Thread: Here we go folks

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

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....

I have. You're suggesting that criminals have less human rights than you and I. And that you are perfectly comfortable with others doing the dirty work.

If you think the government would stop at actual criminals and leave us alone then you're naïve at best.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

I have. You're suggesting that criminals have less human rights than you and I. And that you are perfectly comfortable with others doing the dirty work.

If you think the government would stop at actual criminals and leave us alone then you're naïve at best.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Never even suggested that the government would ever leave us alone - nice if they would, but it will never happen.
If you believe I'm that naive - you are stupid at best... I can do false equivalency too - and suggest you grow up a bit.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Never even suggested that the government would ever leave us alone - nice if they would, but it will never happen.
If you believe I'm that naive - you are stupid at best... I can do false equivalency too - and suggest you grow up a bit.

If you think it won't happen then why would you suggest something that could be used against us?

Jog on. I'm not the one suggesting stupid ideas.

No need to be patronising.

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 Nickoli

....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....

I'm sorry man but outsourcing draconian prison and torture as a form of punishment is
1. Entirely unrealistic
2. Absolutely not a new idea. It's been the way things have happened for the majority of our civilised history.

You are claiming causation based entirely on your oppinion and not on evidence. I get that it seems logical but humans are not logical creatures. It isn't a matter of weighing up benifits vs consequence.
Recidivism is a complex issue. But again in the context of this discussion (firearms and firearms law) not really relevant.

In the 1st world there is no harsher recidivism policy than the 3 strikes laws. Yet people still repeat offend.

It's all about the psychology of prevention. Imagine you are a kiwi bloke who likes to drive at 115. Now you have road a and road b. Road a has a $500 fine for driving 115. However you drive road a all the time, you never see a cop or speed camera on there.

Road b only has a $200 fine for going 115, but you see cops on there all the time. At least a couple times a week. You see people pulled over and getting tickets. Hell your mate got pinged last week.

Which road are you more likely to slow down on?

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 Tankd

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 .

What's your experience with the justice system?

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

What's your experience with the justice system?

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

I have to work with them on the inside and believe me they are some who just are not worth the time and energy , and the odd one who just did something stupid .

Originally Posted by Tankd

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 .

You know what they say about assumptions....

You miss the point entirely. I'm not arguing about sentencing at all. Just refuting the point that harsher sentencing will meaningfully reduce the occurrence of crime.

At no point did I say we should abolish or reduce sentences. Just that more police resource and a higher probability of getting caught is more effective at preventing crime from happening in the first place. Which is after all the best possible outcome and the entire point of the system.

Everyone can argue their emotionally based opinion till they are blue in the face, but that won't change the facts.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

You know what they say about assumptions....

You miss the point entirely. I'm not arguing about sentencing at all. Just refuting the point that harsher sentencing will meaningfully reduce the occurrence of crime.

At no point did I say we should abolish or reduce sentences. Just that more police resource and a higher probability of getting caught is more effective at preventing crime from happening in the first place. Which is after all the best possible outcome and the entire point of the system.

Everyone can argue their emotionally based opinion till they are blue in the face, but that won't change the facts.

Curious: how has the heavy CCTV approach of the UK reduced crime? Genuine question....