Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: Three strikes (w/ updates)

231 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

  • Gareth Ward,

    Knowing this, Act tightened the criteria to a group of the more serious offences like rape, murder, aggravated assault - but did not get Corrections to adjust the "78 killers" figure. Act has just kept using it, without any qualification.

    Did they, though?
    Because they were quite right to campaign that way - the law they wanted would have played out like that. If they have used the 78 number SINCE making the changes then that's obviously dishonest but it's not a number I've seen bandied about since the campaign?


    So nobody wants ACT's bill because it's so extreme, and the rewrite would have ZERO impact on stopping killers. So why exactly are we trampling the BORA again? Just for good times fun?

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    If they have used the 78 number SINCE making the changes then that's obviously dishonest but it's not a number I've seen bandied about since the campaign?

    But it was bandied about recently in the House(not the big house)when Garrett in question time did seek the Minister of Corrections to confirm the number. I did think he used 77 though but I could be wrong. Hansard would know.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    So Garrett asked Collins to confirm a number that was actually completely wrong? Did she confirm it?

    A quick look through Hansard didn't show it up for me unfortunately.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    From Hansard:

    12. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she agree that information released under the Official Information Act by the Department of Corrections indicates that not one of the 423 prisoners serving life sentences would have been stopped by the proposed “three strikes” law?

    Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): If, when the member says “the proposed ‘three strikes’ law” he actually means the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, then the answer is yes.

    Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she agree with her support party colleague David Garrett, who said in the first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that the victims of 77 murderers in jail “would be alive today if, at the time they were killed, this bill had been enforced. That is not arguable; it is simply arithmetic.”, a myth that he is continuing to mislead the public with even after he received the same advice from her department that proves it is not true?

    Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The bill is currently before the Law and Order Committee. I am sure that the committee, of which the member is deputy chair, will be able to take into account all those sorts of comments, and it may well bring about changes.

    ...

    David Garrett: Can she confirm that the difference, in effect, between ACT’s “three strikes” bill and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is National’s addition of a requirement that an offender must, in addition to having been convicted of a listed offence, have been sentenced to imprisonment for at least 5 years?

    Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There is clearly a difference between the ACT policy and the bill as it was first introduced. But after the select committee has finished with the bill, I am not sure what it will come back with, because that will be a matter for the select committee to determine.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    David Garrett, who said in the first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that the victims of 77 murderers in jail “would be alive today if, at the time they were killed, this bill had been enforced. That is not arguable; it is simply arithmetic.”,

    So that would have been a straight lie in Parliament from Mr Garrett then?

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    If I understand Gower (and he's right), Act was wrong about their own version too, because Corrections 'serious violent' definition was broader again the Act's.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.