Legal Beagle: Three strikes (w/ updates)
226 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
Hopefully you're over the oil rig posturing - dressing up as some kind of Village People stereotype's hardly likely to get anyone to take you seriously, in or out of jail.
I haven't a clue what you are on about..Although I guess back in Aberdeen in 1977 some of us did have large moustaches.. I don't really know why I am bothering with this...
<quote>Maybe you missed that magnificent portmanteau coinage "prolier than thou" - the suggestion is that it is something you aspire to, what with the repeated allusions to your rough and tough background.<quote>
What "repeated allusions" would they be? I responded to some dork suggesting that I was an uneducated redneck ...I mentioned my work history prior to returning to the Ivory Tower I had abandoned 11 years previously just once...
But this is getting tedious...no-one here - ironically it seems with the exception of Lucy Stewart - is at all interested in debating the "three strikes" proposal...like all intellectuall lefties, you just KNOW you're right and those of us who disagree are redneck idiot bigots (feel free to add another alternative label)
-
like all intellectuall lefties, you just KNOW you're right and those of us who disagree are redneck idiot bigots
This is quite possible the most inadvertently comical sentence I've read all year. "Like all intellectual lefties, you generalise about other people!" Really, it is quite priceless.
On the other hand, if you had bothered to read Graeme's post and the subsequent thread, you would have discovered that some of us have been commenting on how comparatively sane the bill seems, in spite of the the profoundly regressive principle it is based on and the stupid name it goes by and the awful Californian law it appears to be based on and the all-too-often foaming at the mouth ramblings of yourself and your Sensible Sentencing Trust pals. The day I see your lot - ACT, SST - give this much credit to somebody's else's work, I'll convert to some especially ludicrous religion.
-
What "repeated allusions" would they be? I responded to some dork suggesting that I was an uneducated redneck ...I mentioned my work history prior to returning to the Ivory Tower I had abandoned 11 years previously just once...
But this is getting tedious...no-one here - ironically it seems with the exception of Lucy Stewart - is at all interested in debating the "three strikes" proposal...like all intellectuall lefties, you just KNOW you're right and those of us who disagree are redneck idiot bigots (feel free to add another alternative label)
Well, here's a shocking suggestion - you could try *reading the whole thread*, not just the bits where people agree with you. I'm happy to debate, but you're turning this into something of an echo chamber (c.f.: not answering my question about why incest was still in there, despite responding to other parts of that post.) Otherwise you just seem disingenuous. To be honest, I'm not precisely sure what you're trying to accomplish here, apart from getting everyone to agree with you, which could take....a while.
-
I actually have known quite a few who have done time!
...
Have you actually BEEN inside a prison Lucy? I have, several of them.
...
I had experiences during eleven years working in the oil drilling industry in several different countries that most middle class people have not had.That's what I was thinking about. You're not being labelled a redneck - your claims to special standing are being mocked.
Actually, in its current form, I don't find too much to object to in the bill - I wonder whether the SST will feel short-changed. If you actually read through what other people have said, you'd notice that the consensus seems to be mild surprise that it's not too bad and far from resembling the American laws that go by the "three strikes" moniker.
-
In other words, had a three strikes law been in force when those 78 people killed someone else, their victims would be alive today - or at least their deaths would have been from some other cause.
David ,this is the flaw in your argument. There are a whole lot of other reasons whereby the victims might have been alive today, other than the three strokes law.
For a start -
The perpetrators might have had better educational, employment, emotional and family circumstances so they never started on a life of crime.
Once they were in jail they could have had better interventions, educational and rehab opportunites, and more support once they were released.
They could have been through restorative justice programmes which help all parties heal.The whole three strikes approach is so ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff when, if you want to be logical or evidence-based about it, there are a lot more untried or only partially tried approaches at the top of the cliff.
-
Sorry - 'strikes' not 'strokes' I hope the bill isn't bringing back flogging of prisoners.
-
One thing you've certainly achieved here, Mr Garrett, is to engender a certain sympathy for Rodney Hide. While I'm sure that, once again, you've no idea what I'm talking about, you're welcome to take it as a compliment.
-
Sorry - 'strikes' not 'strokes' I hope the bill isn't bringing back flogging of prisoners.
Don't worry, I'm sure it's on the wish-list.
-
What would the two-wrongs-make-a-right brigade regard as the fence at the top? Conscription? Gakushu juku? Eugenics? Merging religion and the state? The DINA or BOPE? Or all of the above (Ingsoc)?
-
WH,
But this is getting tedious...no-one here - ironically it seems with the exception of Lucy Stewart - is at all interested in debating the "three strikes" proposal...like all intellectuall lefties, you just KNOW you're right and those of us who disagree are redneck idiot bigots (feel free to add another alternative label)
I think it's great that we have the opportunity to exchange ideas with someone who sees this issue so differently. I have read both versions of the bill.
I think there are a couple of serious technical problems with a three strikes law. The first Graeme identified in his main post - a mandatory 25 year sentence may simply be too harsh a punishment for a particular third offence. Secondly, because there is no possibility of early release for genuine rehabilitation, the bill requires continued imprisonment even where inmates are no longer likely to re-offend, even where they did not 'deserve' a 25 year sentence on purely retributive grounds.
Another set of objections are structural. I have a friend who works with offenders thought to have a moderate risk of recidivism, and she's mentioned how most report backgrounds of criminal neglect and serious emotional and physical abuse. I don't believe it's a platitude to say that the lives of some offenders are shaped by circumstances out of their control, and I'm not comfortable throwing away the key in such cases. (She has also mentioned that a 10% rate of successful intervention is considered effective internationally.) </hearsay>
I tend to be sympathetic to arguments from personal responsibility and retributive punishment. The idea of someone 'choosing' a life of serious offending makes me angry, and I'll admit that part of me thinks it would be a good idea to lock recidivist violent offenders up until they change (shades of A Clockwork Orange notwithstanding). Another part of me wonders whether this does the problem justice.
I suppose that I'm conflicted, but don't like to see these sorts of proposals made without at least discussing how the underlying social problems in our communities are going to be addressed. </progressive>
-
Secondly, because there is no possibility of early release for genuine rehabilitation, the bill requires continued imprisonment even where inmates are no longer likely to re-offend, even where they did not 'deserve' a 25 year sentence on purely retributive grounds.
There's also the problem of what you *do* with them once they're released - most are going to be in their sixties, minimum, and the chances of successful reintegration into society are going to be very, very low. Do we keep them in prison until they die, even if they otherwise qualify for parole? What about rest homes? How would the other residents feel then? How much funding will there be to help them make the very severe re-adjustment to society? If we keep them in prison, are our prisons equipped to handle elderly prisoners, who will be more vulnerable and require extra healthcare?
I just don't see a lot of thought about these sort of questions among proponents of the bill, and since they're fairly straightforward consequences, I'd hope there would be.
-
I responded to some dork
no-one here - ironically it seems with the exception of Lucy Stewart - is at all interested in debating
We need a word for this, we really do. "Irony" just doesn't seem sufficient.
-
Do we keep them in prison until they die, even if they otherwise qualify for parole? What about rest homes? How would the other residents feel then?
Perhaps they'll be forced to take the law into their own hands, as happened in Owen Marshall's excellent gothic short story "The Rule of Jenny Pen". If anyone's interested, it can be found in the collection _Tomorrow We save the Orphans.
-
I think there are a couple of serious technical problems with a three strikes law. The first Graeme identified in his main post - a mandatory 25 year sentence may simply be too harsh a punishment for a particular third offence.
This concern turned out to be over-stated (my original post was based on the SST draft, not the bill as introduced). It's still a concern, but even on what would be the third strike the sentencing judge has discretion. The judge determines what the sentence would have been, and if it's less than 5 years, it doesn't count as a strike and they just serve the sentece normally. Prison isn't even mandatory (though is likely because the person will have a serious criminal history).
Only if the appropriate sentence for the offending of 5 or more years does it count as the third strike, and the 25 years to life sentence is imposed.
Secondly, because there is no possibility of early release for genuine rehabilitation, the bill requires continued imprisonment even where inmates are no longer likely to re-offend, even where they did not 'deserve' a 25 year sentence on purely retributive grounds.
This is certainly an issue with the bill in its current form. I suspect the response is that having already served two 5-year+ prison terms genuine rahbilitation is perhaps unlikely.
You will also have a bigger concern with the life *with no parole* aspects of the law - spending $50,000 a year to keep someone confined to a hospital bed in prison isn't the greatest use of money.
If they were to replace the third strike consequence of life with 25 years non-parole with preventive detention with a non-parole period equal to the finite sentence that would have been imposed, I'd probably still be opposed, but I'd have a much harder time making the case.
-
Ha, this thread turned rather hilarious didn't it? A bunch of people relatively calmly wading through the practical implications of the legislation, before one of the lead drivers of that legislation weighs in, tells everyone they know nothing about prison as a deterrent because they don't have a background like his and then complains nobody wants to discuss the bill!
That aside, my thanks to Graeme for his research, analysis and writing efforts to outline the real-world implications off all this (by real world I mean avoiding the shouting of political, media, and "independent political advocacy groups")
(Plus thanks to Sophie for I'm not middle, I'm all class ) -
We need a word for this, we really do. "Irony" just doesn't seem sufficient.
How To Troll Your Own Legislation In Nine Easy Steps?
-
Ha, this thread turned rather hilarious didn't it? A bunch of people relatively calmly wading through the practical implications of the legislation, before one of the lead drivers of that legislation weighs in, tells everyone they know nothing about prison as a deterrent because they don't have a background like his and then complains nobody wants to discuss the bill!
Indeed. I genuinely applaud Mr Garrett's initiative in coming here to discuss his bill -- in the same breath as I lament his rather odd approach to discussion.
-
How To Troll Your Own Legislation In Nine Easy Steps?
Well, Labour accused National MPs of filibustering the EFA repeal the other day, so it's not entirely without precedent...
-
I know someone who's in a prison professionally. And I suspect (but naturally can't prove) that if you surveyed such people they would think this kind of law is a bad idea. Not least because it will make their job harder and more dangerous (and hence make it more difficult to get staff).
Sorry I've come late, but has anybody said what period that 72 people covers? Not that I think it works as a counterfactual; you have to assume there'd be no other murders in prison or extra murders committed by other people because the regime isn't designed to reduce escalating offending. Though admittedly, the actual people murdered in those cases would be different.
-
Apologies up front I'm going to make a couple of separate posts
I still don't really know the answer to Lucy's question.
How many of "the 78" would have been protected by the bill as it exists now. Not the bill SST drafted. How many of the criminals had served three 5 year sentences for violent crimes?
-
The bill looks halfway reasonable, if you believe in prison as a form of deterrence.
But only halfway.
Some crimes are in some are out, who got to pick which crimes? Some are obviously about violence but others seem to be about culture (eg incest) - not a good thing in my opinion at least.
Finally the bill still prescribes sentences to judges. that is the point - to take away sentencing decisions from those who have the most knowledge and experience in dealing with criminals and put it in the hands of politicians.
-
Third post and my real problem with the legislation.
Hilary is dead right
There are a whole lot of other reasons whereby the victims might have been alive today,...
The bill supposes that the best way to prevent crime is to create punitive deterrents. In this case particularly vengeful ones.
But the problem is not how do we lock people up better, the problem is how do we create a society where people don't want (or need) to commit crimes.
By way of analogy, it turns out that in parts of New Zealand the best way to improve the health of the community is not to build hospitals or employ doctors, but to build houses. Pure simple statistically provable fact, so logically the best use of Vote Health is to build houses.
The same issue applies here. Is this legislation, with all the costs involved and ultimately with the cost of housing a few dozen more criminals in jail (and I bet that will be the final number), is this the best way to reduce crime in New Zealand?
My personal belief is that spending time effort and money in improving the education, health and living conditions is a better way of preventing people from becoming criminals than more punishments.
For those that do commit crimes, it is better to spend time effort and money to understand why they individually felt the crime was their best choice and then spend time effort and money to teach them a better, more socially acceptable set of choices.
I believe this bill doesn't help the justice system reduce crime.
-
WH,
If they were to replace the third strike consequence of life with 25 years non-parole with preventive detention with a non-parole period equal to the finite sentence that would have been imposed, I'd probably still be opposed, but I'd have a much harder time making the case.
Yes. It's the exceptionless nature of such potentially harsh consequences I don't like - once the legal threshold is crossed it's twenty-five years for a crime that might otherwise have earned you five, regardless of subsequent rehabilitation or remorse.
I suppose Garrett's point is that more lenient approaches inevitably fail to prevent some fraction of violent reoffending. The parole system has seen its share of high profile tragedies. There is an absurd frustration to knowing that our institutions are releasing people considered likely to re-offend and who are re-offending.
So I might accept that, in some as yet undefined circumstances, a recidivist offender should not qualify for release merely by completing a third sentence of the ordinary kind. But without reliable diagnostic methods to screen and effective rehabilitative techniques with which to fix, I wonder what should we do instead.
-
If these 'snob yobs' were South Auckland hoods, there'd be calls for the problem to be solved with a B-52 Stratofortress:
Rampaging youths trash cars, homes
Five teenagers arrested yesterday allegedly drove around Auckland on a six-hour vandalism rampage, causing more than $30,000 of damage to cars and property in some of the city's wealthiest suburbs.
...
Sergeant Jason Lamont of Glen Innes police said the group - a 16-year-old and four 17-year-olds - were travelling in a white station wagon randomly targeting vehicles in Remuera, Newmarket, St Heliers, Kohimarama, Mission Bay, Orakei, Glendowie, Pakuranga, Half Moon Bay and Glen Innes.
...The arrested teens came from the suburbs affected, he said.
-
I know someone who's in a prison professionally.
I didn't know there was money in it! All this time I've been wasting, I should be off robbing banks and getting caught.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.