Thread: Wtf

Originally Posted by gadgetman

With you there @kotuku

Personal accountability. I someone does bad under the influence of drugs/alcohol then maybe a little leniency. Second time, 'Not on your Nellie!' If you have been there before and found that taking drugs/alcohol have a severe negative effect then second time around you were aware of that when you decided to use the drugs/alcohol. "Fool me once fool me. Fool me twice fool you."

There are many instances where too much leniency is given, where a decision was made in sound mind and not through desperation, and it has been out with the wet bus ticket. Sure the first time a wet bus ticket may be appropriate. Again, this is not the entire solution, but it should be to protect the general public and those that have to clean up the mess. The main solution is to change so there is less crime committed and changing the penalties will do diddly squat as far as that is concerned. However justice should be seen to be done, and I firmly believe victim/society impact must be a significant factor in that. At the moment we are not in a position to do it.

How many times with the wet bus ticket? What does "many instances where too much leniency is given" actually mean. Do you know the facts of the cases? Have you read the cases? Have you read comparable cases and enough of them to have a statistical appreciation of whether this one is a "wet bus ticket" or not?

Given that the only ones that you hear about are the "wet bus tickets" do you think your perception is close to the reality? You keep using the wet bus tickets as the basis for your argument, which is of course statistically non-relavent... but it sells newspapers...

The whole tougher sentencing mentality, is an easy sell if you can create fear.... its a simplistic response and the perception that it creates may not be the reality....

The motion at last year’s Synod noted the “alarming increase in the New Zealand prison population”. We started by looking at the reasons for this alarming increase – 86% between 1995 and 20101 - and we concluded that underlying it was a flawed understanding of justice in New Zealand - an understanding that focuses almost exclusively on retribution/revenge and not on restoration/rehabilitation.
The New Zealand public, in general, perceives that we live in a less safe place than in the past and that the answer to this is to “be tough on crime”. Over the last 20 years the main political parties have bought into this perception and the resulting bidding war on the issues of crime and punishment has increased prison sentences dramatically. This has caused the alarming increase in the prison population.1

1 NZ Department of Corrections website and ‘Beyond the Holding Tank’, a Salvation Army Report, 2006

INCARCERATION IN NEW ZEALAND TODAY
“The number of murders in New Zealand dropped by nearly a quarter last year, while overall reported crime fell 6.7%.” (Headline in Waikato Times 1 April 2011)
“Prison numbers are expected to grow to over 10,300 by 2017.” (Department of Corrections and Ministry of Justice 2010)
“Whenever you send someone to prison you’re actually not holding them accountable if you’re removing them from those to whom they should be accountable.” (Kim Workman, TV One Interview, Oh My God, 14 March 2011)
There appears to be a basic disconnect in the above quotes. Crime is going down yet the prison muster is expected to increase. No wonder there is confusion about our criminal justice system.

http://http://www.rethinking.org.nz/...tion_in_NZ.pdf

Originally Posted by Sidney

How many times with the wet bus ticket? What does "many instances where too much leniency is given" actually mean. Do you know the facts of the cases? Have you read the cases? Have you read comparable cases and enough of them to have a statistical appreciation of whether this one is a "wet bus ticket" or not?

Given that the only ones that you hear about are the "wet bus tickets" do you think your perception is close to the reality? You keep using the wet bus tickets as the basis for your argument, which is of course statistically non-relavent... but it sells newspapers...

The whole tougher sentencing mentality, is an easy sell if you can create fear.... its a simplistic response and the perception that it creates may not be the reality....

You now seem to have no grasp on the word some, and are completely ignoring the main point of my argument. Bloody one eyed Cantabrian

http

There are a lot of sensational statistics in that linked document where they are making something out of what should be, and statistically is, correct and expected. The old '50% of people in this country are below average' scenario. Again they are comparing figures of a relatively prosperous time with a tough economic time and not making any allowance for this. Statistically this has always been a link between the two yet no weighting has been applied, that is how the British provided labour for the West Island.

Nearly half (48%) underestimated the average sentence imposed
for rape, and nearly half (
47%) underestimated the average time a rapist serves in prison

And you accuse me of random statistics?

The variation of 2-3% on a sample size of close to half might have more statistical integrity than the number of "wet bus tickets" that you know about in comparison to the total number of cases processed by the justice system......

Originally Posted by Sidney

The variation of 2-3% on a sample size of close to half might have more statistical integrity than the number of "wet bus tickets" that you know about in comparison to the total number of cases processed by the justice system......

A sample size of close to half? That means almost 1/2 of one opinion (I wont mention the old 'If you have half a mind to become a politician you are over qualified')! There are more on here that mentioned the 'wet bus ticket' than a half.

I do understand your point though. I could go and find a few but I wont; I need to rattle my daggs and get out for what I do in the community.

i could have phrased that more clearly...