Thread: Here we go folks

Originally Posted by Nick-D

I see this bandied about a bunch, but statistically harsher sentencing has a pretty negligible effect on crime rate. The biggest deterrent comes in an uptake of certainty of sentencing. Ie how likely is it that I will get caught. In short if we want to reduce the crime, we need police and investigation resource out there catching more crims. That or some sort of wholesale seeping social and economic change, but I think the police resource is.probably the easier answer.

I don't really get what this bill is meant to achieve, and don't see it going anywhere

Statistically if someone has to actually SERVE 30+ years for serious violent crime they are extremely unlikely to commit another violent crime against the mostly law abiding populace during that 30 year period.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Statistically if someone has to actually SERVE 30+ years for serious violent crime they are extremely unlikely to commit another violent crime against the mostly law abiding populace during that 30 year period.

But we aren't talking about serious violent crime. We are talking about weapons possession laws. Like it or not evidence shows increasing sentences won't make a meaningful difference to crime rates, increasing the likelihood of getting caught will.

If we are going to put forward alternative suggestions as a community we might as well suggest somthing that actually works.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

If we are going to put forward alternative suggestions as a community we might as well suggest somthing that actually works.

How about death? Death works! It may not stop some prick doing a crime but it sure as shit stops them doing it again.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

But we aren't talking about serious violent crime. We are talking about weapons possession laws. Like it or not evidence shows increasing sentences won't make a meaningful difference to crime rates, increasing the likelihood of getting caught will.

If we are going to put forward alternative suggestions as a community we might as well suggest somthing that actually works.

Recidivism would suggest that either criminals are stupid (they've been caught before, and believe they won't be caught again?) or that the namby-pamby sentences handed out are no deterrent. As for non-violent crimes - the judiciary are pretty soft on all crime and if a criminal (in many cases with a history - refer to the Kiwigunblog's OIA requests) has a firearm, meth, any other manner of tools for committing a crime then we should be looking to charge them with intent as well....
Just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Recidivism would suggest that either criminals are stupid (they've been caught before, and believe they won't be caught again?) or that the namby-pamby sentences handed out are no deterrent. As for non-violent crimes - the judiciary are pretty soft on all crime and if a criminal (in many cases with a history - refer to the Kiwigunblog's OIA requests) has a firearm, meth, any other manner of tools for committing a crime then we should be looking to charge them with intent as well....
Just my 2 cents.

Thats a pretty big cognitive leap.

Recidivism rates don't meaningfully change with the introduction of longer sentences, neither does crime occurrence. We don't have to guess, there is plenty of empirical data to gather our conclusions from. Even capitol punishment and 3 strike laws don't work. There aren't many harsher penalties. If you want to reduce recidivism you need to use the carrot as well, not just the stick.

Don't get me wrong there is a time and place to throw the book at someone, but all blanket harsher sentencing will achieve is to cost the taxpayer shit tonnes of money and not make the streets any safer. You are better off putting that money towards increasing policing resource catching more crims earlier, and attempting to rehab them.
Especially in the case of illegal firearms, more police resource = more illegal firearms recovered and off the street.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

Thats a pretty big cognitive leap.

Recidivism rates don't meaningfully change with the introduction of longer sentences, neither does crime occurrence. We don't have to guess, there is plenty of empirical data to gather our conclusions from. Even capitol punishment and 3 strike laws don't work. There aren't many harsher penalties. If you want to reduce recidivism you need to use the carrot as well, not just the stick.

Don't get me wrong there is a time and place to throw the book at someone, but all blanket harsher sentencing will achieve is to cost the taxpayer shit tonnes of money and not make the streets any safer. You are better off putting that money towards increasing policing resource catching more crims earlier, and attempting to rehab them.
Especially in the case of illegal firearms, more police resource = more illegal firearms recovered and off the street.

I've said it before: outsource our justice system to China or Saudi Arabia...send crims first class, one way to somewhere that will deal with the problem - we could even pay a nominal annual upkeep (much greater savings than keeping them here - and if they don't survive to make it back: so what?)
Of course this will only be applicable for those slow to learn their lessons....
Cut the bleeding heart shit - as has been said before, no further crime can be committed if the problem has been removed, we just need to agree on a cost effective way of taking out the trash (again - this isn't first time offender solution talk here...)

Originally Posted by Nickoli

I've said it before: outsource our justice system to China or Saudi Arabia...send crims first class, one way to somewhere that will deal with the problem - we could even pay a nominal annual upkeep (much greater savings than keeping them here - and if they don't survive to make it back: so what?)
Of course this will only be applicable for those slow to learn their lessons....
Cut the bleeding heart shit - as has been said before, no further crime can be committed if the problem has been removed, we just need to agree on a cost effective way of taking out the trash (again - this isn't first time offender solution talk here...)

You know you don't make it easy to think that you're a fit and proper person when you literally advocate for the death penalty for recidivism. Murder and rape I get but recidivism is a different kettle of fish.

The money you'd spend on killing NZ citizens would be better spent elsewhere.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

You know you don't make it easy to think that you're a fit and proper person when you literally advocate for the death penalty for recidivism. Murder and rape I get but recidivism is a different kettle of fish.

The money you'd spend on killing NZ citizens would be better spent elsewhere.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Think you need to look more carefully at what I've suggested: we outsource our corrections system - this will cost a lot less than our current spend on rehabilitating those who have proven to be incapable of rehabilitation and reintegration into society; which is what recidivism is (at the extreme end). Not everyone gets into this system - it's graduated....

Originally Posted by Nickoli

I've said it before: outsource our justice system to China or Saudi Arabia...send crims first class, one way to somewhere that will deal with the problem - we could even pay a nominal annual upkeep (much greater savings than keeping them here - and if they don't survive to make it back: so what?)
Of course this will only be applicable for those slow to learn their lessons....
Cut the bleeding heart shit - as has been said before, no further crime can be committed if the problem has been removed, we just need to agree on a cost effective way of taking out the trash (again - this isn't first time offender solution talk here...)

How is it bleeding heart shit to actually propose changes that have actual evidence of reducing crime rates? Suppose I should stick to coming up with half cocked fantasy about imprisoning criminals on the moon or somthing.

I get that being mean to bad people gives you the warm fuzzies. It just doesn't work. The whole point of the justice system is to deter people from committing crime in the first place. How long one guy is in jail for said crime is irrelevant. What matters is how many people don't commit the crime for worry of the consequence.

Studies show that the most effective way to reduce this is to increase the chance of getting caught rather than the length of sentence. If you think the sentences are to weak that's fine, it's just a separate issue to preventing crime.

I'm arguing the point that, it is often said on here that harsher sentencing will reduce the occurrence of gun crime, evidence shows it isn't true. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught will. So if your true intent is to deter criminals that's where your money is best spent

Originally Posted by Nick-D

How is it bleeding heart shit to actually propose changes that have actual evidence of reducing crime rates? Suppose I should stick to coming up with half cocked fantasy about imprisoning criminals on the moon or somthing.

I get that being mean to bad people gives you the warm fuzzies. It just doesn't work. The whole point of the justice system is to deter people from committing crime in the first place. How long one guy is in jail for said crime is irrelevant. What matters is how many people don't commit the crime for worry of the consequence.

Studies show that the most effective way to reduce this is to increase the chance of getting caught rather than the length of sentence. If you think the sentences are to weak that's fine, it's just a separate issue to preventing crime.

I'm arguing the point that, it is often said on here that harsher sentencing will reduce the occurrence of gun crime, evidence shows it isn't true. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught will. So if your true intent is to deter criminals that's where your money is best spent

....missed a critical element in my argument: if you outsource to Saudi Arabia, China or North Korea the consequences will be severe...and it hasn't been tried, so any reference to "studies" are moot - this is a solution that fits with our capitalism mindset that has not been tried or studied. Warm fuzzies(WTF?) don't come into it: I feel nothing for people who victimise others - often repeatedly.

I also get your need to highlight that harsher sentencing doesn't work - you want to reference the USA example where they have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and higher recidivism than any other country; it also fits neatly when juxtaposed against the Scandinavian countries who have a greater focus on rehabilitation. You conveniently ignore the underlying backgrounds and cultural factors of both examples....
I get it - the US system creates a culture of criminality where there is "nothing to lose" - and my example is extreme; but what we are doing at the moment isn't working, and we have an issue with people getting caught more than once (definition of recidivist) - so it's not a fear of getting caught driving behaviour. We have a situation where the potential benefit outweighs any potential consequence (which is weak at best).
Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't believe our current crop of officials are willing to actually look at the problems - so we are left with assessing consequences....

Originally Posted by Nick-D

How is it bleeding heart shit to actually propose changes that have actual evidence of reducing crime rates? Suppose I should stick to coming up with half cocked fantasy about imprisoning criminals on the moon or somthing.

I get that being mean to bad people gives you the warm fuzzies. It just doesn't work. The whole point of the justice system is to deter people from committing crime in the first place. How long one guy is in jail for said crime is irrelevant. What matters is how many people don't commit the crime for worry of the consequence.

Studies show that the most effective way to reduce this is to increase the chance of getting caught rather than the length of sentence. If you think the sentences are to weak that's fine, it's just a separate issue to preventing crime.

I'm arguing the point that, it is often said on here that harsher sentencing will reduce the occurrence of gun crime, evidence shows it isn't true. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught will. So if your true intent is to deter criminals that's where your money is best spent

From what you are saying I can hazard a guess that you have no even said so much as hello to a Crim .
t
The current system is focused on box ticking and if you parrot their drivel , you get to go past the fence to freedom . What is needed is the stick and then the carrot , if there is no punishment then their is no consequence .

Originally Posted by Nick-D

Thats a pretty big cognitive leap.

Recidivism rates don't meaningfully change with the introduction of longer sentences, neither does crime occurrence. We don't have to guess, there is plenty of empirical data to gather our conclusions from. Even capitol punishment and 3 strike laws don't work. There aren't many harsher penalties. If you want to reduce recidivism you need to use the carrot as well, not just the stick.

Please explain how capital punishment does not reduce recidivism.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by stretch

Please explain how capital punishment does not reduce recidivism.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Haha, when you out it like that. What I'm saying is the threat does not meaningfully impact the occrance or reoccuramce of crime. The 3 strike laws is more relevant to recidivism. Harsh and doesn't work

Originally Posted by stretch

Please explain how capital punishment does not reduce recidivism.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

The ones who get it don't do it again...