Three strikes law to go

Written By: - Date published: 3:04 pm, November 1st, 2017 - 147 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, crime, labour, Politics, prisons - Tags:

One of the silliest pieces of legislation passed by the last Government was the three strikes law.  It started off as a private member’s bill by ACT MP David Garrett who subsequently resigned in disgrace after it was discovered that he had previously stolen the identity of a dead baby.  It required that after two previous serious offences an offender received the maximum sentence for the latest offence.

Andrew Little has announced that the law is to go.  From the Herald:

The three strikes law is “silly”, doesn’t work, and will be dismantled next year, Justice Minister Andrew Little says.

“It’s been on the statute books for eight years now,” Little told the Herald. “Our serious offending rate is rising, our prison population is rising. Throwing people into prison for longer and longer just isn’t working.”

However, repealing it was not in the Government’s 100-day plan.

“It will be some time next year, I imagine. It’s a silly law anyway, but I want to make sure when we do get rid of it, we can say, ‘Here is our plan to reduce serious offending rates’.”

Good job.  The Act was an attempt to use a sporting concept to affect change in the justice system.  As it is previous offending is considered by the courts when determining the appropriate sentence but to bind Judges is to completely usurp the sentencing process.  But to take away their discretion meant that a proper consideration of what was the appropriate sentence was not allowed.

And it guaranteed strange results such as in the United States where one person received a 25 year term for stealing a piece of pizza.  And the first local case resulted in a similar bizarre result.

It is good to see some common sense being brought to this most political of subjects.  But I am sure there will be a right wing backlash …

147 comments on “Three strikes law to go ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Wairua 1
    1 November 2017 at 3:40 pm

    There’s more. Want to work in Hollywood? Here’s the kind of non-disclosure agreements you have to sign.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hollywood-nondisclosure-20171026-story.html

  2. ianmac 2
    1 November 2017 at 3:45 pm

    A really silly piece of legislation. How come some European countries half the prison rate that NZ has? Good riddance!

  3. McFlock 3
    1 November 2017 at 3:49 pm

    good riddance

  4. One Anonymous Bloke 4
    1 November 2017 at 3:51 pm

    It’s the right thing to do. It’s a shit law written by an idiot.

    • Enough is Enough 4.1
      1 November 2017 at 4:02 pm

      Agreed but we have some other idiots in Government under the NZ First flag who love nothing better than to appeal to their redneck base.

      I can’t see that they have a policy on this. Does anyone know which way Winston will go?

      • Carolyn_nth 4.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 4:18 pm

        Surely if Little is announcing it, NZ First and the Greens will have agreed to it.

        The NZF-Labour coalition agreement says this on Law and Order:

        • Strive towards adding 1800 new Police officers over three years and commit to a serious

        • focus on combatting organised crime and drugs.

        • Investigate a volunteer rural constabulary programme.

        • Increase Community Law Centre funding.

        • Establish a Criminal Cases Review Commission.

        Presumably these gains will be enough to appeal to the NZF base – or at least, the NZF Board must think so?

        • Tracey 4.1.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 4:38 pm

          Nothing in their about reducing incarceration rates though and following/implementing genuinely evidence based rehab and diversion

      • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.2
        1 November 2017 at 7:09 pm

        Anything not explicitly defined in the coalition agreement reverts to published NZLP policy, so far as I’m aware.

    • james 4.2
      1 November 2017 at 4:27 pm

      I disagree that its a shit law – but agree that the guy is an idiot.

      • Tracey 4.2.1
        1 November 2017 at 4:39 pm

        I will bite. On what basis is it a good law?

        • David C 4.2.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 5:27 pm

          Tracey
          It keeps scum off the streets.

          • tracey 4.2.1.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 6:16 pm

            Citations required please. It has been enforced long enough for you to provide the actual data to support the notion “it keeps scum off the street”. Definition of scum please cos some I know call some people scum jut for being unemployed

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1.1.1
              1 November 2017 at 6:29 pm

              You associate with and vote for human rights violators, and you’re concerned someone might think you share their character flaws? Boo hoo.

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                1 November 2017 at 9:45 pm

                You do realise that even just counting first strikes, it’s only potentially affected 7,000 offenders, right?

                And that judges already took into account prior offending when sentencing people before this law, it’s just now they can’t choose to be lenient if there are other mitigating factors? And that having all relevant factors taken into account at sentencing is in fact a human right that people are being denied under this law?

                It’s likely to raise re-offending, it puts the emphasis on punishment in sentencing rather than considering rehabilitation, (which we almost always need to consider except when the offender is very old or quite sick, because in New Zealand we rightly don’t have a life without parole sentence) and it’s been used so few times that there’s no good way to study if it had any deterrent effect at all after the first “strike” was given.

                Studies of the US version, which were even more punitive and even less sensible, showed it to be a dismal failure that just locked up more people without any noticable deterrent effect and actually set back rehabilitation for people on their second or third strikes, so I would expect a milder version of the same effects to have taken place here, which will now go away for people sentenced under the new regime. All in all a success for justice and social policy, which would both suggest we should focus our sentencing in a way that reduces likelihood of re-offending, that being the best way to prevent crime in the first place, which should be our #1 goal.

              • tracey …
                2 November 2017 at 7:08 am

                But it didnt keep this “scum” off the street?

                Do you know what they would have received without the 3 strikes law?

                Meantime…

                http://www.districtcourts.govt.nz/all-judgments/4-2016-nzdc-17791-r-v-nikolas-delegat-ft/

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1.2
            1 November 2017 at 6:16 pm

            Preventive detention keeps people who’ve committed particularly nasty offences off the streets too.

            Not right wingers, though: they get to trash everything on the basis of the stupid lies they tell one another.

          • Ed 4.2.1.1.3
            1 November 2017 at 9:23 pm

            Look at Norway’s ideas not the US for your inspiration.
            Try to stop sounding like Trump.

            • Angel Fish 4.2.1.1.3.1
              4 November 2017 at 7:02 am

              LOL no, we don’t want the moronic justice systems of the Europeans
              where detestable criminals are treated with 5 star hotel treatment!
              Think of it this way, if there are no serious penalties for killing or raping someone, what’s to stop vigilantism? I mean you get to kill a scumbag and then get to spend a nice retreat in a special island that caters to you.

              What we need are harsh sentences like giving life imprisonment for murderes, child molesters, rapists etc and LENIENT sentences for minor offenses, like drug use if at all.
              Instead it’s almost ass backwards in here.

          • KJT 4.2.1.1.4
            1 November 2017 at 9:32 pm

            No. They join the National party. The party for white collar criminals.

        • james 4.2.1.2
          1 November 2017 at 5:36 pm

          A friend of mine was killed in Hamilton when I was in my early 20’s. He was hit over the head with a tyre iron by some idiot who ran a red light. My friend yelled at him – he got out and killed my friend.

          this piece of shit had attached people with a weapon on other occasions (and served jail time). Unfortunate for my friend – wrong place – wrong time to be this guys ultimate victim.

          after all – three of the below listed are not insignificant crimes.

          Also – in fairness of full disclosure – if it wasnt for the date – I would be sitting on one strike personally.

          serious violent offence means an offence against any of the following provisions of the Crimes Act 1961:
          (1)
          section 128B (sexual violation):
          (2)
          section 129 (attempted sexual violation and assault with intent to commit sexual violation):
          (3)
          section 129A(1) (sexual connection with consent induced by threat):
          (4)
          section 131(1) (sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years):
          (5)
          section 131(2) (attempted sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years):
          (6)
          section 132(1) (sexual connection with child):
          (7)
          section 132(2) (attempted sexual connection with child):
          (8)
          section 132(3) (indecent act on child):
          (9)
          section 134(1) (sexual connection with young person):
          (10)
          section 134(2) (attempted sexual connection with young person):
          (11)
          section 134(3) (indecent act on young person):
          (12)
          section 135 (indecent assault):
          (13)
          section 138(1) (exploitative sexual connection with person with significant impairment):
          (14)
          section 138(2) (attempted exploitative sexual connection with person with significant impairment):
          (15)
          section 142A (compelling indecent act with animal):
          (16)
          section 144A (sexual conduct with children and young people outside New Zealand):
          (17)
          section 172 (murder):
          (18)
          section 173 (attempted murder):
          (19)
          section 174 (counselling or attempting to procure murder):
          (20)
          section 175 (conspiracy to murder):
          (21)
          section 177 (manslaughter):
          (22)
          section 188(1) (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm):
          (23)
          section 188(2) (wounding with intent to injure):
          (24)
          section 189(1) (injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm):
          (25)
          section 191(1) (aggravated wounding):
          (26)
          section 191(2) (aggravated injury):
          (27)
          section 198(1) (discharging firearm or doing dangerous act with intent to do grievous bodily harm):
          (28)
          section 198(2) (discharging firearm or doing dangerous act with intent to injure):
          (29)
          section 198A(1) (using firearm against law enforcement officer, etc):
          (30)
          section 198A(2) (using firearm with intent to resist arrest or detention):
          (31)
          section 198B (commission of crime with firearm):
          (32)
          section 200(1) (poisoning with intent to cause grievous bodily harm):
          (33)
          section 201 (infecting with disease):
          (34)
          section 208 (abduction for purposes of marriage or sexual connection):
          (35)
          section 209 (kidnapping):
          (36)
          section 232(1) (aggravated burglary):
          (37)
          section 234 (robbery):
          (38)
          section 235 (aggravated robbery):
          (39)
          section 236(1) (causing grievous bodily harm with intent to rob or assault with intent to rob in specified circumstances):
          (40)
          section 236(2) (assault with intent to rob)

          • mickysavage 4.2.1.2.1
            1 November 2017 at 6:05 pm

            Thanks for the disclosure James. So if you stole a piece of pizza do you think that should justify a 14 year sentence?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.2.2
            1 November 2017 at 6:18 pm

            Here’s a radical idea for you James: in order to reduce crime and recidivism, examine which countries are best at it and adopt their policies.

            Warning: discovering what works may send you into a whinging apoplectic rage.

            • 3stepstotheright 4.2.1.2.2.1
              1 November 2017 at 9:17 pm

              Be careful what you wish for. The country with the lowest crime rate in the world is Cyprus (http://www.elist10.com/top-10-countries-lowest-recorded-crime-rate/). Cyprus has recent breaches of Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (https://www.fairtrials.org/country-profile-cyprus/), including:

              “There has been some criticism of the length of trial proceedings in Cyprus. A number of reports raised concerns about police brutality during arrest, questioning and detention. These cited evidence that individuals are subjected to ill treatment with a view to obtaining confessions through coercion, a practice which violates the right against self-incrimination.”

              It’s also interesting that many of the countries in that Top 10 list have very high numbers of Police per capita. From what I have read, 3 strikes laws do not reduce crime, but they sure as hell keep criminal rat bags off the streets for longer.

              • Ed …
                1 November 2017 at 9:24 pm

                Look at comparable OECD nations.
                Norway, for example.

                • 3stepstotheright …
                  2 November 2017 at 7:58 am

                  Why? Norway isn’t in the list of the 10 countries with the lowest crime rate. 1AB said “examine which countries are best at it”. That’s what I was responding to.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    2 November 2017 at 8:21 am

                    Human rights abuses are crimes, committed by criminal governments. That’s your definition of “best”, not mine.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      2 November 2017 at 8:23 am

                      No, it’s yours. You suggested we look to the countries who have been successful reducing crime. Well I did. If you can’t stomach your own suggestion, that’s your problem.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 November 2017 at 8:38 am

                      Countries with human rights abusing governments don’t meet the definition then, eh.

                      That’s not a reduction in crime it’s turning it into a state institution.

                    • tracey …
                      2 November 2017 at 9:09 am

                      Best at reducing crime may involve more than these countries have lowest crime…. it may include social justice factors, cost, and other points beside effectiveness per se?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                2 November 2017 at 5:16 am

                You mean we might have to widen our search beyond Cyprus? That’s one small step for man, and impossible for a wingnut.

                “Get tough” penal policies increase the crime rate. What’s your excuse for proposing policies that increase the crime rate? Got SERCO shares or something?

                Disgusting.

                • 3stepstotheright …
                  2 November 2017 at 8:03 am

                  “You mean we might have to widen our search beyond Cyprus?”
                  Did you go to the post I referenced? And then look at the countries listed and their justice systems?

                  #4 is Bahrain
                  https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/28/bahrain-system-injustice

                  #2 is Singapore
                  “However, this could be the result of the severe laws that have been implemented in Singapore and also the fact that death penalty has still not been abolished from the law and many crimes are punishable with caning and other torturous measures.”
                  http://www.elist10.com/top-10-countries-lowest-recorded-crime-rate/#ixzz4xCzafDkN

                  As I said, be careful what you wish for.

                  (Edit – I said above Cyprus had the lowest crime rate…that was incorrect…it has the 10th lowest.)

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    2 November 2017 at 8:10 am

                    Ladies and gentlemen, in the blue corner, we have 3stepstotheright, championing the virtues of Cyprus, Singapore and Bahrain.

                    In the red corner there’s no-one at all, because they’re in Northern Europe getting on with the job and ignoring witless cherry-picked sophistry.

                    If we need someone to degrade human rights and the rule of law we already have the National Party, but we’ll keep your suggestions in mind.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      2 November 2017 at 8:15 am

                      Ah, but it’s you who is championing Cyprus, Singapore and Bahrain, 1AB.

                      “Here’s a radical idea for you James: in order to reduce crime and recidivism, examine which countries are best at it and adopt their policies. ”

                      The death penalty, caning, torture? Anyone for 1AB’s solution?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 November 2017 at 8:17 am

                      That these are the best examples you can come up with is a reflection upon you.

              • tracey …
                2 November 2017 at 7:11 am

                Pretty sure we are getting lower in some world rankings ourselves on childrens rights amobgst others

              • tracey …
                2 November 2017 at 7:13 am

                And tell us the data on what happened to 3 strike “rat bags” when released or are we still waiting for tgat foot to drop?

                • 3stepstotheright …
                  2 November 2017 at 8:03 am

                  For the length of time the rat-bags are in jail they aren’t offending. That’s the point.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    2 November 2017 at 8:16 am

                    That’s the line carefully chosen to wrap around your feelings like an insecurity blankie, and that’s the extent of its utility.

                    Can you think of anything substantive or original to bring to this discussion or are you just going to sit there like a sink sponge, absorbing dirty water and stinking the place up.

                  • Tracey …
                    2 November 2017 at 8:55 am

                    And when they get out, and they will, what is their reoffending. You can try to be smugly self righteous but my interest is in preventing the creation of more victims and you refusing to address

                    Factors that create criminals and proven methods to prevent this being woefully under funded or not funded at all

                    Factors that significantly reduce reoffending being ignore or under resourced

                    Makes you part of tge problem you say you are wanting to solve, namely, fewer victims.

                    • 3stepstotheright …
                      2 November 2017 at 8:37 pm

                      “And when they get out, and they will, what is their reoffending.”

                      Don’t know, do you? What I do know is that a number of the 10 countries with the lowest crime rates (see my conversation with 1AB) have harsh justice systems. While they’re in jail, rat-bags can’t commit crime. That’s not smug, it’s realistic.

          • tracey 4.2.1.2.3
            1 November 2017 at 6:21 pm

            Thanks for your honesty but this is also why legislation needs to be introduced and written and researched by those not personally hurt because decisions have to be made about what to have and have not.

            Overwhelmingly evidence tells us that offenders do NOT stop and think about the incarceration consequences of their offending before acting AND those that do think they won’t get caught.

            The amount we spend on incarcerating everyone in this country is more than enough to run the kind of programmes and initiatives proven to significantly reduce offending but we don’t. i see Hosing is on the let’s talk to a victim bandwagon on his tonight.

            of course victims matter. BUT many people are victims of crimes for which no offender is every held to account.

            I do wonder why Judges have not been using the legislation as claimed by Little

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.2.3.1
              1 November 2017 at 6:30 pm

              AND those that do think they won’t get caught.

              …and those who are Todd Barclay won’t get charged even when they get caught.

            • Carolyn_nth 4.2.1.2.3.2
              1 November 2017 at 6:37 pm

              And I heard David Seymour on Checkpoint tonight say that Labour’s repealing of this law is based on ideology not expert evidence.

              What a comedian!

              • tracey …
                1 November 2017 at 7:08 pm

                And Hosking saying they didnt campaign on it. The first time he has uttered those words about a govt post election for 9 years!

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 November 2017 at 5:27 am

                  Funny, because it’s right there in Labour’s published policy – the document titled “Justice”.

                  Repeal the “Three Strikes” legislation…

                  If only there were some highly paid individual whose job was to inform the public. They could have read Labour’s policies and disseminated the information far and wide and then Mike Hoskings wouldn’t look like such an ignorant lazy bigot.

              • Ed …
                1 November 2017 at 9:26 pm

                I see RNZ keep giving the 0.5 % Party more than 0.5 % airtime…….

                • Carolyn_nth …
                  2 November 2017 at 7:33 am

                  In this case, the law came from an ACT Bill, so it’s appropriate to interview someone from ACT.

                  • Tracey …
                    2 November 2017 at 8:57 am

                    Trying to find an ACT MP who hasnt committed a crime is hard compared to other parties….

          • Craig H 4.2.1.2.4
            1 November 2017 at 7:14 pm

            Preventive Detention was (and still is) an option, and the list of offenses was expanded in 2002, and it’s a much better option IMO.

            • tracey 4.2.1.2.4.1
              1 November 2017 at 7:32 pm

              Except that PD is after they have done it. Garrett, Seymour, Hoskings and others are saying this law stops them committing the 3rd one? Cos if they are saying we need to put away the nasties as their defence to 3 strikes law, then you are right that Judges already had the mechanisms to do so before this law. Proponents seem to be confusing the issues. Which is why it would be cool if those who say ‘what else can we do we have tried everything” could do worse than read about what actually works, and if they really want “safer” streets, they would push for what works to be implemented. Wouldn’t they?

              I have posted a couple of examples below.

          • Penny Bright 4.2.1.2.5
            1 November 2017 at 8:53 pm

            Interesting that the ‘three strikes’ law did not apply to ‘white collar’ criminals?

            • tracey 4.2.1.2.5.1
              2 November 2017 at 7:14 am

              That is cos it is not just their collars that are white

            • james 4.2.1.2.5.2
              2 November 2017 at 9:17 am

              or people who dont pay their rates.

              • Molly …
                2 November 2017 at 10:32 am

                … as a form of protest.

                Don’t reduce a conscious act to a failure of bill-payment.

                I asked a young acquaintance who referred to the TPPA protests as “rent-a-crowd”, whether he actually believed that statement, and what would be his standing point? After a few minutes reflection, it was apparent he had none. In spite of all his ACT fuelled ideology, he could not conceive of putting himself out for even a couple of hours on any attack on his values.

                Just wondering, what would be important enough for you to protest about, James? And what form would that protest take?

    • marty mars 4.3
      1 November 2017 at 5:18 pm

      Yes and also idiotic law written by a shit.

  5. Carolyn_nth 5
    1 November 2017 at 4:01 pm

    It looks like one of those dubious laws, borrowed from US conservatives that we are better off without.

    It probably was as more about the “tough on crime” narrative and spin, than any benefits from that law.

  6. paul andersen 6
    1 November 2017 at 5:02 pm

    its a law pushed by the private prisons crowd, into stupid sentencing trust, into act, into national. follow the dosh…

    • tracey 6.1
      1 November 2017 at 7:32 pm

      BUt Judges cut them off at the past…. I would mostly trust a Judge’s view of what works and what does not over a politician or media reckoner.

  7. Stunned Mullet 7
    1 November 2017 at 5:09 pm

    Daft move by Labour, the law has been/will be applied to very few and if God forbid someone who would’ve otherwise been locked up under this legislation commits a serious offence they’ll be dragged over hot coals by the press.

    • Nic the NZer 7.1
      1 November 2017 at 5:29 pm

      You don’t think judges can make sensible sentencing decisions on the basis of the case before them?

      • stunned mullet 7.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 6:35 pm

        “You don’t think judges can make sensible sentencing decisions on the basis of the case before them?”

        Judgements and judges are variable. My comment was more to highlight that this is politically a daft decision which changes little for the benefit of very few to none and gives your opponents in parliament/the media a potential wedge to beat you up with.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 6:57 pm

          Well, it’s certainly made ACT popular 😆

        • patricia bremner 7.1.1.2
          1 November 2017 at 9:56 pm

          Well there is a “rational” reason to keep it (sarc)

        • boggis the cat 7.1.1.3
          2 November 2017 at 11:27 am

          My comment was more to highlight that this is politically a daft decision which changes little for the benefit of very few to none and gives your opponents in parliament/the media a potential wedge to beat you up with.

          It depends on what they introduce to replace it. Simply removing this onerous and process-distorting law (there is a reason we have judges, and not just a spreadsheet with penalties — ‘judgement’ by qualified people is part of the process) could open you to political attacks. That is fine — even useful — provided you can ju-jitsu the attack line into why your changes are better.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2
      1 November 2017 at 6:26 pm

      Good move by Labour: politicians have no business dictating anything to judges, let alone sentencing rules.

      Deranged centre-right trash should be kept as far away from anything related to crime and punishment as possible. Your policies are motivated by childish vengeance fantasies and sadism.

      • stunned mullet 7.2.1
        1 November 2017 at 6:40 pm

        “Good move by Labour: politicians have no business dictating anything to judges, let alone sentencing rules.”

        Apart from the fact parliament makes and amends laws……..

        “Your policies are motivated by childish vengeance fantasies and sadism.”

        I’m not a parliamentarian or policy maker of any type. Though you may have calmed down and changed your behaviour now that the government had changed colours.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 6:56 pm

          It’s a little minor detail, probably nothing. “The separation of powers” or somesuch nonsense.

          As for centre-right vengeance fantasies, they’re explicit in the “get tough” rhetoric, the perverse fascination with morbidity, the utter foolishness of pursuing sentencing policies that are proven to increase recidivism and therefore, the crime rate. The utter foolishness of pursuing economic and social policies that increase the crime rate overall.

          Magical thinking won’t save you*.

          Every time anyone tries to educate you on the drivers of crime (eg: the GINI coefficient) you hire some sophist to undermine the facts, or trot out trite assertions about ‘personal responsibility’, or, more usually, shoot the messenger.

          All I’m asking from the Beehive on these issues is that we do what works, not what strokes your blankie.

          *ie: the centre-right.

    • Ed 7.3
      1 November 2017 at 9:27 pm

      Look at Norway rather than Saudi Arabia as your model for justice.

    • Jay 7.4
      3 November 2017 at 1:21 am

      That is exactly what will happen

  8. Incognito 8
    1 November 2017 at 5:31 pm

    Of the current prison population [that sounds awful] what’s the percentage of first-time vs. repeat offenders?

    • David C 8.1
      1 November 2017 at 6:11 pm

      Incognito.
      I am sure I will be corrected if i am wrong but I would bet that less than 1% of the prison population is a first time offender.

      • David C 8.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 6:15 pm

        I think it takes (on average) 11 crimes to get sent to the big house.

        I suppose someone like Lundy would be a first timer tho?

        • tracey 8.1.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 6:22 pm

          It depends on demographics too. Brown people are more likely to be put in the pokey on first offences than white people and so on…

        • Incognito 8.1.1.2
          1 November 2017 at 6:23 pm

          Ta

        • tracey 8.1.1.3
          1 November 2017 at 7:11 pm

          We should find out cos I suspect that is at best an average and we know how distorted averages can be. Case in point, wages highest in x number of years because of equitable pay rise for what is obviously a big number of the workforce following Nats fighting tooth and nail to stop it. BUT tach the idiots amongst us claim nats great economy saw wages go up heaps since….

        • the pigman 8.1.1.4
          1 November 2017 at 7:36 pm

          Weird you’d bring him up here, but Mark Lundy was a first timer (both times he was wrongly convicted).

          Of course, once his CoA appeal is decided (likely in early 2018 given the Court has called for further evidence and submissions), he will probably be a 0-timer again, since he didn’t murder Christine and Amber.

          If you have any interest in Mark’s appeal and how the miscarriage of justice arose, you can read a brief summary here: https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/78qie9/justice_for_teina_pora_compensation_to_be/dowrodm/

          • tracey 8.1.1.4.1
            1 November 2017 at 7:39 pm

            O-Kay

            Do you know who did and why?

            • the pigman 8.1.1.4.1.1
              1 November 2017 at 7:48 pm

              Nope, but nor am I required to in order to point out that the 2015 convictions are just as unsound as the 2002 ones. I will eat a central nervous system filled-sausage if the CoA don’t allow the appeal and quash them. Though I think, based on the date of the offences, there is still another privy council appeal right to be exhausted.

              Were I to hazard a guess as to who did it, certain associates of creditors who had been threatening Mark’s business partner in the days surrounding the murders were likely responsible. Christine and Amber were found to have the DNA of two unidentified (but the same) males underneath their finger nails.

              • tracey …
                2 November 2017 at 7:15 am

                I didnt say you were required it is just that you are all knowing and certain.

                • the pigman …
                  2 November 2017 at 7:43 pm

                  I realise we are well off-topic here and at risk of open mic move, but I should respond.

                  I’m certain because there are too many impossibilities in the Crown case.

                  Impossible Mark did it unless:

                  a) he bought, filled and disposed of jerry cans full of extra fuel that would have enabled him to make the “killing trip” between Palmy and Petone, or he did it in another hereto unimagined vehicle separate to the one he used for his business trip;
                  b) he bought, used and disposed of overalls for the murders, which he also disposed of somewhere between Palmerston North in Petone without getting a speck of anything (killer would have been *soaked* in blood) in his car (the alternative is, that he cleaned the vehicle sometime between killing them at 2:30am and asking his Petone motelier for shaver batteries at 6am, yet there’s no evidence the interior of his car had been cleaned); and
                  c) Christine and Amber had secret leftover meals of the McDonalds at 11pm or later, or they were suffering from identical stomach bugs that caused some kind of gastric stasis (no evidence of either of these) given they had fully undigested chips in their stomachs.

                  As you might have read in the Steve Braunias article, it emerged in the police records traversed in the appeal, almost by-the-by (never having been covered in trial) that Christine died clutching unidentified hair in both hands (!!!). It is really a pity the police didn’t reinvestigate a single other suspect following the quashing of the original convictions.

                  Now how we get from these impossibilities to conviction beyond reasonable doubt is enormously troubling. The only answer is a demeanour assessment that Mark Lundy was a fat, provincial, hysterical dickhead. And he didn’t even take the stand…

              • tracey …
                2 November 2017 at 7:17 am

                Why woukd they not kill someone close to the person they wanted the money from, Mark’s partner?

            • the pigman 8.1.1.4.1.2
              1 November 2017 at 8:20 pm

              In relation to the “why” question, not that motive is particularly relevant, but it’s an interesting question when asked in relation to Mark. The Crown case was previously that it was for a (recently increased) insurance payout, but it emerged at the 2015 trial that:

              a) Mark hadn’t initiated the increase (it was offered by the insurance broker);
              b) The insurance increase had not been finalised/become effective; and
              c) It was an equal, but relatively small increase on the lives of each of him and Christine.

              Then you look at the absence of any DV and the fact that Mark and Christine had struggled with infertility to conceive Amber, to whom Mark was only ever described as a doting father. The whole case never made a lick of sense.

              The enormous reaches made by Phillip Morgan QC in the latest appeal say it all (including his desperate reliance on the disgraced and discredited “jailhouse snitch” evidence). He also gave some evidence from the bar about a flurry of phone calls between Christine and Mark that doesn’t appear in the evidence in either trial, so I expect he will be called out and punished for that in the appellant’s closing subs.

    • tracey 8.2
      1 November 2017 at 6:12 pm

      Recidivism rates used to be in the 80%.

        • tracey 8.2.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 7:12 pm

          And scarier si the programmes known to reduce recidivism significantly are underfunded in NZ and sometimes canned. Will try to find examples.

        • tracey 8.2.1.2
          1 November 2017 at 7:17 pm

          http://www.justspeak.org.nz/drug_treatment_units_in_new_zealand_prisons

          “A 2004 study by Ian Sheerin, Terri Green, Douglas Sellman, Simon Adamson, and Daryle Deering demonstrated the reduction of crime and reoffending by drug addicts on a methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) programme. The study indicated that:

          71% of those receiving MMT ceased their participation in criminal offences.
          80 % of non-Māori and 88% of Māori participants reported that their involvement in crime had reduced considerably since they had been on MMT.
          Only 14% of non-Māori and 9% of Māori said their involvement was unchanged or increased.
          Over 90% said their involvement with drug dealers or people committing crimes had reduced.
          However, community waiting lists for MMT are long (the average waiting time for MMT in Christchurch is 12.7 months) and resources and funding are short. Sheerin et al., determined that Corrections save an average of $994 per MMT participant per year. Corrections and the media often cite the $91,000 cost of each prisoner per year, but by making DTUs available to more prisoners, recidivism will lower, reducing the average cost of imprisonment. Moreover, a 2012 Ombudsman’s report found that training courses for nurses administering methadone treatment had been cancelled. Comprehensive training in Health Services policy is important if the health needs of prisoners are to be adequately met. Proper methadone administration is a matter of direct relevance to life and death for injectable drug addicts.”

          https://www.hma.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/HMA-YJ-Whitepaper1.pdf

          “The above research highlights the fact that young offenders have a higher rate of mental health problems, substance abuse disorders, learning delays, cognitive deficits, traumatic
          experiences and family history of offending than their nonoffending same aged peers. ”

          https://www.youthcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Youth-Court-playing-to-win-youth-offenders-out-of-court.pdf

          Great read for anyone who wants to know what works and what doesn’t. Hosking could read it but wont

          • Incognito 8.2.1.2.1
            1 November 2017 at 8:00 pm

            Thanks for that; very interesting.

            I find it telling though that many of these kinds of analyses & reports of complex problems tend to focus more on the monetary than human costs. I mean, what’s the cost differential between a fulfilled life and one wasted in crime & incarceration (incl. the costs of suffering by the victims of the crime)?

            I suppose it’s easier to come up with dollar figures and wave these around especially when people already are focussed on anything money-wise.

          • Antoine 8.2.1.2.2
            2 November 2017 at 4:52 am

            Thats great, we should fund lots of courses like this.

            A.

  9. tracey 9
    1 November 2017 at 6:12 pm

    IMO, English is more than mischevious telling people they will now be more unnsafe.

    • patricia bremner 9.1
      1 November 2017 at 10:12 pm

      Bill English is and continues to be a “dirty political player.” That is the normal setting for behaviour for Key English Joyce . Just lie big, and hold the lie.

      We have had 9 years of lies and subterfuge, coupled with sneering arrogance.

      It is so refreshing to hear straight talking. Ofcourse some say “not enough detail” well grin and bear that.

      At least we are being told ahead of time, not after some “urgent” night time legislation has removed more rights.

  11. Ross 11
    1 November 2017 at 7:50 pm

    In the first five years after three strikes came into effect 5248 offenders received a ‘first strike’ (that is, a “stage-1 conviction” under the three strikes sentencing regime), and 68 offenders received a ‘second strike’.

    In the five years prior to three strikes, 5517 people were convicted of an offence where that conviction would have been a ‘first strike’ had three strikes been in force at the time, and 103 were convicted of an offence that would have been a ‘second strike’.

    In addition, no-one was convicted of a third strikes in three strikes’ first five years, while four people were convicted of what would have been third strikes in the preceding five years, and two of them also racked up what would have been fourth strikes.

    https://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/the-greg-king-memorial-blogpost-three-strikes/

    I think many people simply want longer sentences for bad crimes. Yes, not all crimes are created equal. Whether it’s 3 strikes or a different regime, I think many people expect a life sentence to actually mean life.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1
      1 November 2017 at 7:56 pm

      My immediate response to that is “who cares what Mike Hoskings and many other people think? Fuck them: the rest of us want reduced crime and recidivism, not Trashocracy.”

      Not very diplomatic, and so what?

      • Ross 11.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 8:56 pm

        the rest of us want reduced crime and recidivism

        Why can’t we want longer sentences for the worst crimes while, at the same time, wanting fewer crimes and less recidivism? They’re not mutually exclusive.

        Alas, there are some not-so-nice people who don’t care what you and I think. Australia is grappling with the same problem.

        https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/09/parole-system-failings-laid-foundation-for-irish-murders-says-documentary

        • McFlock 11.1.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 10:13 pm

          Are they not mutually exclusive? Because as sentencing and prison get more severe, it doesn’t seem to improve things. So why do you say they aren’t contradictory?

          • Ross 11.1.1.1.1
            2 November 2017 at 8:12 am

            Of course they are not mutually exclusive. I linked to an article about three preventable murders in Australia. Did you read it?

            Jill Meagher was murdered by Adrian Bailey who had committed numerous prior rapes and other crimes. He will almost certainly die in prison. Because of that, he will not commit any crimes outside prison. I imagine him not raping more women is something most people would support. But if you want him released early you should say so.

            • tracey 11.1.1.1.1.1
              2 November 2017 at 8:22 am

              Again you only address one issue raised. You still have no comment on reducing recidivism and crime prevention?

              • Ross …
                2 November 2017 at 8:34 am

                Tracey

                I was commenting on the 3 strikes which relates to more serious crimes. I also produced numbers which indicated that recidivism may have reduced in the wake of 3 strikes.

                • Tracey …
                  2 November 2017 at 8:51 am

                  No you didnt. Or if you did I misunderstood. What percentage of those convicted on 3rd strike have reoffended upon release.

                  As for your other comment. Those other articles suggest proven ways to reduce the serious offending in the first place.

            • McFlock 11.1.1.1.1.2
              2 November 2017 at 1:18 pm

              Longer sentences don’t prevent people from committing crimes in custody. Assaults, rapes and murder.

              I want him rehabilitated, not victimised. Two wrongs do not make a right.

              • Ross …
                3 November 2017 at 8:24 am

                How many murders have been committed in custody in NZ? How many while on bail or while paroled?

                • McFlock …
                  3 November 2017 at 12:58 pm

                  There have been a couple of murders in custody in the news over the years.

                  I don’t know the exact numbers – you’re the one arguing for harsher treatment, why don’t you tell us?

                  • Ross …
                    3 November 2017 at 1:23 pm

                    You’re the one arguing against harsher sentences for the most serious offences so I expected you’d have the numbers at your fingertips. I’ve already supplied the numbers re 3 strikes which show a decline in 1st, 2nd and 3rd strikes since the legislation was passed. I also provided the example of Adrian Bailey who likely will die in prison after committing a string of rapes and murdering Jill Meagher. He was on parole at the time, parole which he had breached and therefore should have been in prison.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      3 November 2017 at 1:32 pm

                      arguing against harsher sentences for the most serious offences

                      Nobody here has suggested ending preventive detention. Just this stupid interference in sentencing policy by petty criminals from ACT.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 November 2017 at 1:42 pm

                      Your “decline” stats are farcical – a couple of hundred variation on 5.5k? Out of 4million people? The confidence interval on that would be a mile wide – your stats show no detectable effect on the crime rate.

                      You do realise Jill Meagher was killed in Australia, and has nothing to do with how the NZ judiciary or NZ police assess bail?

                      What about the kid kicked to death in the back of a police van?
                      What about the sexual assaults in NZ prisons?
                      Were they prevented by your demand to take judicial discretion out of sentencing?

                      And, most importantly, if you really need to look to Australia to find an outrage that supports your desire for this draconian legislation in NZ, there was no need to introduce it in NZ in the first place.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.2
          2 November 2017 at 6:05 am

          They’re not mutually exclusive.

          Yes, they are. Would it hurt you to stop repeating stupid lies and think for yourself for a moment? If you really want to challenge your deeply held reckons, go find out what the Chief Justice says about such matters.

          • Ross 11.1.1.2.1
            2 November 2017 at 8:15 am

            OAB

            I wasnt aware that the Chief Justice wants murderers to be given a free pass to commit more violent crimes. In fact she has said that the worst criminals should be incarcerated. Why do you disagree?

            • tracey 11.1.1.2.1.1
              2 November 2017 at 8:19 am

              Who said the Chief Justice wants to give free passes to commit more violent crimes? Certainly not OAB? Please back up your statement.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.2.1.2
              2 November 2017 at 8:24 am

              Is that feeble drivel the best strawman you can construct? It’s barely recognisable. More like a straw amoeba.

        • tracey 11.1.1.3
          2 November 2017 at 7:22 am

          Because we dont want both. We fixate on punishment and cave to idiots like English last night telling us we are now not as safe as we were. If we want to be safe we will demand our politicians address the well researched root causes and implement the programmes proven to work. But we dont. We fixate on the top end, like murders, which are fewer than work place deaths every year.

          Did you read the articles I linked to aboce? There are literally hundreds more like it. Canned programmes, ignored programmes, under resourced programmes. That work. Did you vote for them or for someone to lock up and throw away the key…

          • Ross 11.1.1.3.1
            2 November 2017 at 8:19 am

            Tracey

            I voted Green but thanks for asking 🙂

            • tracey 11.1.1.3.1.1
              2 November 2017 at 8:20 am

              I thought we were having a discussio. But you only answered one of my questions.

              Did you read the articles I linked to? I read yours.

    • boggis the cat 11.2
      2 November 2017 at 11:44 am

      I think many people simply want longer sentences for bad crimes. Yes, not all crimes are created equal.

      Preventive detention is effectively a life sentence. If there are reasonable grounds to consider releasing a prisoner poses a danger to the public then there are processes available.

      The fact that “not all crimes are [equal]” should make you realise that the penalties for crimes must have an element of discretion — judgement. Tying the hands of judges with ‘mandatory minimums’ and ‘three strikes’ and other counter-productive political interference in the process is a cynical attempt to get votes from the fearful and ignorant.

      What should be focused on is early detection of the situations and behaviours that are likely to lead to criminal activity later in life (particularly drug dependency). Investing in the fence at the top of the cliff is always more cost effective than the ambulance and hospital if we don’t. Then there’s the ‘secondary’ matter of people’s lives…

  12. Antoine 12
    1 November 2017 at 10:03 pm

    Will Nz 1st support the repeal?

    • tracey 12.1
      2 November 2017 at 8:34 am

      Good question. Cleangreen?

      My reading of NZF L and Order is it is focussed on populist notions of the area and is ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. Hopefully measures at reducing poverty, fixing Health and Education will offset. Proportional funding allocations will be interesting.