3 strikes law proves the lynch mob have taken over
Controversial 'three strikes' bill passes
The Government's controversial 'three strikes' legislation has been passed by Parliament. After strong opposition from Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party the bill went through its third reading tonight on a vote of 63-58, with National and Act supporting it. Police Minister Judith Collins said the Sentencing and Parole Bill upheld a government pledge to remove eligibility for parole for the worst repeat violent offenders.
Well, hate has finally won and warped social policy. When he isn't making drunk homophobic comments on Eye to Eye or making oral sex jokes around the water cooler with female workmates, David Garrett from the Sensible Sentencing Trust (who may or may not be receiving donations from the Private Prison Industry) has forced through ACT social policy warped by hate which will only benefit the private prison industry.
3 strikes doesn't work, and we will only lock more people up in environments that will dehumanize them with zero effort on rehabilitation, all to satisfy the baying lynch mob.
Ugly, so terribly ugly NZ.
posted by Bomber @ 8:43 am
9 comments
9 Comments:
Everyday there is worse and worse stuff being done to our people by this gvt. Each day it feels like the day they won the election, over and over. Social justice defeated.
Personally I agree with you bomber but you shouldn't compare the Californian three strikes with ours. They are very different. Along with the three strikes National and the Maori party will be increasing restorative justice in NZ with the Marae based justice. So an increased range of solutions should be a good thing. I don't like that the government is taking the discretion away from judges but it will be interesting to see if the three strikes will make any difference to re offending of those on two strikes.
And don't worry too much, I'm sure National are just keeping the governmental seat warm for Labour
I second that comment about the difference between NZ's 3 strikes and California's. This is also why I struggle to understand why you are so vehemently opposed to NZ's one. The two major differences is that NZ's is only applied to violent crime and that the punishment is related to the crime committed for each strike it just has to be heavier for each strike.
Do you disagree with the idea that the first offence should be dealt with lighter than repeat offences? I think this idea is important as it can seperate the people who just made a mistake and will learn from it to the ones who aren't remoseful and have no plans to change their ways. If you agree with the idea but don't think the law achieves that aim can I ask if you would be for a law that had a lighter penalty than the current status quo for the first offence the status quo for the second and a harsher penalty for the third? For the sake of argument lets just say it only applies to truly repugnant crimes like rape and murder, and also the govt provides free but not compulsory rehabilitation services that they can choose to participate in.
I'm sorry Anon, could you clarify, David Garrett says this 3 strikes law will reduce crime by a staggering 10-20% could you just let us know where in Mr Garrett's range you believe that reduction will be because 10%-20% crime reduction would be the most successful crime plan in history wouldn't it?
I'm not arguing about the truth of his statement, although personally I think it is possible that the recidivism rate of violent offences could drop by up to 10%. I'm not defending Garrett either, I don't care for him personally. What I was trying to figure out is if your position on three strikes in general is well-thought out or solely based on ideaology. So I will rephrase my question do you agree or disagree with the proposition that a repeat violent offence is less excusable than a first offence?
This just pisses me off.
Firstly our three strikes law is so different from Californa's comparing them is a joke.
Secondly do you really support rehabilitating someone who rapes / murders / beats to a pulp someone three times, with getting caught and charged each time.
Cause I don't.
I am very much in favour of progressive action against lesser crimes (theft / burglary / possession of some drugs) and making it so many crimes aren't such as making certain drugs like Mdma, lsd, and weed (which are actually worse than both of the earlier two) legal.
In regards to those lesser crimes, jail / imprisionment should be totally avoided, chucking someone in jail does not make them a better person, quite the opposite.
But someone who rapes, murders, or is a total violent thug, and fails to sort it out after doing it a couple of times, well fuck emm. They fucked three people's lives, their life is effectively no longer relevant.
"But someone who rapes, murders, or is a total violent thug, and fails to sort it out after doing it a couple of times, well fuck emm. They fucked three people's lives, their life is effectively no longer relevant.'
Is locking then up for a long time going to solve the problem?
The result is a huge financial cost to society and we have to let them back out sometime, are you prepared for their behavior when they are released?
If they were violent rapists before a long stint, what will they be like after a couple of decades of being treated like a caged animal?
"In regards to those lesser crimes, jail / imprisionment should be totally avoided, chucking someone in jail does not make them a better person, quite the opposite."
Why in only lesser crimes?
Punishment must be part of any rehabilitation process, but to make it the whole process causes more problems than it solves.
The financial cost to society is important, because every dollar we spend in retribution, we don't spend in rehabilitation. So the people who would have been rehabilitated after the first time now won't have that chance and 3x offending will be more common.
Its natural to be angry at a 3x offenders, but if we concentrate on rehabilitation we can stop most of them after one offense.
Don't allow anger to affect your judgment, there will always be a few 'crazies' who will re-offend again and again. But if we spend our justice budget on locking people up, we fail to treat those that could be rehabilitated. They will then re-offend.
fatty:
I imagine you are against the death sentence, which would solve the problem. That leaves acompromise, chucking total scum in a cell and leaving them there.
Alternatively go back to a) (which I dont support).
As for anger its not about anger, its about not letting people out who repeatedly rape / kill / maim. The cost they do to their victims exceeds the fucking cost of locking em up.
"Dont let anger" bla. Utter drivil.
"I imagine you are against the death sentence"
Yeah, obviously there's so many things wrong with the death penalty that there's no need to go into that.
"The cost they do to their victims exceeds the fucking cost of locking em up."
I never said it doesn't and I completely agree with you. My reference to the cost of locking someone up for a long time/life is in no way linked to the cost to the victims.
What I said was;
"The financial cost to society is important, because every dollar we spend in retribution, we don't spend in rehabilitation. So the people who would have been rehabilitated after the first time now won't have that chance and 3x offending will be more common.
Its natural to be angry at a 3x offenders, but if we concentrate on rehabilitation we can stop most of them after one offense."
Maybe its not anger behind your view, but do you see where you are choosing to put our resources? Rehabilitation these days is more successful than in the past, even when used on pedophiles/rapists.
If we lock people up for life, thats millions of dollars that can be spent stopping re-offenders, which will result in less murders/rapes etc. I assume we both agree that is the goal? - less violent crime.
Post a Comment
<< Home