NRT: “The worst of the worst”

Written By: - Date published: 10:43 am, April 30th, 2013 - 176 comments
Categories: crime, law and "order", national - Tags: , , ,

I/S at No Right Turn on the difference between what was promised of the “3 strikes” law and the way it is being used in practice.

“The worst of the worst”

When National passed its “three strikes” legislation in 2010, they promised that it would not be like California’s, and target shoplifters, drug dealers, and other petty criminals. Instead, it would be used on “the worst of the worst”. Throughout the debates (which are linked to from here), they repeatedly referred to “the worst murderers”, the “worst serious violent offenders” and the “worst” sexual offenders. So who are actually they using it on?Dumbarse muggers:

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

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

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

So, it turns out that National were lying. Judith Collins thinks that this is an example of the law working. I guess she’s forgotten all the assurances she gave back in 2010.

If our legal system thinks that this dumbarse is among “the worst of the worst”, or that his crimes merit 14 years imprisonment without parole, then it is fundamentally disproportionate and unjust. If our politicians think it is anything other than a waste of public money, then they are simply insane.

But its hard to see how, if this moron gets to a third strike, the Bill of Rights Act’s affirmation of freedom from disproportionately severe treatment or punishment would not be invoked. Which should see the law being “read down” to include discretion on sentencing where it would be manifestly unjust (something that only exists at present for the parole decision). The politicians will squeal, but if they won’t obey the BORA as they promised, the courts will just have to do it for them.

(I’d suggest that juries simply start refusing to convict people where legislated sentences woudl be unjust, as they did in the C17th in response to the“Bloody Code”, but National deprived most people of the right to trial by jury last year…)

176 comments on “NRT: “The worst of the worst” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tigger 1
    30 April 2013 at 11:00 am

    Garth McViagra practically came in his pants praising the judge.

    This kid needs help, not jail. Meanwhile today Hanover crooks go free…

    Oh, NRT I really appreciate your generosity in sharing posts. Like most I’m time poor and can only check so many blogs. You work tirelessly for justice and I appreciate the Standard carrying some of your posts.

    • aerobubble 1.1
      30 April 2013 at 3:14 pm

      McVicar is an idiot, information can be used for good or bad. So the idea that he would out judges who gave lite sentences, if judges were to alter their sentence as a result, could possibly lead to judges being targeted… …or even a judge calling McVicar into their court and locking them up for interference in justice.

  2. Ruobeil 2
    30 April 2013 at 11:54 am

    No mention of the 72 previous convictions.

    No mention of the indecent assault or aggravated (ie: beat the crap out of the victim) robberies.

    Just a fine upstanding citizen.

    The real question is: Why does Labour love cuddling up to crims?

    • Pascal's bookie 2.1
      30 April 2013 at 12:02 pm

      “aggravated (ie: beat the crap out of the victim) ”

      You should probably do some homework on that one there chap.

      Someone walks aup to you in the street and robs you : Robbery

      Does same thing but has a mate standing next to him: Aggravated robbery.

      • TheContrarian 2.1.1
        30 April 2013 at 12:38 pm

        Nonetheless 72 convictions is a fair bit, no? Which has already included jail time and indecent assault.
        Not really the example I would have chosen in order to highlight the perceived absurdity of this law.

        (for the record I am not a supporter of the 3 strikes law)

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1.1.1
          30 April 2013 at 12:45 pm

          “I am not a supporter of the 3 strikes law”

          You just vote for the party that passes it into law, then wash your hands of the consequences. Classy.

        • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.2
          30 April 2013 at 7:01 pm

          @ Contra “Not really the example I would have chosen in order to highlight the perceived absurdity of this law.”

          lol, you just made an argument “NeilM” has been using, I’d almost rather find myself doing a Pete George. Almost, but it’s pretty close.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.2
      30 April 2013 at 12:21 pm

      The real question is: where does a low-life piece of trash like Ruobeil get off pretending that a call for a rational approach to penal policy equates to “cuddling up to crims”?

      Sub-moronic scum like Ruobeil, Graham Capill and David Garrett have distorted this discussion for too long. Enough is enough: it’s time to get tough on right wing cretins.

      • Ruobeil 2.2.1
        30 April 2013 at 5:58 pm

        Still haven’t been to those anger management classes yet Knucklehead?

        Glad to see you defending crims – then again anything for a few votes eh?

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.2.1.1
          30 April 2013 at 7:06 pm

          It’s very very simple Ruobeil: you support policies that increase crime rates. Are you saying anger isn’t a perfectly valid response to your making things worse?

    • Murray Olsen 2.3
      30 April 2013 at 6:34 pm

      Independent research shows that 73 out of every 72 convictions are based on torture, police perjury, and the denial of human rights.
      On the other hand, John Banks is being fairly prosecuted at the moment, Hutton was an upstanding gardener, and GCSB operatives have boasted of their law breaking ways. When will Tories stop cuddling up to crims?

    • Puddleglum 2.4
      30 April 2013 at 10:21 pm

      What do the 72 previous convictions have to do with the three strikes law?

      Presumably, that law refers to convictions of a particular severity rather than any old convictions (e.g., multiple parking fines). Or are you implying that the three strikes legislation is actually just cover for getting at petty criminals rather than the ‘worst of the worst’? (i.e., just as NRT argues).

      Unless, of course, the 72 convictions were all for murder, rape or grievous assault. Were they?

      • Ruobeil 2.4.1
        1 May 2013 at 7:40 am

        That’s right; indecent assault is petty.

        Wonder whether the victim believes that?

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.4.1.1
          1 May 2013 at 7:46 am

          Using the victim as a human shield won’t help your argument. The policies you support have led to a 50% recidivism rate when other countries achieve 20%. That’s 30% more victims, all to gratify your twisted vigilantism.

          Enough is enough.

  3. Jane 3
    30 April 2013 at 12:14 pm

    I am no fan of this law but in this case I think his from the same article is relevant…

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

    In July that year, he and an accomplice committed aggravated robbery. Whaanga punched the victim in the head multiple times before taking $68. For that he earned his first strike in December 2010 and was sentenced to jail for two years and one month.

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

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

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

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

    • Tigger 3.1
      30 April 2013 at 7:38 pm

      And jail will do nothing to change him. Certainly not Jail Inc.

    • Tigger 3.2
      30 April 2013 at 7:42 pm

      FOR. FUCK’S. SAKE.

      He needs HELP. He DOES NOT NEED JAIL.

      Yes, he’s this and he’s that. Dammit, you made me write in caps and I hate doing that.

      It’s our system that is broken, our society, not this kid.

      • dumrse 3.2.1
        30 April 2013 at 8:14 pm

        Agreed get him out now. Let him thump the next innocent kid so hard he falls and dies. Then what? Your fucking spots gonna change.

      • infused 3.2.2
        1 May 2013 at 12:09 am

        I’m sure there are better people to ‘help’.

  4. Saccharomyces 4
    30 April 2013 at 12:20 pm

    I think we have to bear in mind that he has a significant record, and we’re not just talking about nicking an unattended skateboard, there’s far more evil behavior involved. From Stuff:

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

    In July that year, he and an accomplice committed aggravated robbery. Whaanga punched the victim in the head multiple times before taking $68. For that he earned his first strike in December 2010 and was sentenced to jail for two years and one month.

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

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

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

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

    The way I see it is that he knows what is expected of him, and what the consequences will be if he misbehaves. Bear in mind that all we’re asking is that he DOESN’T BREAK THE LAW, it’s not that hard…..

    • Jane 4.1
      30 April 2013 at 12:24 pm

      Snap! 🙂

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.2
      30 April 2013 at 12:28 pm

      “it’s not that hard…”

      Do you understand the significance of the phrase “neuro-disability”? I guess not.

      • dumrse 4.2.1
        30 April 2013 at 8:18 pm

        Sh!t even I’ve never heard of that. Get him a benefit quick. Better still I will work harder and longer and you can just take some more tax from me. He’s a fucking criminal, when will he learn, more importantly when will the left learn.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.2.1.1
          30 April 2013 at 8:59 pm

          Learn what? How to reduce recidivism rates, or how to reduce crime in general? Solutions abound, mostly provided by the Left, but what I don’t understand is why you want to make things worse, and why not one wingnut can produce a single substantive contribution.

          Go on, call me soft on crime again you witless gimp.

        • Murray Olsen 4.2.1.2
          1 May 2013 at 2:07 am

          Even more tax will be taken off you to keep him in prison. You are asking the wrong people to raise taxes in this case, and NAct will only raise them if you’re earning the sort of lowish income that your abilities deserve. If you’re earning heaps, NAct will tax someone else anyway, and any party which cut down prison numbers would be spending less, so don’t worry, be happy……….

      • Ruobeil 4.2.2
        1 May 2013 at 7:42 am

        So that explains your problem with anger management?

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.2.2.1
          1 May 2013 at 7:50 am

          I’m not sure. Does it explain your weird vigilante fantasies?

    • framu 4.3
      30 April 2013 at 12:33 pm

      ok – so he deserves to go in front of the court – i dont think anyones saying he should get off scott free

      but seeing as three strikes is meant to be reserved for the worst of the worst how does any of those facts relate to the three strikes law?

      its not a law that says, “do lots of crime and well lock you up for ages” – its meant to be for the most despicable violent offenders going.

      yes he robbed people – yes he was violent, but is three strikes the right answer here? Has it been applied in the circumstances we were sold?

      Its his previous record of violence that is the factor with three strikes, not his previous record of offending as a whole

      • Saccharomyces 4.3.1
        30 April 2013 at 1:55 pm

        Do you understand the three strikes law? All it means is that IF Mr Whaanga commits another of the crimes under the three strikes law he will receive the maximum sentence applicable for the crime, no parole.

        It DOESN’T mean that if he shoplifts that he’ll get slammed with a life sentence. It DOESN’T mean that if he gets caught drunk driving that he’ll get a life sentence.

        It DOES mean that if he commits sexual assault he’ll get 7 years no parole. It DOES mean that if he commits an indecent act on a child he’ll get 10 years no parole. It DOES mean that if he assaults with intent to rob he will get 7 years.

        For reference a list of the offences and applicable non-parole sentences can be found here: http://news.tangatawhenua.com/archives/5230

        “its not a law that says, “do lots of crime and well lock you up for ages” – its meant to be for the most despicable violent offenders going.”

        • framu 4.3.1.1
          30 April 2013 at 1:58 pm

          “Do you understand the three strikes law? All it means is that IF Mr Whaanga commits another of the crimes under the three strikes law he will receive the maximum sentence applicable for the crime, no parole.”

          yeah – thats exactly my point.

          i said “yes he robbed people – yes he was violent, but is three strikes the right answer here? Has it been applied in the circumstances we were sold?
          Its his previous record of violence that is the factor with three strikes, not his previous record of offending as a whole”

          read it again

          • Saccharomyces 4.3.1.1.1
            30 April 2013 at 2:23 pm

            I think it is the right answer here. He has a proven record of violent offending. Pretty simple……. he should be stepped up to maximum sentence for future crimes.

            I’d argue that punching someone MULTIPLE times in the head before taking their money is pretty despicable.

            People have died from being punched in the head……

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.3.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2013 at 2:25 pm

              Then get yourself admitted to the bar, get yourself selected as a High Court judge, and pass harsh sentences. Otherwise get your filthy hands off our justice system.

              • Saccharomyces …
                30 April 2013 at 2:28 pm

                Well if you don’t agree with the three strike rule than get yourself elected to parliament, present a bill, get the support to get it passed into law.

                Otherwise stop moaning about the law.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  30 April 2013 at 2:32 pm

                  Nah, I think I’ll carry on treating your delusions with the ridicule and contempt they so richly deserve, but thanks all the same.

                  • DavidC …
                    30 April 2013 at 6:38 pm

                    O.A.K
                    You are a crim cuddling fuckwit of the first order.
                    This guy has committed 5 strike offences that we know of and he is 21?
                    His SOP is to conscript young people with little or no criminal background to help him. So this POS drags gulible but otherwise pretty ok “kids” into a life of crime with him.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 April 2013 at 6:48 pm

                      Yeah not worth 14 years behind bars. Maybe a couple.

                    • BM …
                      30 April 2013 at 6:55 pm

                      Be easier just to shoot the useless fuck.
                      Or at the least sterilize him so he can’t pass on his scummy genetics

                    • felix …
                      30 April 2013 at 6:57 pm

                      Ah, genetics. Do go on…

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 7:02 pm

                      We should give up judicial independence because some people commit crime? I don’t think you’re seeing this clearly. Oh, and by the way, the policies you support lead to increased crime. Yes, they do: read the links provided below.

                      So which one of us is the fuckwit?

                    • DavidC …
                      30 April 2013 at 8:07 pm

                      CV.
                      If your kid lay in hospital braindamaged by this POSwould you still say its worth just a couple of years? Get real.

                      Giving someone a beating one to one is 7 years max, there is a reason that making is a team event is 14 years. That is what this piece of human scum does time after time, when he is not commiting indecent assult of course.

                      Anyone got a list of his 70 previos offences?

                    • felix …
                      30 April 2013 at 8:21 pm

                      Brain damage to kids now?

                      Fuck me this is good. We pretend this one person has done something so we can have a knee-jerk emotional response to it.

                      Then we fantasise a punishment sufficient for our own gratification.

                      Then we extend and apply that punishment to the general case. And it’s appropriate in the general case because it was appropriate in our made-up one.

                    • DavidC …
                      30 April 2013 at 8:35 pm

                      Felix.
                      I assume your crawling comment was aimed at me.
                      You do realise if you punch someone in the head enough to actually knock them over there is a very real chance of doing lasting damage.
                      This isnt the movies where you hit someone and they spring back up after a 15 second nap.

                      Pretend what?

                      Care to list a violent offence this cunt hasnt perpetrated on society? rob a bank? no not yet. But still he is only 21.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      30 April 2013 at 8:44 pm

                      Don’t you mean ‘eugenics’, Felix?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:04 pm

                      I’m always reminded of the Sopranos episode ‘Boca’ in these debates. Where Tony has to be reminded that Coach Hauser’s offending isn’t all about him. It’s just unfortunate that our resident wingnuts don’t even have the minimal understanding that a fictional mafioso can muster.

                      Here’s big tough DavidC to call everyone names though.

                    • felix …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:17 pm

                      David C: I know this is hard for you to follow, but you either said or implied that CV was unsympathetic to an imaginary child with brain damage only because it wasn’t his child.

                      I was simply pointing out that it’s far more likely that CV’s lack of sympathy for the brain-damaged child stems from the fact that he didn’t know you were imagining one.

                      TheContrarian: No, I’m pretty sure Blue said “genetics” before disappearing in a cloud of sense-of-humour.

                    • DavidC …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:39 pm

                      Felix..
                      CV said not 14 yrs but 2.
                      I questioned his imaginary piety it it were his child that had been beaten down and damaged by this person that you want to walk free.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:44 pm

                      Who said he should walk free? Are you lashing out because it’s been pointed out to you that you support policies which increase crime rates? Get over it.

                    • DavidC …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:51 pm

                      O.A.K
                      Its pretty hard for scum like Whaanga to cause more crime while his is locked up. (other than crime on other crims of course)

                      Care to explaim how he can beat CVs kids up while behid bars?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:59 pm

                      Care to acknowledge that “get tough” policies create more crime? Care to address the way increased economic inequality leads to a rise in violence? Or are you still jerking off over your wet-dreams of vengeance?

                    • felix …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:01 pm

                      Ah, so David means to lock him up forever. Why didn’t he say so?

                      And presumably he doesn’t just mean this one guy – cos that’d be really dumb, basing all this on one guy – so I guess we’re going to need a hell of a lot more prisons.

                      ps David, thanks for admitting (9:39) that it was all in your head.

            • McFlock 4.3.1.1.1.2
              30 April 2013 at 2:33 pm

              True.

              But if everybody who punched other people in the head more than once got a three strikes warning, the prisons would overflow (and mcvictim would get a pay bonus, if you believe the SS funding theories).

              This guy isn’t a serial rapist or murderer. He’s a dumb kid who likely needs psych care rather than prison. And more importantly, the longer we ignore the poverty and social neglect large sectors of this country face, the more dumb kids in need will be wandering the streets, alienated and unemployable.

              But that’s a bit sophisticated for folk who can only understand issues around criminal justice by way of american sporting analogies.

            • framu 4.3.1.1.1.3
              30 April 2013 at 2:34 pm

              “I’d argue that punching someone MULTIPLE times in the head before taking their money is pretty despicable.”

              so would i – but one of these strikes appears to be because he kicked someone in the back of the leg

              dont get me wrong here, i hate theives, and ive been burgled, assaulted and mugged before. But i dont think its up there with the graham bells and tony dicksons of this world.

              sure we need to do something, but is jumping straight to full volume actually solving anything in the long term? Couldnt we get a better, long term result here?

              • Saccharomyces …
                30 April 2013 at 2:49 pm

                “sure we need to do something, but is jumping straight to full volume actually solving anything in the long term? Couldnt we get a better, long term result here?”

                For example?

                I’m not trolling or attacking your statement, I’d just like to hear some ideas….

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  30 April 2013 at 3:05 pm

                  I’d just like to hear some ideas…

                  Yeah right. The right-wing reaction to Blameless Babes says different.

                  Reason and wingnut sentencing policy said goodbye long ago.

                • McFlock …
                  30 April 2013 at 3:10 pm

                  Case response: throw social workers at him, rather than other more practised criminals. Restorative justice meetings. Supervision.

                  Strategic prevention:
                  Boost resources to health (including/especially mental health), social welfare and education. Cheaper than prisons.

                • framu …
                  30 April 2013 at 4:26 pm

                  do i need to give you an example for you to evaluate the question?

                  “is jumping straight to full volume actually solving anything in the long term?”

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.3.1.2
          30 April 2013 at 2:15 pm

          Saccharomyces, you can understand the undigested grains and cellulose in this piece of shit as much as you like, it’ll still be a piece of shit.

          It removes judicial discretion, and is therefore an attack upon society, and represents yet another example of how low intelligence is a gateway to conservatism.

          • Saccharomyces 4.3.1.2.1
            30 April 2013 at 2:26 pm

            This little shit wandering around beating people up and stealing their stuff is the attack upon society.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.3.1.2.1.1
              30 April 2013 at 2:28 pm

              His behaviour is a symptom. Low quality right-wing penal, economic and social policy is the disease.

              • Saccharomyces …
                30 April 2013 at 2:51 pm

                His offending goes back to when there was a left-wing government was in power, so was it their policies that were the disease?

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  30 April 2013 at 2:59 pm

                  The fifth Labour government reduced inequality but nowhere nearly enough: without the benign effects of the introduction of lead-free petrol I expect things would be much worse.

                  Get a clue about penal policy. Our recidivism rate is over 50%. Norway’s is around 20%. Did they achieve that with “get tough” policies? Of course they did, and then you woke up.

                  50% recidivism means that people like you and Graham Capill have caused more crime with your witless vandalism. Own it.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    30 April 2013 at 3:01 pm

                    “people like you and Graham Capill”

                    Classy, reeeeal classy.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 3:06 pm

                      I’m referring to his advocacy for tougher sentencing policy that resulted in the 1999 referendum, and yes, if I were keeping that kind of company I’d reassess my opinions.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      30 April 2013 at 3:08 pm

                      Sure you were, dear, sure you were.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 3:23 pm

                      😆 ok ok it’s a fair cop guvnor.

                      Leaving aside the Capillesque nature of “get tough” policies, they’ve failed. It’s time to do something that actually reduces recidivism.

        • Pascal's bookie 4.3.1.3
          30 April 2013 at 4:04 pm

          @Saccharomyces

          Do you understand the three strikes law? All it means is that IF Mr Whaanga commits another of the crimes under the three strikes law he will receive the maximum sentence applicable for the crime, no parole.

          That’s for the second strike. The third strike means, as the judge said, he will go away for 14 years no parole.

  5. freedom 5
    30 April 2013 at 1:52 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8569913/Your-kid-could-be-killed-next-dad-says

    Meanwhile this timebomb will be released in a few short weeks and will very likely kill again. At the very least anyone who looks at him sideways will get hammered. He is a chronic violent alcoholic and is basically illiterate. He refused all rehab and education opportunities inside, yet still gets parole?

    I know a victim of this criminal very well. The guy is currently living in fear of this violent thug’s release. Real tangible fear that this maniac will discover where he moved to and succeed in his promise to finish him off. The really crazy part with this law is that despite the decades of relentless offending, another death would only qualify as his first strike.

    Sentencing is only a part of the justice problems facing NZ.

  6. Colonial Viper 6
    30 April 2013 at 3:52 pm

    The idiot Right Wingers will celebrate when this young guy gets put away for 14 years for his next petty crime.

    Until he comes out of prison having become a hardened, criminally well connected inmate in his 30’s, turning up on a street near you.

    Boy this country just has no idea on crime and punishment, and both National and Labour are responsible.

    • Blue 6.1
      30 April 2013 at 7:46 pm

      No I think the victims of his crimes might celebrate. You do remember them don’t you?

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1.1
        30 April 2013 at 9:19 pm

        You fucking worm, using crime victims to peddle your disgusting hateful shite.

        • Blue 6.1.1.1
          30 April 2013 at 9:31 pm

          Not at all. I would have thought that you would have considered them as a matter of human decency, but no, you clearly don’t care. The victim to you is clearly the criminal. Stop being hysterical and pull your head out of your arse.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1.1.1.1
            30 April 2013 at 9:39 pm

            What part of my concern for our 50% recidivism rate are you having trouble with, you tiresome cretin?

            • Blue 6.1.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2013 at 11:04 pm

              The fact that you show more concern for the recidivism rate than the victims. Thought that was clear, you terminally unemployable dullard.

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 April 2013 at 11:14 pm

                Hey shit for brains

                OAK is concerned about a high recidivism rate in part because a high recidivism rate by definition creates a lot of new, avoidable victims. Lower the recidivism rate, avoid creating new crimes and new victims.

                Meanwhile you are busy looking in the rear view mirror at yesterday’s victims while you continue driving ahead with a system ploughing through more new ones.

                You really haven’t thought this through, have you, “dullard”.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                1 May 2013 at 6:40 am

                “Unemployable”? I must see that my employer and clients get the memo.

                Wanting fewer victims ≠ no concern for victims. I should have thought that was obvious, but I guess I just over-estimated your ability. English comprehension 101, perhaps?

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  1 May 2013 at 6:50 am

                  PS: Oh, and while I’m on the subject, my concern for the victims is what generates my contempt for your use of them as crime porn, Blue.

            • Ruobeil 6.1.1.1.1.2
              1 May 2013 at 7:48 am

              Forgotten to take your anger management medication again Knucklehead?

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                1 May 2013 at 7:51 am

                1. Lose the argument.
                2. Attack the messenger.
                3. Pretend (1) never happened.

  7. Blue 7
    30 April 2013 at 6:19 pm

    Aren’t you all assuming he hasn’t already had (repeatedly) social workers, social agencies, youth workers ” thrown at him” ad nauseum up to this point? I think it can be reasonably assumed he has, to no effect. Getting upset about a serialviolent offender and thief , who also enjoys indecently assaulting people, is just being precious for the sake if it

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      30 April 2013 at 6:49 pm

      Capital punishment. Why not line him up against the wall and shoot him then.

      • Blue 7.1.1
        30 April 2013 at 7:34 pm

        Oh for goodness sake stop being hysterical. Why don’t you have him round for tea CV ? You clearly think he’s a lovely misunderstood boy. If he misbehaves you can talk him through his problems.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.2
      30 April 2013 at 6:52 pm

      Blue, in your mind it’s all about this one offender. In reality we’re discussing judicial independence and the long-established separation of powers. Can you see the difference?

      • Blue 7.2.1
        30 April 2013 at 7:04 pm

        Judicial independence is a crock, why do you think there is mandatory life sentence for murder ? It is a deterrent, you’re clearly getting confused, but Ill explain it to you. If … he… doesn’t …assault….rob….or sexually assault ….any ….innocent people he will stay …out…..of …jail. Do you believe this idiot should have 2,3,10 more opportunities to prey on the public? What number of chances did you have in mind ?

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.2.1.1
          30 April 2013 at 7:08 pm

          “Judicial independence is a crock”.

          Paging Dr. Dunning-Kruger. It’s nice of you to attempt a substantive argument, sweety, but I think you may need to expand on it a little.

          • Blue 7.2.1.1.1
            30 April 2013 at 7:42 pm

            So unlimited chances then? Ok

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.2.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2013 at 7:55 pm

              No. You need to read what I wrote and respond to that, as opposed to constructing cretinous strawmen.

              • Blue …
                30 April 2013 at 8:02 pm

                I asked you how many chances and you did not respond. How many chances should criminals get for repeating the same crime before getting the maximum sentence?

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  30 April 2013 at 8:43 pm

                  One more time. Ju. Di. Ci. Al. In. De. Pen. Dence.

                  I want you to lift your game, get out of the gutter, so I’m not answering your bullshit leading questions, I’m not in the slightest bit interested in your false frames and ridiculous strawmen.

                  They stupidise the discussion, but thanks all the same.

        • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.2
          30 April 2013 at 7:24 pm

          It is a deterrent

          No it’s not. At least, not an effective one.

          • Blue 7.2.1.2.1
            30 April 2013 at 7:39 pm

            How do you know it’s not effective ? Are you using this horrible boy as an example ? He has been warned now, if he ignores the warning that is a choice he has made. I imagine most people would agree that the removal of a criminal who violently preys on innocent people and clearly doesn’t care about the harm he does, would benefit society.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.2.1.2.1.1
              30 April 2013 at 7:46 pm

              How do we know it’s ineffective? Research, my dear fellow: too many examples of reduced sentences and reduced crime going hand-in-hand.

              In other words, we checked your ideas against reality and there’s no correlation between the two.

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 April 2013 at 10:50 pm

                maybe if the USA chucked another million black people into prison, black people would finally get the idea of deterrence?

          • DavidC 7.2.1.2.2
            30 April 2013 at 8:25 pm

            CV, to some people there is no deterrent so all that can be done is put them where they cannot maim more of civil society.

            • McFlock 7.2.1.2.2.1
              30 April 2013 at 8:48 pm

              Even if that were true, it doesn’t apply to a punk who steals skateboards.

              • DavidC …
                30 April 2013 at 8:59 pm

                you think this is about a skateboard?

                Its about this persons lack of abilty to control himself.

                How many offences on women or offences of violence do you need to rack up before a shit head like you McFlock says that this piece of flotsam should not be walking free.

                Obviously you want him to rape and murder someone first huh?
                Or just kill a child? most of his offences are against young people. brave bastard that he is.. Tag teaming against young weak oppisition.

                drop him is a deep dark hole forever.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  30 April 2013 at 9:04 pm

                  Who said a Judge shouldn’t send him to jail?

                  And if you know exactly what he has done, why were you asking for a list of his convictions?

                  And why can’t you argue this rationally rather than just ranting like the sort of loon we invented courts to protect our society from?

                  Questions abound.

                  • DavidC …
                    30 April 2013 at 9:22 pm

                    he has offences for violence and indecent assult. He has 5 strike offences which is quite an amazing feat given he is 21 and spent 2 years inside.

                    70 isnt enouf.? Is 100 the number? 150? 500?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 April 2013 at 11:30 pm

                      Nah you’re asking the wrong question so no number will be correct.

                      The moment you chuck a young person in a prison for the first time, chances are you’ve fucked them permanently and made them into a multi-million dollar repeating over a lifetime guest of her Royal Majesty.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      1 May 2013 at 5:40 am

                      You’ve been kinda clear on the loony ranting part David, it was the other parts I was seeking info on, thanks.

                • McFlock …
                  30 April 2013 at 9:15 pm

                  Nice illustration.
                  You are quick to get aggravated, lack any ability to look beneath the surface of the situation, and immediately leap at the solution of getting medieval on a yoof.

                  I suggest that with a couple of lucky tweaks to life story you and he are largely interchangeable.

                  Maybe tories should be given three nact votes then mandatory imprisonment. /sarc

                  • DavidC …
                    30 April 2013 at 9:28 pm

                    yoof? he is 21 years old.

                    Yeah lucky tweaks.. I have self control.

                    He is a rare beast. 1 in 300,000.

                    A deep hole is probably too good.

                    [lprent: As an observation after reading your comments tonight. There is little evidence on this site that you have much self-control. You certainly don’t appear to think before writing. ]

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:34 pm

                      If we dropped you in a deep hole would you come back with enough brain cells to muster an argument that can pass a basic reality test?

                    • McFlock …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:59 pm

                      You knew it all by 21, eh.
                      18-20 is the peak of at risk behaviour, not the tail end. For that you need to go for 25 or even 30 year olds.

                      The fact is that this guy has greater chance of not reoffending if he stays in the community with social workers and education, rather than making his peer group consist entirely of criminals.

                      Where did you get 1:300k, by the way?

                    • DavidC …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:00 pm

                      O.A.K

                      Here is a question for yhou..What would you do for this dear soul that hasnt already been done to stop his assault on society.

                      Do enlighten us you crim cuddling fuckwit.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:05 pm

                      Answer: your question is self-serving and irrelevant, and since you obviously lack the cognitive capacity to recognise the multitude of approaches I have referenced this evening, what is the point of repeating them?

                    • felix …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:07 pm

                      “What would you do for this dear sould that hasnt already been done”

                      Still pretending you know anything about what’s “already been done” in this particular instance I see. And still pretending it’s relevant.

                    • DavidC …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:08 pm

                      In short. You want to suck his cock and beg him to not beat you down afterward. You are at least his equal.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:12 pm

                      Imagine whatever you like; it’s your wet-dream, not mine.

                    • felix …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:18 pm

                      David’s fantasies might seem a little odd, but at least now he’s just imagining a consensual cock suck.

                      Before it was all brain-damaged children. That was weird.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:25 pm

                      I like the one where David gets to be the executioner, and we let him choose his own methods, but the leaky roof on the Deth-O-Matic shorts out the circuits and InspectiCorp turns out to have been subcontracting the job to HireACrim, so everyone escapes.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:51 pm

                      Why is it that scratching the surface of a “tough on crime” tory almost always reveals some hyper-sexualised obsession?

                      They do know that “penal” doesn’t always refer to willies, right ?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:51 pm

                      Wasn’t DavidC recently talking about people who just can’t control themselves 😈

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      1 May 2013 at 6:39 am

                      I have self control.

                      How, revealing.

                • prism …
                  30 April 2013 at 10:44 pm

                  David C
                  Its about this persons lack of abilty to control himself….
                  ..rack up before a shit head like you McFlock says that this piece of flotsam should not be walking free.

                  Your choice of description of those opposing you shows your lack of ability to control yourself, potty mouth.

    • Murray Olsen 7.3
      30 April 2013 at 6:56 pm

      I didn’t realise those cops down in the BOP had been thieves as well. I only knew about the serial violent offending, indecent assaults, and rape. What sort of sentence did you think was appropriate for them?

      • Blue 7.3.1
        30 April 2013 at 7:06 pm

        Life

        • Murray Olsen 7.3.1.1
          30 April 2013 at 7:09 pm

          Next question. Why wasn’t a huge fuss made in favour of life sentences in those cases?

          • Blue 7.3.1.1.1
            30 April 2013 at 7:16 pm

            I don’t know, do you? Perhaps you should direct your questions to the judge in the case. You asked what I thought was appropriate for those filthy rapists and I told you. Violent sexual offenders are on the bottom of the humanity heap as far as I’m concerned. It was a long time ago and I can’t recall the sentences, but I’ve given you my view.

            • Colonial Viper 7.3.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2013 at 7:21 pm

              Whereas depriving kids families of income and warmth is OK

              • Blue …
                30 April 2013 at 7:30 pm

                No it’s not

                • Colonial Viper …
                  30 April 2013 at 8:56 pm

                  A clear majority of serious violent criminals come from highly troubled, unstable and poverty affected homes.

                  Sort that out, you won’t need your gulags at the bottom of the cliff.

            • Murray Olsen 7.3.1.1.1.2
              30 April 2013 at 9:14 pm

              The judge didn’t make a huge fuss. Neither did Garth McVicar, nor any of the usual suspects.

              On the one hand, we have a young guy who’s got real problems and insists on making them other people’s as well. He comes from the bottom of society. Heaps of people want him locked up forever, or maybe a bit longer.

              On the other, we have members of the establishment, the iron fist in the not so velvet glove, who abuse their positions to rape almost with impunity. They were given enormous powers by the state and used these to commit the most atrocious crimes. Even the PM at the time was unable to do much to change prevailing attitudes.

              Why the difference? I’d say institutionalised racism explains it pretty well.

    • felix 7.4
      30 April 2013 at 7:02 pm

      “Aren’t you all assuming he hasn’t already had (repeatedly) social workers, social agencies, youth workers ” thrown at him” ad nauseum up to this point? I think it can be reasonably assumed he has, to no effect. “

      I don’t see how that can be reasonably assumed at all. Especially if you’re not willing to lay out the reasoning.

      • Blue 7.4.1
        30 April 2013 at 7:09 pm

        It is reasonable to assume that a chap with a long history of offending has been offered and directed to rehabilitation more than once. Are you saying that he has received no rehabilitation, social worker intervention in his time in the system ? It is not reasonable or logical to suggest otherwise. I’m struggling to see why you defend someone who preys on the public.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.4.1.1
          30 April 2013 at 7:14 pm

          There’s your problem, you see: you have somehow formed the stupid idea that we are defending this individual, when what we’re defending is judicial independence. Can you see the difference between a basic tenet of law that goes back at least to the Magna Carta, and a person?

          • Blue 7.4.1.1.1
            30 April 2013 at 7:27 pm

            Are you suggesting that laws should not be changed in response to changes in society
            , to changes in the type and severity of crimes being commited or to the prevalence of repeat offenders? There is also the reducing level of tolerence of criminals to account for. Three occasions committing the same crime means you’re either an unbelievable cretin or a psychopath. Rather than waxing lyrical about the poor souls, what is your solution to these criminals?

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.4.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2013 at 7:36 pm

              Solutions? Simple: look at other countries to see who has the lowest recidivism rates (50% of our crims re-offend) and do what they do.

              Of course laws change, but judicial independence isn’t a law, it’s a necessity. Public opinion-based “justice”? Not so much.

              • Blue …
                30 April 2013 at 7:50 pm

                That’s not a solution that’s pointing and saying “look what they did” ( because I’m out of ideas).

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  30 April 2013 at 7:53 pm

                  *laugh*

                  because three strikes isn’t exactly an example of ACT seeing a US policy and having a wank into a sock about it.

                  Like all their other policies.

                • Blue …
                  30 April 2013 at 7:57 pm

                  Bored now my dear lefties. Have to go and oil my capitalist machine with my staffs blood, eat some puppies and close down an orphanage. Ciao.;)

              • Arfamo …
                30 April 2013 at 8:29 pm

                The judiciary are a part of the well-heeled power elite of this country, well connected to the business and political brokers. They generally live lives somewhat isolated from the economic and social realities for a great part of our society. We should be careful that they equally do not simply assume to impose judge law with primary concern a repeat offender’s liberty to further offend without ramification. The sentencing changes were made in response to public concern about repeat offenders re-offending too often. I didn’t mind the three-strikes law when I saw the list of offences. I think judges were too bad at picking which offenders should not be released on bail too often. I don’t mind three strikes being applied in this case. I would hope it is applied equally to any offender of similar background regardless of race or station. But I support it only because it removes an immediate problem from the streets. It’s a screaming shame & indictment that there are no alternatives, and nothing in the way of useful intervention in prison.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  30 April 2013 at 8:33 pm

                  The sentencing changes were made in response to public concern about repeat offenders re-offending too often.

                  1.Says who? Citation needed.

                  2. If recidivism were the problem, why implement policy that makes it worse?

                  The policy was made in response to deliberate demagoguery and atrocious media ethics.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    30 April 2013 at 8:47 pm

                    I seem to recall that the party promoting ‘three strikes’ got fuck all votes, and exactly one MP, and he only got there because he had a cup of tea with the PM.

                  • Arfamo …
                    30 April 2013 at 9:06 pm

                    1. Says who? My opinion only – but based on following media and public commentary at the time the legislation was introduced and passed. The 1999 CIR, even though it was appallingly worded, got a 91% yes vote for stronger penalties and better victim support from NZers.

                    2. If recidivism were the problem, why implement policy that makes it worse? I’m not convinced that it’ll necessarily make it worse, and not in this offender’s case. Seems to me he stands a good chance of getting worse left free to roam on his own initiative anyway.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:11 pm

                      Well the important point about this case is that his record of 70+ offences is not in any way relevant to his sentencing. I agree that it ought to be.

                      But the only offences that are relevant to his sentencing are the strikes. And they would be just as relevant, and in the same way, if those strike offences were the only ones he had.

                      So his record is just a big old red herring, actually.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:15 pm

                      I’m not convinced…

                      Clearly. Confused would be a better description. I expect it’s because you’ve been letting Garth McVicar do your “thinking” for you.

                    • Arfamo …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:21 pm

                      Well, no, Garth could be wrong. Or right in some cases. So could you. What’s your alternative solution to prevent this young man reoffending and anyone else becoming a victim, from the available alternatives at the moment?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:29 pm

                      Oh for fuck’s sake! Are you incapable of reading the thread, the links provided therein? In the context of judicial independence what possible Earthly relevance is my opinion of the appropriate sentence for this individual?

                      Like Tony Soprano, I have come to realise that crime isn’t all about me and my teenaged vigilante fantasies. Can you please make an attempt to grasp that?

                    • felix …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:30 pm

                      “What’s your alternative solution…”

                      Sorry, I don’t follow. Has there been something proposed that might stop him reoffending?

                      All I’ve seen is calls for him to be locked up, which demonstrably fails in that respect.

                    • Arfamo …
                      30 April 2013 at 9:38 pm

                      Well if he’s locked up it stops the offending for now. Judicial independence is never unconstrained.

                    • felix …
                      30 April 2013 at 10:14 pm

                      Ah sorry, I had thought you might be unaware of the facts.

                      I didn’t realise you’d actually made a conscious decision to ignore all the available evidence, all of which tells us that your approach increases recidivism

                      My bad.

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      1 May 2013 at 2:25 am

                      When we consider penal policy, or social, financial or anything else, considering them solely on their effect on one person is very misleading. It’s easy to lock this guy up, or even torture him to death. Sure, he wouldn’t reoffend, but plenty of others would take his place. Concentrating on one person just makes more of the victims that McVicar pretends to support.

                      Exactly the same thing happens with unemployment – Paula Bennett can always take one beneficiary and get them a job. She can’t get jobs for 200,000, so instead she wants to belittle and punish them.

                      These are not individual problems – they are systemic to society, even if they impact at the individual level. The answers must be found at the societal level, but those who don’t believe in society are left with their creepy prison rape fantasies. We cannot let them win.

                    • rosy …
                      1 May 2013 at 4:36 am

                      “These are not individual problems – they are systemic to society, even if they impact at the individual level. ”

                      Come on Murray, you know these people with the rape fantasies want no money spent on ensuring kids from dysfunctional homes have absolutely no support from society to improve their health, education and living conditions – parental responsibility and all that – yet when these kids grow up and violently offend, as some are bound to do, they quite forget they were willing to leave them in the mire and are eager as hell to spend the taxpayer dollar on their prison homes.

  8. Murray Olsen 8
    30 April 2013 at 6:48 pm

    Apart from the fact that harsh punishment policies never seem to work and are often promoted by the likes of Cappill, I support equal treatment under the law for all. As it is, it’s full on racism which begins when the Police decide to have a look at someone and doesn’t stop until the brown guy is in prison and Garth McVicar has inadvertently left another stain in his leather knickers.
    When a white guy is as likely to be stopped by the police, then arrested, then charged, then convicted, then imprisoned, as a young Maori, then and only then will I discuss sentencing. Until that day, I have as much interest in discussing the details of a racist system of oppression as I have in discussing recipes for whale meat.

  9. Paul 9
    30 April 2013 at 6:51 pm

    Saw an excellent film that looks at the drug war in America and makes a link with the private prison industry there. It’s called ” The House I live in’ directed by Eugene Jarecki. Shows what happens when there is a financial motive behind locking people up.

  10. prism 10
    30 April 2013 at 10:49 pm

    I notice that this young law-breaker is in Hastings. I seem to remember that all the judiciary in the wider area have adopted a get tough policy and are setting their own precedents for crimes with the result of escalating the punitive options.

  11. infused 11
    1 May 2013 at 12:19 am

    What a cluster fuck. Wore me out reading all this garbage. Interesting to see peoples real views come out in this thread.

  12. BLiP 12
    1 May 2013 at 12:30 am

    ‘

    The road ahead for Aotearoa . . .

    . . . “The defendant argues he didn’t sell juveniles retail. We agree with that. He was selling them wholesale,” said Zubrod, maintaining that the jury found Ciavarella guilty of a racketeering conspiracy for being part of a scheme to extract cash from the construction and operation of the two for-profit centers . . .