Posts by Nick Russell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Russell Brown,
My former (and now deceased) neighbour was caught manufacturing heroin and didn’t go to jail, despite a long list of previous. An acquaintance, also with previous, was busted with pot, pills, speed and $15k in cash and only got home detention
Yeah, that’s why it can look like a lottery. I’d like to know why the Judge didn’t give her a non-custodial sentence. But the fundamental problem is that this is still a crime and we really don’t want to live in a country where the Police or courts get to decide which laws they will or won’t enforce, or at least least I don’t. Far better to reform the law than enforce it selectively.
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Katharine Moody,
You are right. The financial and social costs of prohibition are enormous, wasteful and out of all proportion to the harm caused by smoking cannabis. The law needs to change. But lawyers and courts can't do that. Nor can the Police.
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Brent Jackson,
The original Northern Advocate article. She had over half a kilo and told the Court she supplied it to "about 20 close friends". That'll do it. Supply doesn't need to be commercial. If it had been commercial she probably would have got more than 2 years.
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Katharine Moody,
You want to shut down the criminal justice system?
Well, good luck with that. Do let us know how you get on.
I think Rich is right. Lots of people say they care about decriminalising cannabis, but their behaviour suggests otherwise, and the political parties know that very well. That's why none of them are promising to do anything about it. They know when push comes to shove, most people who vote either don't really care about this one way or the other, or approve of the current law.
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Katharine Moody,
I think you have the wrong target. If you want to prevent this sort of thing happening, there are a bunch of people down here in Wellington who can actually change the law. Lawyers and courts, not so much.
Sentencing can sometimes look like a bit of a lottery (which is not to suggest I think it is a game). That's why it can be helpful to have the sentencing notes. They will tell you exactly what the Judge took into account when he decided on the sentence. But the bottom line is that cultivating cannabis for supply - which she appears to admit doing - is a fairly serious offence and the only way that will change is by amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act.
What I find interesting is that we seem to have a lot of support for decriminalising cannabis outside Parliament, but hardly any inside Parliament. The only mainstream party to have supported decriminalisation that I can think of has decided it isn't worth the bother and no longer seems interested. The received wisdom seems to be that it just isn't worth the trouble. I think that will probably change sooner or later, who knows, maybe cases like this will actually help. But I'm not holding my breath.
-
Thanks for this. I always find myself biting my tongue and waiting impatiently for Anzac day to pass, and this year has been particularly difficult. I don't want to provoke those for whom the day holds such a lot of meaning. I just wish they'd get the damn facts straight. I mean, we had an hour or more about Gallipoli on Morning Report alone this morning without anyone bother to acknowledge that most of the casualties on the allied side weren't Anzacs at all. They were British and French. But never mind, let's just go with the legend.
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Sacha,
You don't have to be involved with journalism to appreciate it. Alas, nor does TV3. They are a business, not a public service, and if they can make more money by replacing Campbell Live with something else, they are likely to do just that.
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Victoria Tupou,
Most of the problem here is that viewers who watch broadcast TV through other platforms, such as on-demand or via MySky are don't count. Largely because the product TV3 sells are viewers who are delivered to advertisers. You can rail against how that system with its reliance on a small number of ratings boxes is unfair, or out of date, or inaccurate, and I will probably agree with you. But that is the system the broadcasters and advertisers have agreed to use, and the survival of shows like Campbell Live depends entirely on the support of that regime. Hence - if you don't watch the broadcast edition of the programme, you may as well not watch it at all as far as TV3 is concerned. That's an exaggeration, but it's effectively the basis on which they make decisions.
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to nzlemming,
Event shows have all sorts of exciting revenue-earning potential - sponsors, product placement, viewers who actually pay to participate in phone voting - which is far more difficult for a show like Campbell Live to generate. Plus - they are shows that more people are going to watch live, which advertisers like.
-
Legal Beagle: Compensation for Teina Pora?, in reply to BenWilson,
It's not a law. The Cabinet Office manual can simply be changed by Cabinet at any time. Doesn't have to go through Parliament.