrogant entitlement that rots the National party hasn’t spared David Farrar.

    National have clearly signaled they are going to go full culture wars on this three strikes policy – I would say focus groups have responded strongly to the propaganda line they are now peddling.

    • Observer Tokoroa 4.1

      No Reason Here

      I think James would make a good combo with Farrar. At least James can count up to two.

      They both lack a sense of reason. It is not their calling. Neither are they troubled by thought.

      Their talent is greasing the thighs and loins of national personnel. Blue Lickspittle is their triumph and output.

      Grovelling Irresponsibe National is The lick spittle of Aotearoa.

    • Gosman 4.2

      Ironic much?

  5. Enough is Enough 5

    Has Winston told us where he sits on this issue?

    The debate begins and ends there

    • Alan 5.1

      yes, difficult situation for Winston, he will alienate many of his few remaining supporters if he backs Little on this.

    • dukeofurl 5.2

      NZ First was onto the 3 strikes concept in 2008 well before ACT did.

    • Bg 5.3

      Winston is keeping his nose out of everything until he gets his waka jumping bill across the line,

      At 2.4% he really has no choice.

  6. Puckish Rogue 6

    Well he did in 2008 but that was then…

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12056505

    Labour opposed that law when National introduced it as part of its agreement with the Act Party in 2010 but scrapping it could put NZ First in a difficult position.

    It takes a harder line on law and order than Labour and campaigned vigorously for a “three strikes” law in the past, including in 2008.

  7. Observer Tokoroa 7

    The Crime – The Punishment

    These two things should match, in my opinion.

    Murder should be a life long Punishment. For a life has been taken and cannot be replaced or mitigated. The Victim should be honoured, not forgotten.

    Lesser crime should be punished to the letter of the Law. For that is what deters criminals and rightfully appeases Victims.

    It is a funny thing about Criminals. They are inclined to blame anyone but themselves. Like a kid in kindy.

    Parole should be abolished. Home visits very limited. Criminals should be regularly trained in literacy and numeracy and made to set aside money as retribution to the Victim. Retribution should be made for several years on release from Prison. Because they have caused untold harm.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1

      Why do you support policies that increase the crime rate? How do you suppose all the extra victims you create feel? You should be ashamed, or failing that, publicly shamed.

      I call it “get tough on stupidity”.

      • chris73 7.1.1

        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12062123

        Mitchell said it had been an effective policy, and cited Ministry of Justice figures which showed there had been a 4.9 per cent reduction in first-strike offences and a 34 per cent reduction in second-strike offences since the law change.

        • David Mac 7.1.1.1

          For me to believe those numbers I’d need to believe that somewhere in South Auckland tonight somebody is downing half a box of Codys and declaring ‘”Nah Ricki, you guys go pinch a car, I’m going to stay here because I’m on 2 strikes.”

          Kicking someone harder is not the path to a desired result.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.2

          Are you taking the piss? Mitchell’s lies are refuted in the OP, as the link behind “analysis of the effectiveness” shows.

    • Marcus Morris 7.2

      One can only assume from your authoritative style OT that your are an expert in criminology and all aspects of crime and punishment. Frankly, I very much doubt it. I prefer to listen to the opinions of scientists such as Sir Peter Gluckman and others who have made it a lifelong mission to understand the nature of prisons and their effects on society and individuals, thinkers such as such as the late Peter Williams QC. Clearly you belong to the brigade who follow the “rantings” of that populist (lock em up and throw away the key) pseudo expert Garth McVicar.

  8. One Anonymous Bloke 8

    Since “get tough” incompetence increases the recidivism rate, proponents must justify themselves to all the extra victims of crime their pathetic vengeance fantasies have created.

    Little should hammer them mercilessly for it: demand that they apologise, call them out and shame them.

  9. David Mac 9

    A loving society would be looking for ways to fix it’s exploiters, not whip them harder.

    Are we seeking harmony or revenge? Mr Prison Guard bottom pincher needs to discover respect for others not 7 years on his lag.

  10. Observer Tokoroa 10

    Hi – One Anonymous Bloke

    It is very difficult to get into Prison in New Zealand. You go there for really serious Crime. Recidivism is at about 80% +

    So our current approach has not really achieved much for the Criminal or the Community.

    In fact there is a bias in favour of the Crim – the Victim comes off badly.

    Therefore, I say that Murder should be a Life long Punishment.
    All other Crime should be Punished according to the Letter of the Law
    Parole should be Abolished
    Home visits should be very rare.

    Prisoners should be tutored in English and Numeracy. Taught skills.
    They should should pay Retribution to Victims
    They should never be abused or humiliated.

    We would reduce costs. We would all know where things stand. Currently it is a muddle.

    • Gabby 10.1

      ReSTITution obby, reSTITution.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.2

      Therefore, I say that Murder should be a Life long Punishment.

      It is.

      All other Crime should be Punished according to the Letter of the Law

      Labour does not want to let them all out

      Parole should be Abolished

      No but there should probably be a look at how it’s implemented.

      Parole is there to allow prisoners time to integrate back into society before they’re released. This is actually a good idea but we don’t seem to be doing the integration thing all that well.

      Prisoners should be tutored in English and Numeracy. Taught skills.

      Yes. We could call it rehabilitation. Something else we don’t do well. Choosing instead to throw criminals into jail and then throw back out on the street. Then we wonder why it’s not working.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3

      The reason recidivism is so high – 50% not 80% – is because we listen to the witless conflicted reckons of the likes of Capill, Garret, Sabin and Mitchell, rather than following best practice. Your reckons are no better than theirs.

      I think you need to get out of the way before your reckons create even more victims of recidivism. Dry those crocodile tears.

      • greywarshark 10.3.1

        Recidivism. Is that doing the same crime or level of crime, again? Or is it committing another crime of any sort? There is a big difference between those two meanings.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3.1.1

          It doesn’t have two meanings.

          recidivism
          rɪˈsɪdɪvɪz(ə)m
          noun
          the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend.

          Never forget the genesis of this sadistic “get tough” fiasco, the inspiration for Garret, Mitchell, Collins, McVicar, and all their pathetic brainwashed parrots: Graham John Capill.

    • Marcus Morris 10.4

      “It is very difficult to get into Prison in New Zealand. You go there for really serious Crime.” That is a very bland statement. Can you verify it or, as I suspect, it is merely your opinion.

    • North 10.5

      What’s this OTT crap you give us OT ? And……”We would reduce costs…….”. How quite would that occur OT ? You are ignorant and spewing a mantra. I could write pages and pages about the massive cost of Ignorance and Fear having its way.

  11. Baba Yaga 11

    How much longer are the left (specifically Andrew Little) going to lie about this policy. The policy has worked beyond all expectations. From another blog:

    “1st time warnings for qualifying offenses has remained the same for 5 years pre and post 3 strikes legislation
    2nd time offenders decreased by 34% compared to when 3 strikes didn’t exist.
    Between 1 June 2010 and 31 May 2017 there were;
    1st strike offenders: 8,050
    2nd strike offenders: 113
    3rd strike offenders: 2
    Percentage of offenders with one warning getting a second (re-offending): 1.4%
    Re-offending rate before 3 Strikes policy for same type offenses: (40% average re-offending rate, re-imprisoned at average of around 23%)
    Percentage chance of 1st strike offenders receiving a 3rd strike : 0.0248%”

    https://www.scribd.com/document/380635650/OIA-responses-regarding-Three-Strikes-legislation#from_embed

    This government is going to go down in history as one that closed down schools that were working for their target demographic, a successful law and order policy, and a thriving and beneficial industry. Wankers.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1

      Being a typical RWNJ you missed the bit that says:

      This means that any reduction in reoffending cannot be solely attributed to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010.

      What that means in real terms is that no reduction can be attributed to it due to the data being far too vague.

      • Baba Yaga 11.1.1

        Oh I saw it. I just don’t believe in such big coincidences. Just like I don’t believe in letting criminals roam the streets when they have committed violent crimes. https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/06/meet_a_second_striker_2.html.

        Remember the expression ‘catch and release’. It will haunt Labour in the future.

        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1

          I just don’t believe in such big coincidences.

          1. Belief has nothing to do with good policy.
          2. You believe that which supports your belief.

          Just like I don’t believe in letting criminals roam the streets when they have committed violent crimes.

          They’re not. They get locked up.

          • babayaga 11.1.1.1.1

            .”Belief has nothing to do with good policy.”
            And yet Andrew Little is implementing a catch and release policy based on his belief. It is certainly not based on evidence.

            “They’re not. They get locked up.”
            And under Labour, let out again early to reoffend. Even after three offences.

  12. David Mac 12

    Yes, but you know how statistics can dance as you want them to.

    Above your post Observer Tokoroa states that recidivism runs at 80%+

    I can’t see how the stats you quote can live with that recidivism rate?

    How can 80% of them be returning and the 3 strike thing a resounding success?

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1

      The 80% thing is actually a lie. IIRC, it’s actually about 50%.

      • David Mac 12.1.1

        Ahhh ok, ta. Even at 50%, when every 2nd greeting for a prison guard is ‘Hello Again’ it’s hard to imagine them thinking ‘Gee this 3 strike thing is working great.’

  13. chris73 13

    I hope Labour gets through as Labour need to learn what really matters to NZ

    • David Mac 13.1

      What matters to NZers is: We’d rather our car wasn’t pinched in the first place and the person that would be pinching it has found something better to do instead.

      • chris73 13.1.1

        Its not an either or situation. You can have three strikes and a greater emphasis on rehabilitation. You can have three strikes and early intervention.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1

          Or you can scrap useless policy that has no effect other than to satisfy the pathetic vengeance fantasies of impotent creeps.

        • David Mac 13.1.1.2

          I see no upside for our society in caging a man for 7 years that dared to pinch a bottom. I see a hate incubator. The answer is always love.

          Maybe the answer is internment, but we need to be motivated by an urge to do the right thing and the right thing is to do all we can to assist the bad bastard in joining us again and make a positive contribution, we all want to do that. We all want to be great Dads.

  14. David Mac 14

    If prisoners assisted with some of our Kiwibuild aspirations, roof trusses etc, it would be easy to create some well paid, pride laden employment for them to step into upon release. Twyford’s Trusses. To avoid skewing the market-place, these cut-price trusses could be exclusively for Govt social builds

    • Naki man 14.1

      They would have to be very well supervised, i saw how they sabotaged the prison cell huts that they built in the late1980’s.

      • Antoine 14.1.1

        There is no way I would live in a house built by serving prisoners. Sorry

        A.

        • Tricledrown 14.1.1.1

          Antoine yeah all the National Party are a bunch of crimes leaky buildings 1991 repeal of the building code.
          Maybe a trip down a Coal mine National gets rid of mines inspector’s
          Some finance SCF Bill English forgets to sign insurance policy $1.6 billion down the gurglar.
          Canterbury rebuild Gerry built houses Brownlee $550 million to re fix the dodgy repairs that Brownies and Shipley ($500,000 for 16 meetings to socoldly oversea rebuild).
          Antoine I think it would be a safer bet to get serving prisoners to build your home.

    • dukeofurl 14.2

      Houses are mostly ‘pre nail’ now for entire frame not just roof trusses.

      I know they were doing renovations on old state houses trucked in to Springhill, no reason why pre -nail frames cant be done too.
      As the amount of nails ( using nail guns btw) can be seen by builders on site when they arrive, I dont think quality will be an issue, as those sort of theings can be fixed up then.

  15. Observer Tokoroa 15

    Hi

    It is good to see people actually discussing the problems of Crime.

    Love is the result of self discipline. Love is the difficult thing in Life . It is not the outcome of crime.

    Also if Crime is reducing, how come our prisons are filling up more and more ?

    Criminals need self discipline. They tend to blame everyone but themselves. But A disciplined, tutored, constructive time in Prison can produce good results.

    My sympathy is with The Victim and the Crim’s Family. The Victim should receive excellent services and restitution for the evil inflicted.

    The Victim’s Family should receive good support. So should the Crims family. For the Crim has been a Traitor to his Mother, which is an extremely evil crime initself.

    Remember you have to be really really Bad to get into Prison in New Zealand.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1

      if Crime is reducing, how come our prisons are filling up more and more?

      Answer: because we based our penal policy on the pathetic vengence fantasies of impotent creeps, as opposed to following best practice. But we’ve already been over this.

      • David Mac 15.1.1

        Yes, the old eye for an eye solution. Caveman justice.

        We shouldn’t be aiming for someone’s eye, we should be aiming for their desire to take my eye.

      • Sabine 15.1.2

        and because we have Prisons for profit with a ‘guaranteed’ bed occupancy.

        and if it states for profit that profit will be made, one wretched human being at a time.

  16. Observer Tokoroa 16

    Yes Dave Mac

    I think your Roof Trusses – Construction ideas are excellent.

    Perhaps suited to young boys of about 15/ 16 – struggling to keep out of major trouble
    But also suited to Prison.

    Have a word with a Youth Worker in your Community.

  17. Observer Tokoroa 17

    Hi OAB

    So every normal ordinary kid – doesn’t get into big trouble.

    But serious big crime kids – they don’t care .
    Let them alone – ” and they”ll come home dragging their innocent tails behind them ”

    How many prison men would you take into your nice home – and reform them ?

    You would get a heap of medals OAB – Have you been Murdered often? Raped. Stabbed. Raided. Throat Slit ? All good eh. Toss in a bit of Sodomy. Good ole gang standby.

    • David Mac 17.1

      I think there is a place for ‘Buddy on the outside’ social workers. A well paid position that creates a quality stepping stone for a released prisoner. A flatmate that knows that 3 Woodys is enough, can write a resume, provide transport, pass a football and front prospective employers etc.

      I think recidivism has much to do with returning to the same people, influences and environment upon release.

      • Bewildered 17.1.1

        Exactly sending these guys to home detention where in most cases there homes are dysfunctional is not an answer, this will go same way as mental health, let them out will simply mean more crooks on the streets as California is finding with crime rates up All this bs re wrap around services etc is just that bs, it won’t happen, increased crime will

        • David Mac 17.1.1.1

          Yep, I once had a neighbour that spent his life watching TV and on the computer.

          He was found guilty of a serious crime.

          His punishment was to watch TV and use his computer.

          Yes, that is a primary flaw with home detention….

          “We demand that you stay in exactly the same environment that we are convicting you for being in.”

          The law by Dr Seuss….Sam I am.

          • dukeofurl 17.1.1.1.1

            Of course the probation office would prohibit having computers and internet connections. Duh.
            Home D is not without other restrictions, eg no drugs or association with others who might visit.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2

      Is that the only alternative your feeble imagination can conceive, or are you just mindlessly parroting authoritarian talking points? Perhaps my “impotent” jibe touched a nerve.

      The link I provided at 10.3 would have given you a clue if you were capable of getting one.

    • Tricledrown 17.3

      Antoine yeah all the National Party are a bunch of crimes leaky buildings 1991 repeal of the building code.
      Maybe a trip down a Coal mine National gets rid of mines inspector’s
      Some finance SCF Bill English forgets to sign insurance policy $1.6 billion down the gurglar.
      Canterbury rebuild Gerry built houses Brownlee $550 million to re fix the dodgy repairs that Brownies and Shipley ($500,000 for 16 meetings to socoldly oversea rebuild).
      Antoine I think it would be a safer bet to get serving prisoners to build your home.oba

    • Tricledrown 17.4

      Odserver Tokoroa you must be on Meth exaggerating the truth.
      Just about all prisoners come out of Jail sooner or later so hopefully you or your loved ones don’t have karmic comeuppance.
      The way they are trained inside prison makes it harder for them to reintegrate into society.
      Catch 22.
      Playing on pathetic base instincts Nationals quick fix for the voters lock em up throw away the key rhetoric.
      I would have as many prisoners out of prison working paying taxes saving millions keeping them away from prisons costing every tax payer.

  18. adam 18

    Trolls keep on trolling, trolling, into the future…

    This is essentially a debate about how to stop reoffending, one side defies logic and goes all hate memes. The other lays out logical answers and tries to have a debate.

    Hate memes win, because propaganda is designed to not appeal to logic or rational debate, but emotions and fears. It’s why the loony nut bags keep on winning, they don’t give a rats about logic or rationality – they only want to win, and if that means lying and manipulating people, they will.

    Crime, it’s about fear, and the trolls love fear. It means they get to feel justified, lying.

    • Antoine 18.1

      > This is essentially a debate about how to stop reoffending

      So what is the Labour government doing to stop reoffending?

      I haven’t seen anything yet… is there something I’ve missed?

      Can you see that people would have some grounds to be offended, if the Govt shortened sentences without doing anything on the crime prevention / rehabilitation side?

      A.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1

        Offending pathetic authoritarian centrists would be a bonus.

      • mickysavage 18.1.2

        You do understand Antoine that poverty is the biggest driver of crime and this Government weekly is announcing new policy to deal with poverty.

  19. Sabine 19

    interesting thread to say the least.

    A man grabs the arse of a prison guardian and gets seven years as a third strike

    a group of young man, all young men in their late teens early twenties, sons of cops, real estate agents and hollywood stars that supplied alcohol to minors to then proceed to gangrape then, got nothing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roast_Busters_scandal

    drink drivers that by sheer luck kill no one get 6 month in life without a drivers lisence and a tut tut even when it is the third offense

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/whats-on/entertainment/102655808/Shortland-Street-actor-Pua-Magasivas-drink-driving-sentence-sends-a-message

    a man in prison pinches the bottom of a guard and gets seven years as third strike

    a man beats his wife with a hammer and gets nothing.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11720158

    and we can go on and on and on.

    So the issue that i have with sentencing in NZ is not so much that maybe some real criminals get a hard stick if they re-offend, my issue is that we apply the law that exist willy nilly often depending on social status and race, that crimes against women – unless she ends up dead – are considered gentlemen crimes that surely she caused in the first place, and that that is actually the end that we need to tackle.

    As for emptying out the prisons, the Labour led coalition could look at decriminalizing marijuana and thus remove a lot of ‘law abiding criminals’ that like to smoke weed rather then drink booze. But i guess the Labour led government, all of them Red/Green/Black don’t have the spine nor guts for this just yet. Even tho it would be the right thing to do.

    But yeah, lets discuss a dead horse.

    • David Mac 19.1

      Every morning in jail should start with a hash muesli, make reggae not shanks.

      In a few generations I think we will come to see our current cannabis laws as a quaint absurd slice of history. We’ll view them as we do the prohibition days of Al Capone.

      • Cinny 19.1.1

        Epic goodness DM 🙂

        “Every morning in jail should start with a hash muesli, make reggae not shanks.”

        ..maybe after breakfast, they could work on the crops; which in turn could fund most of said jails expenses. The growing standard would be second to none.

        NZ trades cows for crims cash crops…..world leaders in medical marijuana.

        • Stuart Munro 19.1.1.1

          The fibrous stalks could replace the supermarket bags too.

          • Cinny 19.1.1.1.1

            Solar and wind-powered fibre and textile factories….. mould resistant furnishings for healthier homes (hemp is mould resistant).

        • Rosemary McDonald 19.1.1.2

          🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Rosemary McDonald 19.2

      “So the issue that i have with sentencing in NZ is not so much that maybe some real criminals get a hard stick if they re-offend, my issue is that we apply the law that exist willy nilly often depending on social status and race, that crimes against women – unless she ends up dead – are considered gentlemen crimes that surely she caused in the first place, and that that is actually the end that we need to tackle. ”

      The term used for these inconsistencies is (and this was from someone who headed up a Tribunal)… “ad hockery”.

      “As for emptying out the prisons, the Labour led coalition could look at decriminalizing marijuana…”

      There was hope there for a little while, no?

      All gone for now, including medicinal use. But why? One theory is that Uncle Winnie is dead set against, largely because he feels it will scare off his major voter base….the Old People.
      If this is the case, Uncle Winnie needs to get out more because some of the staunchest proponents of decriminalisation of cannabis for medicinal and recreational are the over 65s.

      • Cinny 19.2.1

        Ad hockery, for sure re the sentencing. It’s nuts how it’s so obvious that the person who can afford the best lawyer ‘wins’ the lightest sentence, or gets let off.

        Wonder how creative judges are with sentencing, or is it stock standard send them to jail. Do they have a list of options, or can they come up with their own?

        I wonder if people are sentenced to rehab centres? Or to the armed forces? Instead of jail

    • chris73 19.3

      Well I’m certainly for harsher penalties for all those you mentioned above

      • David Mac 19.3.1

        Hi Chris, what do you see as the positive outcomes of us applying harsher penalties?

        • chris73 19.3.1.1

          1. They can’t commit further crimes against the general public.

          2. Greater and longer access to rehabilitation processes

          • David Mac 19.3.1.1.1

            Yep, I get that angle.

            I’m suggesting it’s a sticking plaster, a charade of security. it might take a 1000 years for us to get there but I think solutions lie in defusing the motivation for people to do evil things. I think lashing them to the mast and whipping them raw draws us no closer to a warm and comfortable solution.

            • chris73 19.3.1.1.1.1

              “I think lashing them to the mast and whipping them raw draws us no closer to a warm and comfortable solution.”

              Pretty sure I wasn’t calling for prisoners to be tortured

          • Patricia 19.3.1.1.2

            Sadly most prisoners don’t get rehab or counselling until the end of their sentence and often that is too late.
            Nor do the illiterate prisoners get any education so that they have more skills on release.

            • Antoine 19.3.1.1.2.1

              So shouldn’t we be focusing on providing rehab, counselling and education – rather than reducing sentences?

              A.

            • Cinny 19.3.1.1.2.2

              Thanks for that info Pat, much appreciated.

              Well, that sucks then, it should be one of the first things that are done, rather than at the end. Especially when held in remand. Mandatory before sentencing even.

              The way I see it if a group of people are locked up with nothing to do, except learning how to fight and scheme etc, it’s no bloody wonder people are reoffending. (Apart from the real psychos, who would probably benefit from a brain transplant).

              If we give people something worthwhile to be proud of change will come. Meanwhile, those in the big house brag about violence rather than bragging about getting top marks in an educational programme where they are learning to be, say a personal trainer.

              Maybe achieve X amount of credits while in the big house, for completing certain programmes, or educational/practical/work-related courses and have your sentence reduced.

              Maybe it shouldn’t be a privilege at the end of one’s sentence to get an education, rather it could be mandatory for all prisoners.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 19.3.1.1.3

            So you also support policies that create more crime. Public shaming for you.

          • Tricledrown 19.3.1.1.4

            Chris 73 how long did it take you to think up that recheck rhetoric.
            So you are going to lock these people up for ever.

        • David Mac 19.3.1.2

          I’d go on to suggest that the guy about to strike his wife does not think “Whoah, better not, the maximum sentence has just gone from 3 to 5 years.”

          The problem is that the guy wants to whack the woman that washes, cooks and smiles for him. How long we put him in a cage is neither here nor there.

          • chris73 19.3.1.2.1

            “The problem is that the guy wants to whack the woman that washes, cooks and smiles for him. How long we put him in a cage is neither here nor there.”

            Lock him up to the fullest extent of the law and then work on rehabilitation, don’t let him out early just so he can smack her around, again

  20. David Mac 20

    10 celebs that need bangin up pre Met.

  21. Incognito 21

    Crime and Prejudice

  22. Heres one for Gosman , Baba Yaga and co.

    But notice the sort of ‘clientele’ it speaks of… certainly not minor offenders but usually those in position of power and influence … who hide behind corruption , the law and various institutions to conduct their skulduggery.

    I hope you like it. Its red neck enough , that’s for sure.

    I quite like it myself.

    Rebel Son- From a Mile Away – YouTube
    Video for i can smell bullshit from a mile away you tube▶ 3:00

  23. Ross 23

    A good article on Stuff asking why Andrew Little seems to be preoccupied with 3 Strikes when that has had little effect on the prison population.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104349380/opinion-govt-prioritising-three-strikes-law-overturn-but-what-about-the-prison-muster

    Meanwhile, I imagine Belgium will be discussing whether they should keep violent criminals in prison a little longer.

    http://www.newsweek.com/belgium-terror-suspect-killed-liege-police-day-release-program-949802

    • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1

      I imagine Belgium…

      Why would you do that: come to The Standard and demonstrate how totally shit your imagination is? Why would the Belgians start channelling Graham Capill when they have Holland next door?

    • Ross 23.2

      It was the fourteenth time since his detention that he was granted temporary leave, Geens said. “Everyone in Belgium is asking the same question: how is it possible that someone convicted of such serious acts was allowed to leave prisons?” Deputy Prime Minister Alexander de Croo was quoted as saying.

      Alas, it’s a little late for that question as four people are dead. But it’s always refreshing to get honesty from politicians.

      https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/prison-day-release-under-scrutiny-after-belgian-attack

      • One Anonymous Bloke 23.2.1

        Prediction: the Belgians will carry on following informed advice, rather than borrowing their penal policy from Graham Capill.

  24. Tricledrown 24

    National have had more people on benefits throughout our hisTory.
    Unemployment figures since National was formed and prior United and reform parties.
    Are the Party of homelessness and unemployment it gives National a point of difference especially when they dehumanize both for political gain creating divisiveness.
    Baby Gaga.

  25. The Chairman 25

    More tobacco tax increases are going to further fuel the black market and the related crime spree. Which is counter productive to reducing incarcerations.

    Additionally, the related fear and public perception that violent crime is out of control will make it more difficult for Labour to bring the public along with their wish to be softer on crime.

    • Incognito 25.1

      Additionally, the related fear and public perception that violent crime is out of control will make it more difficult for Labour to bring the public along with their wish to be softer on crime.

      Why are you repeating National’s framing?

      • The Chairman 25.1.1

        “Why are you repeating National’s framing?”

        I wasn’t aware National are calling to drop the tobacco tax increases. As I was merely pointing out the reality of not doing so.

        • Incognito 25.1.1.1

          Why are you being obtuse? I specifically quoted you and you completely ignored that and refused to answer my question!? Thus, I assume you have no answer, which begs the question why you are commenting here at all …

          • The Chairman 25.1.1.1.1

            The only one being a bit slow here is you. Your question was answered.

            I was highlighting the likely outcome of continuing on with tobacco tax increases.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    2 weeks ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago