Posts by icehawk

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Legal Beagle: David Garrett wins,

    If only the judge had read the bill, or the changes, he'd know his concerns were misplaced. Burglary is not a strike offence.

    I can't speak for the judge, but he mave have been trying to use non-technical terms to communicate with the notoriously ignorant public.

    When I commented earlier I used "burglary" as a generic, with a vauge idea that aggravated burglary is just burglary with extra sauce.

    So what is the legal distinction that makes a burglary an aggravated burglary?

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 49 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: David Garrett wins,

    So, is the shift from "life with a non-parole period of 25 years" to "maximum sentence with no parole" sufficient to overcome the A-G's BORA concerns about disproportionate punishment?

    I believe the lightest sentence for manslaughter given in NZ in recent years was 300 hours of community service. For a chap who'd been negligent in doing maintenance work on a helicopter.

    I've no reason to that chap had, 30 years earlier, been convicted a couple of times for being party to office burglaries when a stupid youth. But suppose he had.

    In that case a sentence which a judge thought should have been 300 hours community service would have become life imprisonment without parole.

    Disproportionate? What do you think?

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 49 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: The Inexorable Advance,

    Then why not let me have it =)

    But this is pointless. You're pretending it's about human rights, and it's just not. This is not a freedom of association issue, despite your attempt to pretend it is. Putting your name on the membership list does not restrict your freedom to associate with anyone you want to. You want freedom from being associated with the students assoc. That's just not what "freedom of association" means.

    My view is that the students assocs are part of the universities in a real sense. So I don't see why the govt is involved at all: it seems obvious to me that the universities should be completely free in this regard. And if they choose to administer a certain part of their university by calling it the "student's association" they should be free to.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 49 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: The Inexorable Advance,

    Graeme,

    You do realise that the system I propose is not at all theoretical? It is how many US universities work?

    (possibly 'most', though the voting aspect varies widely)

    Also, Roger Douglas's VSM bill is very different than Michael Law's VSM bill was. I am surprised that you have not mentioned this. Laws bill would have forbidden the universities from doing many things in an attempt to prevent the universities from taking over the functions of the students assocs. Douglas's bill does not do that. So Douglas's bill doesn't mean you get to opt out of paying for the student newspaper, gym, cafes, student creche, etc, etc. *All* you get is the ability to not have your name listed as those who are members of the students assoc.

    So I think your 'freedom of association' argument is angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. A logical exercise with no practical effect. Which does remind me greatly of student politics, where the fighting is so bitter because the stakes are so small.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 49 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: The Inexorable Advance,

    I'd object just as strongly to a law giving the residents of every street the power to decide whether membership of a neighbourhood association should be compulsory for all street residents.

    Let me see if I understand your "freedom of association" argument.

    Suppose every university in the country declare the students assocs disbanded. And then they took over all the functions the students assocs used to have, and organised a system of fees just like what they have now, and organised a system of elections of students to run this new module of the university. You'd have no problems with that because they did exactly the same things, run by the same elected students, charging the same, but they were no longer requiring students to "belong" to something?

    Is that it? What you object to is not the services and fees but the belonging?

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 49 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: Let it die. Please.,

    Keith,

    Great post.

    My one complaint is that your focus on deciles can be a bit misleading.

    I haven't seen any good NZ data for breakdowns of the top 10% of income (if you know of any, do let us know). But Saez's work on income inequality in the USA (remarkable work for which he's won the Clarke award) shows that there the top 1% earn vastly, vastly more than the average member of the top decile.

    There is a big difference between someone earning $100k a year and someone on $280k a year - and National wants to cut taxes much more for those on $280k than those on $100k.

    (See this on Saez if you're interested - the kicker is figure 2):
    http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2006prel.pdf

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 49 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: Romeo Smells of Roses,

    Plus, enumerating. Who gets to be #1?

    Mister Black

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 49 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: It would be polite to ask,

    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.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 49 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: Also, The Rain Isn't Gone,

    May explain why I am a tad bit overdue for a smear."

    Isabel,

    My partner went for 6 years without getting around to a smear. If she'd left it another year she'd probably be dead. And I'd be raising the kids on my own. Seriously. No shit.

    I hope you find that scarey, coz I'm trying hard here. It scared the hell out of me.

    My comments seem to have a theme, but:
    Don't die. Get around to it.

    icehawk

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 49 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: Also, The Rain Isn't Gone,

    Emma,

    I took a picture of my grandad at his 90th with his 7 siblings. The photo shows that 6 of the 8 had white canes, coz they were blind. They went blind after the age of 40. Glaucoma.

    If it's caught early it's very treatable these days. So while I find eye-tests (and especially those puffer-tests) a real pain, I go regularly as clockwork. Don't put off that followup. Not even a little bit.

    It's that vision thing.

    icehawk

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 49 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First