Thread: Hunter convicted

Originally Posted by Sidney

Your point of comparison is valid - that being penalty associated with an unintended outcome vs a "lack" of penalty for the example you provide...

but the point is not that the rugby player or whatever shouldn't perhaps benefit from a second chance, rather that the penalty for an unintentional event seems severe in comparison?

.

Yes. It is just the imbalance that seems wrong here, I don't have enough info to have an opinion on the other decisions.
My other comments/questions are around unintended consequences. I get the possible benefits of avoiding conviction for the accused but at what cost? What do you know of victims outcomes when they feel completely let down by the system?
Are you so sure the odd up and coming Rugby player wont look at George Moalla and be emboldened because he "got away with it" ?
Nothing is easy I know and everything comes at a price.

With regard to prisons I remember watching something a while ago. IIRC It was a three stage system. On entry it was tough, hard work,discipline and little comfort, stage two was more rebuilding and rehabilitation with a few perks and stage three being more home like and focused on work skills and building blocks for the future. It was a snakes and ladder setup so cock up and you go back to the previous stage.
I thought it had a lot going for it.

Originally Posted by sneeze

Yes. It is just the imbalance that seems wrong here, I don't have enough info to have an opinion on the other decisions.
My other comments/questions are around unintended consequences. I get the possible benefits of avoiding conviction for the accused but at what cost? What do you know of victims outcomes when they feel completely let down by the system?
Are you so sure the odd up and coming Rugby player wont look at George Moalla and be emboldened because he "got away with it" ?
Nothing is easy I know and everything comes at a price.

With regard to prisons I remember watching something a while ago. IIRC It was a three stage system. On entry it was tough, hard work,discipline and little comfort, stage two was more rebuilding and rehabilitation with a few perks and stage three being more home like and focused on work skills and building blocks for the future. It was a snakes and ladder setup so cock up and you go back to the previous stage.
I thought it had a lot going for it.

@sneeze, yes, actions and consequences.

I have done some volunteer work in the prison system here in NZ. The value of work is tremendous, not least teaching the inmates, the guys in the case of our prison, to work, to get up in the morning, to be able to take instructions and tellings off without going off in a huff etc etc. Some have never worked more than a day in their lives, never had working parents to teach an example. Alternative - endless boredom and watching TV in a cell.

I remain deeply disappointed by Mr John Key. One of his election promises for his second term of Government was that he would have all prisoners working. Some no doubt saw it as a "get hard on criminals" kind of statement, others saw it as a promising move to reduce re-offending.

Thoughtful point re victims' outcomes, but not sure if the state exerting revenge helps them. The revenge is never proportional for a start.
Victim compensation of victims is perhaps another matter, and if that was the practice then the victim would never be excluded from the sentencing process.

What do you know of victims outcomes when they feel completely let down by the system?

The system cannot be responsible for the reaction of an individual to what happens in their lives. There is too many variables to that.. I know that the heathiest response is a process of coming to terms with whatever happened and some form of reconciliation with the offender. I also know that the retribution/appropriate penalty mentality has little to do with the best outcomes for the victims families. Even if the sentence in the view of the victims is appropriate as they exit the courtrooms, most of what you hear is relief because it is the perceived end of the process - only to later realise that at parole or potential release, the are still traumatised again at the idea of that offender now being free, while the victim still is still dead or living with the consequences.

The concept that the appropriate pound of flesh can be extracted is flawed. It is almost never achieveable.

You need to break it down a bit more than most people do .. accountability is the first part of the process, natural consequences and making right, penalty, protection for society, preparation for re-entry to society..... people here get stuck in the penalty groove, assuming some value for the victims when it doesn't exist, and justifying it with deterence, when that doesn't exist either in reality...

Are you so sure the odd up and coming Rugby player wont look at George Moalla and be emboldened because he "got away with it" ?

In spite of the fact that it still happens with rugby players, do you think that it would be more frequent for that group of people if they were not rugby players? So I would say no and the reason is accountability and not penalty. People modify their behaviour for the realistic appreciation of consequence, not specifc penalty. If you don't think you are going to get caught you might choose to take the risk.

Are you not going to get caught swinging punches in a drunken brawl when you are a recognisable person? These aren't the actions of of people who process things in the way that you suggest.

Neither is severe penalty a deterrent for someone shooting their mate. No one intends to shoot their mate. The penalty of shooting your mate far exceeds anything the court can do to you and it still happens doesn't it..

Now pedos are in a different category again, there is addictive compulsion involved... I would suggest severe deterrant value might have a role to play with these people..

Originally Posted by Sidney

The system cannot be responsible for the reaction of an individual to what happens in their lives. There is too many variables to that.. I know that the heathiest response is a process of coming to terms with whatever happened and some form of reconciliation with the offender. I also know that the retribution/appropriate penalty mentality has little to do with the best outcomes for the victims families. Even if the sentence in the view of the victims is appropriate as they exit the courtrooms, most of what you hear is relief because it is the perceived end of the process - only to later realise that at parole or potential release, the are still traumatised again at the idea of that offender now being free, while the victim still is still dead or living with the consequences.

The concept that the appropriate pound of flesh can be extracted is flawed. It is almost never achieveable.

You need to break it down a bit more than most people do .. accountability is the first part of the process, natural consequences and making right, penalty, protection for society, preparation for re-entry to society..... people here get stuck in the penalty groove, assuming some value for the victims when it doesn't exist, and justifying it with deterence, when that doesn't exist either in reality...



In spite of the fact that it still happens with rugby players, do you think that it would be more frequent for that group of people if they were not rugby players? So I would say no and the reason is accountability and not penalty. People modify their behaviour for the realistic appreciation of consequence, not specifc penalty. If you don't think you are going to get caught you might choose to take the risk.

Are you not going to get caught swinging punches in a drunken brawl when you are a recognisable person? These aren't the actions of of people who process things in the way that you suggest.

Neither is severe penalty a deterrent for someone shooting their mate. No one intends to shoot their mate. The penalty of shooting your mate far exceeds anything the court can do to you and it still happens doesn't it..

Now pedos are in a different category again, there is addictive compulsion involved... I would suggest severe deterrant value might have a role to play with these people..

Re pound of flesh, well put.

Re pedos... having everyone subject to being randomly selected to have their internet browsing habits made public could be a deterrent, not just to pedophilia but to all porn use. Face it, in the end most of it is abuse and exploitation, no?