Sensible Sentencing Trust and GEO Group, a deafening silence

33 comments on “Sensible Sentencing Trust and GEO Group, a deafening silence ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kevin Welsh 1

   11 March 2009 at 1:06 pm

   Mmmmm, “day of reckoning” eh Garth?

   What the fuck is he on?
2. Draco T Bastard 2

   11 March 2009 at 1:24 pm

   It’s groups like the SST that make me think that a law that simply states

   All institutions set up to influence the public must make their funding sources publicly available.

   You cannot have anonymity in a democracy as such can be used to hide corruption.
   • lprent 2.1

     11 March 2009 at 5:57 pm

     We do.. All $160 per month + GST funded by that radical leftie Lynn Prentice. Looks like it will drop to less than $30 per month after I site offshore to avoid S92A problems.

     Actually most people on the left seem to consider that I’m a conservative or even a neo-lib. Has something to do with the dinky sports-car, business background, MBA etc.

     I just have a complete intolerance for fools. That also means I avoid the ‘right’ like the stuck in the past plague that they are, and makes me wonder about a nutter who can put out the type of press release that McVicar did. It is almost a d4j level. In fact it looks like the work of the bloated one. I was going over to have a look at style, but it looks like Cameron’s site is offline again. Technically incompetent…
   • lprent 2.2

     11 March 2009 at 6:03 pm

     nah it looks like it is just a dog of a site to load. Also technically incompetent to load it down with twitter and facebook slowdowns. He should have a look at his site with tools to look at the delay points. Boy that guy knows how to downgrade a site.

     Nope – I think that press release of McVicar’s is too literate to be a product of Cameron Slater. Besides it doesn’t have a boob shot to try and raise site awareness
3. Ianmac 3

   11 March 2009 at 1:42 pm

   If you have nothing to hide, why bluster Garth? Methinks he does protest……. Would it be shameful if the lobby group for GEO funded and advised SST? PERhaps. Illegal? Doubt it so Garth why not be open?
4. Quoth the Raven 4

   11 March 2009 at 1:47 pm

   Good article recently on this tough on crime bullshit at Socialist worker. The policy that keeps on failing.

   In studying 34 states, Pew researchers found that it cost 22 times more money per day to incarcerate people than to supervise them in the community–the cost per prisoner is, on average, $29,000 a year. As a result, $9 out of every $10 spent on corrections goes to prisons.

   Pressured in part by rapidly increasing budget deficits, some politicians are starting to support diverting money from prisons to community supervision and drug treatment programs for nonviolent property- and drug-related crimes.

   Thus, New York’s notorious Rockefeller Drug Laws are headed toward reform. Enacted in the 1970s, these laws imposed prison sentences of 10, 15 and 20 years on people found guilty of low-level drug offenses–even if it was their first conviction. A bill to repeal these laws has passed the State Assembly and is under consideration in the Senate.

   So while some places in the US are starting to rethink the lock em up and throw away the key approach New Zealand with the conservatives in charge are trying their hardest to repeat the same mistakes.
   • higherstandard 4.1

     11 March 2009 at 4:58 pm

     I didn’t know that anyone in NZ was proposing prison sentences of 10, 15 and 20 years for people found guilty of low-level drug offenses – this would seem to be very odd – have you got a link ?
     • Quoth the Raven 4.1.1

       11 March 2009 at 5:09 pm

       You know what I’m talking about D4J no.2 we’re heading down the same path as the US, for example the three strikes law. It’s a path that has not lead to lower crime, a path that has been immensely expensive (think what that money could’ve done if spent on education see this article) has made a mockery of the US justice system and has needlessly brutalised millions of Americans and it’s a path the conservatives seem determined on taking us down here.
5. Matthew Pilott 5

   11 March 2009 at 1:51 pm

   “Whacky” lefties? I thought he was the one all keen to ‘Whack’ people. What a munter.
6. ieuan 6

   11 March 2009 at 2:09 pm

   It is hard to know the status of this organisation.

   On their website they say they have ‘charitable trust status’ but a search on the charities commission website reveals nothing for ‘Sensible Sentencing’ or ‘SST’ so the question is ‘are they a charity or not’?

   Garth McVicar really is a munter, putting out a press release like this just makes him look like an idiot.

   Pity that doesn’t count as 1 strike, there would only be 2 more to go and we would never hear from him again!
   • Ianmac 6.1

     11 March 2009 at 3:05 pm

     Ieun: Well done. The apparent conflict between charitable trust status or not, could be serious area of concern for SST. A bit like an MP claiming one thing and not expecting anyone to check.
7. BLiP 7

   11 March 2009 at 2:40 pm

   Good on the blogshpere – and The Standard in particular – for attempting to keep this pack of bastards honest. Thank you.
8. Chess Player 8

   11 March 2009 at 2:48 pm

   There are some very strange people in this world.
   • BLiP 8.1

     11 March 2009 at 3:05 pm

     Thank goodness for that!
9. Tane 9

   11 March 2009 at 2:57 pm

   “Whacky”? As in “whack”? What a munter.
   • George Darroch 9.1

     11 March 2009 at 3:08 pm

     Well, talking about crime is a whack-a-mole business.
10. TomSe 10

    11 March 2009 at 4:37 pm

    It appears the day of reckoning is at hand. Man, I wish that was done on IRC the mods would totally kick him for a threat like that.
11. mickysavage 11

    11 March 2009 at 5:00 pm

    Ieuean

    It looks like they are registered as a company. If you go to http://www.societies.govt.nz and search you will find them that way. Their trust deed is there but nothing else.

    Arguably they should not state they are charitable. Section 37 of the Charities Act 2005 states:

    (1) A person must not—
    (a) use a style or title including the words “”registered charitable entity'” ; or
    (b) state or imply, or permit a statement or implication, that—
    (i) the person is registered as a charitable entity under this Act; or
    (ii) an entity that the person acts on behalf of is registered as a charitable entity under this Act.

    “Registered charitable entity” is defined as “a society, an institution, or the trustees of a trust that is or are registered as a charitable entity under [the Charities Act 2005]”, that is not under the 1957 Act which is a different beast.

    A complaint may be in order.
    • Pascal's bookie 11.1

      11 March 2009 at 5:09 pm

      Good stuff micky.

      Are you there Garth?
    • lprent 11.2

      11 March 2009 at 5:14 pm

      Ummm that press release says

      The Sensible Sentencing Trust is a registered charitable trust with IRD approved donee status

      Be interesting to figure out the actual status. But the effect is the same – they aren’t under the Charities Act, therefore they don’t have to disclose donations. Anyone could be financing them.
      • mickysavage 11.2.1

        11 March 2009 at 5:26 pm

        What they are saying is presumably factually correct but if someone was so motivated they could still complain to the Charities Commission. Section 37 appears to stop any entity advertising that they are charitable unless they are registered under the new Act.

        Also the Charities website states under reasons for seeking registration “[o]nly charities registered with the Charities Commission can call themselves a “registered charitable entity” and display their unique Charities Commission registration number.”

        The link is at http://www.charities.govt.nz/guidance/unregistered.html#should_i_apply_to_register
        • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1.1

          12 March 2009 at 1:53 pm

          So… The SST is breaking the law?

          I say we throw the book at them, THE BOOK I tells ya…
    • mickysavage 11.3

      11 March 2009 at 5:16 pm

      Oops I should have said “charitable trust under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957” and not “company” although the certificate of incorporation says it was “incorporated under the Companies Act … and was registered as a charitable trust (Shares (limited liability) …”
12. killinginthenameof 12

    11 March 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Some random impertinent questions for ACT:

    Was David Garretts seat sold in exchange for the support of the Sensible Sentacing Trust, in the same way Shawn Tans one was sold for the support of the AACG?

    Are they aware of the funding arragements of the Sensible Sentacing Trust?

    Would and of thier social policies be of significant economic advantage too plausable potential donors to the Sensible Sentacing Trust?

    Is this corruption?
13. XChequer 13

    11 March 2009 at 6:10 pm

    Question.

    Why, because they (the SST) are not declaring their donors does it mean that the CEO Group is a donor?

    Where is the link or evidence?

    If I speculated that the SST had themes similar to some Islamic groups espousing elements of Sharia’h law and then they did not either confirm or deny, does that make it true?

    It’s all just wild (extremely wild) speculation.

    XChequer
    http://thenzhomeoffice.blogspot.com/
    • Matt Holland 13.1

      12 March 2009 at 2:10 pm

      “If I speculated that the SST had themes similar to some Islamic groups espousing elements of Sharia’h law and then they did not either confirm or deny, does that make it true?”

      Instead of speculating yourself, why don’t you make those claims and see if the DO confirm or deny.

      I suspect you know full well they will deny it…. now why don’t they do the same to the much less wild speculation on their funding?
    • lprent 13.2

      12 March 2009 at 9:08 pm

      Don’t be lazy. Go back to the original post.

      The question was that since the GEO Group donated to groups in the US advocating changes to sentencing, were they doing the same for a group in NZ that espouse exactly the same changes.

      Since those changes would benefit the operation of a private prisons, and GEO Group is trying to run private prisons here, it is a question that has some relevance to the transparency of policy making.
14. Lee 14

    12 March 2009 at 7:18 am

    Quit pussy footing around. Legalize substances and deal with it what happens or get serious with this prohibition experiment.

    Random house to house searches of everyone everywhere will show us who the law breakers are. On the spot executions (bullet to the head) of everyone found in possession of detectable molecules of illegal plants will send a powerful message and will quickly lower the number of evil doers in the world.

    Mass exterminations are clean and simple. Mass incarcerations are just a big mess.
15. Chris G 15

    12 March 2009 at 12:03 pm

    I’ve never seen an SST supporter wandering around the streets with a donation bucket… thats for sure.

    Come to think of it I dont think I’ve ever seen an SST supporter other than Garth McVicar.

    Confused? I definately am.
16. mickysavage 16

    12 March 2009 at 9:45 pm

    I think that the SST has a problem. I have hopefully drafted a more coherent response on my blog at

    http://waitakerenews.blogspot.com/2009/03/sensible-sentencing-trust-and-charities.html

    Strike one?
17. Pascal's bookie 17

    13 March 2009 at 8:17 am

    Chris Trotter’s ODT column is on this today, though he doesn’t credit any bloggers, sigh.

    It’s good, but he takes a cutesy allegorical route to avoid naming names. Which means he can’t include the fact that after the questions are put, the SST responded without answering.

    It should be up on his blog at some point.
    • lprent 17.1

      13 March 2009 at 11:28 am

      Thanks, I’ll look out for it. This is such an interesting topic – the question of hidden lobbying and PR. I think it is something that we’ll refer to often over the next few years until we get an answer
18. teitei 18

    13 March 2009 at 10:23 am

    [deleted] why’d you take my comment off? [deleted]

    [lprent: because you are banned for previous stupid comments. Adding you to the auto-moderation. Read policy and stop being a fuckwit]

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS