Hard News: It would be polite to ask
171 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
And I would support moves to allow family members to totally block parole of people convicted of these crimes.
God yes.
-
impolite to the media waiting outside.
Even before he got outside there was something about the way he was standing in the dock which made me say to myself "they've lost him".
And I was sad. I hope he gets the chance to grow up a different way some time.
Yes ,how could he be sooo impolite? Shocking! I mean it's not like they had been on his tail from the minute he got parole was it? Oh, wait a minute.....
Sheez, the kid had been hounded,and what you saw was a hounded person being advertised by the media as the youngest murderer continuously.Sorry, but he was on parole. Shit, we have just seen this sort of behaviour directed at Veitch and until he was possibly going to top himself, the media hounded him. Does not make for exemplary behaviour, does it?Kurariki. For crying out loud, if you people are going to discuss someone at least know vaguely what their name is!
Quite right! Ok rant over,
On another note, YAY, yes Craig, Paul Weller. all good.:) -
Spooky, I got This
and he's most afraid of big fat munters and loves living in new nealand.
stewart mouat. a fine kiwi bloke.
-
And I would support moves to allow family members to totally block parole of people convicted of these crimes.
I certainly would not. Victims' families should of course be involved in the decision, but they are not the people who should be making it.
Apart from anything else, if a family indefinitely blocks parole (as Rita Croskery would), that means the system loses all the monitoring tools and parole conditions, and just dumps the offender on the street when the time comes. That's a terrible concept.
-
I certainly would not. Victims' families should of course be involved in the decision, but they are not the people who should be making it.
Me either. Revenge is not synonymous with justice.
-
Steve Barnes - eek! Not one of our's but - could be(Mouats here come from a Kai Tahu/Island Scots blend...) Maybe that should be "type in -Mouat/historical murder/habeus corpus"?
Revenge is indeed not synonymous with justice, but I firmly maintain that a family who has had one of their own murdered or severely damaged has a right to say, apropos the convicted person, We lost our whanau member forever - why should you enjoy freedom?
Yep, a lot of families will agree with a parole board decision - but a large number will not. And please note that I wanted family input into the *nature & length of sentence*.
I would suggest the 'monitoring tools and parole conditions' are fairly ratshit at the moment anyway.
-
Yeah. What the writerly one said.
-
I firmly maintain that a family who has had one of their own murdered or severely damaged has a right to say, apropos the convicted person, We lost our whanau member forever - why should you enjoy freedom?
Nope. That's exactly why they should not have the decision. I'm not minimising the family's pain, but it's very unlikely they'll be objective about the situation and I like my justice on the impartial side, thanks.
-
Mark Harris - you really believe that justice, as delivered through our current court system, is IMPARTIAL??? Let alone 'on the impartial side'?
And, 'objectivity' and the legal system arnt exactly mates either.What has been missing for a long time in our legal system (which is almost wholly statute-based now, but contains a sort-of-healthy dose of English common law)is recognitions of 'offended parties other than the state." Whoa back, lawyers! But you know what I mean-
and that is where whanau/victims/other 'offended parties' (we can skid this stuff under the heading of utu) *must* be considered.
-
Mark Harris - you really believe that justice, as delivered through our current court system, is IMPARTIAL???
I think the issue is making it more or less closer to an ideal of impartiality. A victim's family veto on parole would be a move towards less.
and that is where whanau/victims/other 'offended parties' (we can skid this stuff under the heading of utu) *must* be considered.
Other offended parties views should be considered, yes. That's a bit different from being able to totally block parole.
-
The stakeholders in justice are not only the offender and the perpetrator, and not just their families. Crimes are prosecuted on behalf of all of society (with the usual accompanying imbalances, imperfections and inequities).
Thanks for the elaboration about utu, Islander. Sounds like strong iwi tikanga kept things in check, which I imagine are not so easy to replicate in our more diverse societies today. I understand restorative justice draws on traditional Maori forms, however, so there must be ways of making things work.
-
Mark Harris - you really believe that justice, as delivered through our current court system, is IMPARTIAL??? Let alone 'on the impartial side'?
And, 'objectivity' and the legal system arnt exactly mates either.What Steve said. (Thx Steve)
What has been missing for a long time in our legal system (which is almost wholly statute-based now, but contains a sort-of-healthy dose of English common law)is recognitions of 'offended parties other than the state." Whoa back, lawyers! But you know what I mean-
Bollocks. If it ain't written down, it ain't law. I do not want to go back to a situation where the law is whatever the judge at hand wants it to be. Our statute law is written on top of the base of common law, so I really don't see your point there. There is recognition of other parties (e.g. victim impact statements) but who do you think the state is? It's us as a collective entity.
and that is where whanau/victims/other 'offended parties' (we can skid this stuff under the heading of utu) *must* be considered.
They are considered, but they do not have control. I believe that's a good thing..
-
Mark Harris - our statute law is whatever our parliament wants it to be-
"who do you think the state is? It's *us" as a collective entity."Uh, no, actually: (links coming. We have lightning storms.)
Sacha, I'm well aware of the larger range of participants in the justice system. One of my sisters was heavily involved in Restorative Justice - the only Maori thing she could ascertain was "give everyone a chance to speak, state their position, & views" which isnt paticularly Maori.
-
What is the mechanism that prevents utu devolving into permanent blood feud? What can you do with aggrieved parties who will never be satisfied? The fundamental problem I have with restorative justice is that some losses can never be restored - the loss of a beloved family member - and so to me this is a sort of cheat from the get-go, where we tell people they will be recompensed but then we have to set limits.
Why set limits? This is why.
In Germanic tribal societies, where Anglosaxon common law has its roots, the concept of wergild was a marvellous innovation. Wergild (person-money) is what an offender has to pay a victim for an injury, or their family for a murder. The purpose was NOT to make whole a loss. The purpose was to symbolically limit an otherwise unbreakable cycle of vengeance.
If you read or hear the old stories of our Paheka tribal past, there is no end to feuding. The Atreides are cursed. The Volsungs are cursed. Every single Irish heroic figure is cursed. And mostly because they are stuck with the problems of reciprocal vengeance that can't be solved until every single member of one party is killed.
So I'm extremely leery of restorative justice, to the extent that it legitimises vengeance. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, because it is imprudent to delegate this to humans.
-
Stephen Judd - restorative justice is rather different from utu: very different in fact. People - victims/whanau thereof/criminals are required to sit down together and find a way where all parties feel the matter can be/is resolved.
I said to my sister, You're on a hiding to nothing. And so it proved to be. Restorative justice doesnt actually work in the majority of cases - because about 10% of offenders are predators on the 90% of us (and a worrying 2-3% of the predators are psychopaths or sociopaths.)
Utu worked in times gone by - until the balance/s got tipped. The musket was one undeniable major tipping force.
We cannot go back to past solutions - the good examples you have given show why.
BUT- until ordinary people know that they can have a decisive imput into the sentences of criminals who have killed or grossly harmed their whanau - and when & where they are released - I'd suggest 'the law' will continue to be held in disrespect, if not contempt.
It's a bit like the numerous financial exploiters still partying around -until they're out there in sackcloth & ashes, digging shit into the ground, nobody is going to believe in a just financial system again.
-
you really believe that justice, as delivered through our current court system, is IMPARTIAL??? Let alone 'on the impartial side'? And, 'objectivity' and the legal system arnt exactly mates either"
Objectivity and impartiality are things our court system should strive for. Because without them we don't have justice. And me, I'd like our court system to be as just as we can make it.
"Impartiality" (like "Truth" and "Justice") is a regulative ideal: an thing to aspire to and strive for rather than a state you actually arrive at. So your argument that "they aren't impartial, so this move that makes them less impartial is okay" makes no sense.
and that is where whanau/victims/other 'offended parties' (we can skid this stuff under the heading of utu) *must* be considered.
Your view would imply that murdering someone that nobody cares about should carry a lighter effective sentence than murdering someone popular who is deeply missed. Call me Mr Grumpy, but I don't like that take on things. Even if no-one grieves for them they're still equally a person, dammit.
-
icehawk, you're setting up straw people. I havent argued either stance you're proposing - and wouldnt.
-
I agree that our system fails some people. It isn't perfect, and it never will be. We should always strive to improve it, but any radical departure from the current system is likely to bring its own evils.
That said, I'm not against some forms of restorative justice, or for victims and their families being allowed to have their say. But sentences for serious offences should always be imposed by judges. There are two reasons for this. Firstly a judge is impartial and does not (in theory) have an emotional connection to the victim or the offender. Secondly, judges understand how to apply sentencing guidelines. These guidelines exist to ensure that in most cases we can reasonably predict a sentencing range when someone is found guilty.
Now I know that judges sometimes get it wrong, and that some may be predisposed towards or against certain groups in society. And we've all heard of cases where someone has appeared to walk away from a jail sentence because they were a prominent Rotarian and pillar of the community. As I said, the system ain't perfect, but it seems to work better than most others. We hear occasionally about "bad" sentences, but forget that hundreds of people are before the courts every working day.
Restorative justice can work well where there is a good prospect of rehabilitation, where the offence is minor, or where the offender is young. In these situations the overriding aims must be to ensure the offender recognises the wrong committed, to give "closure" to the victim and to hopefully ensure the offender gets back on the straight and narrow. But I don't think restorative justice would work well for serious offences, where the other factors in sentencing come into play (i.e deterrent and punishment).
-
ScottY - you've nicely, succinctly, summed the matter up.
-
ScottY - you've nicely, succinctly, summed the matter up.
Agreed - tho being human, judges don't spring fully formed onto the bench from their previous law careers. While they've presumably been appointed because of their experience, as ScottY says, they bring certain prejudices along with whatever ideals they might have, and these may be tested and transformed as they learn on the job.
As a journalist with longtime experience of the NSW system observed about Justice Wood, who presided over the watershed 1990s Royal Commission into corruption in the NSW police force, he seemed set to bring in yet another whitewash job, as in the past he'd shown himself to be very "North Shore", and was prone to becoming "squeamish" when counsel got on top of police in cases that came before him. As it turned out, Wood amazed those who knew him by seizing his chance to make history by standing firm, and one of the most institutionally corrupt police forces in any Western democracy underwent a massive shakeout.
A pity, perhaps, for those who may have suffered from Wood's prejudices in his early learning days on the bench, but as ScottY pretty much says, over time it's an imperfect system that seems to work better than most.
-
Joe, even with those prejudices Wood would still have been closer to impartial than family members of murder victims. Imperfect, to be sure, but still much less invested emotionally than someone directly impacted by the crime(s) on trial before him.
As others have said, if you allow the Rita Croskerys of the world to have absolute say over the parole of those who have done them wrong we'll need to double the number of prison beds as well as totally overhaul all notions of post-release monitoring. The law allows for a year (I think it's a year. Graham?) of "parole" even if a prisoner is released at the terminal date of their sentence, but the system isn't designed for that to be the default position.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.