"commensurate" as prescribed by law. You took it the wrong way and assumed I was stating otherwise.
Printable View
"commensurate" as prescribed by law. You took it the wrong way and assumed I was stating otherwise.
Good on ya ExPoh - things were getting way too lovey-dovey up in this thread.
The problem with "keeping an open mind" is that sometimes ya brain falls out
Your apparent objectivity was rather undermined by your last paragraph, and your first post. It seems that closure for you, in your particular circumstances, was dependent on the corporal punishment of the person who caused your father's death.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExPoh75
Your qualifications and professional opinion mean nothing if you can not remain objective.
I have a PhD in life, and a few certificates, which include "50 yards freestyle".
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" - Jeramiah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougie
expoh-hmmmy es like yourself im a psych nurse(43yrs) and i agree with your POV.my only comment on this whole thing is why this bloke makes an unequivocal statement about not going near firearms ever again ,then oops i forgot to mention Im intending to reapply for my FAL????????HYPOCRISYand self entitlement. its a little like career crims whose lawyers tell the court about their letters of remorse etc etc .its blatantly obvious is a cover my own arse shorten my sentence tactic.I often hear em laughing about it on the shop floor.
anyone who like my colleague and I has worked in institutions(me Im in the forensic psychiatric field) sees the human psyche unadorned and often at it very worstand often there are no answers ,apart from DEATH(which if you actually think about it is the ultimate answer to all lifes problems)
Now sidney before you jump on me ,and seeing as you appear clued up ,google Dr Ceri Evans -hes very well written on the psyche of criminals,the function of psyche in realtion to crime ,and the functioning of the psyche in relation to the after effects of crime. Ceri is my boss.
Thread is getting waaaay to sipholophical for this hillbilly hippie :P
Laws are written for the guidance of the wise man,the obeyance of the fool
until such time as wise men may sit round a table and reasonably discuss their problems ,nothing in life will ever be resolved.(Dr P K Davison medical supt.seaview hospital hokitika)
I know what you mean, but it is good to know we have phyco nurses keeping an eye on us all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
I know of two killers of hunters who have gone back to hunting and one other that severely injured another hunter who has also gone hunting again...I guess it is a bit like automobile killers getting back behind the wheel.
At least when Dumber says he is going hunting everyone else will stay at home giving him a clear field.
Firstly I am no expert in the area of mental health, nor do I have an in depth understanding of what is required for the individual to achieve reconciliation. But I have some concerns with the ideas expressed because they tend to confuse individual desires and expectations, with the big picture issues and how they will affect society as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by kotuku
I appreciate the point made about an victims journey, a feeling that the outcome is equitable may help with the process of personal reconciliation... but my concern is that a victims perception of equity is often not consistent with the laws interpretation, nor with the community societal view and expectation.
If our goal is an equitable society we cannot compromise the dispassionate application of the law, by a court system that is independent of political pressure and the understandable emotional response of victims.
That being said, there is definitely a place for the offender to be confronted by the trauma caused, and that may provide assistance to all parties to deal with the ongoing issues of coming to terms with what has happened.
However there is a growing wave of feeling that the laws interpretation is way out of step with every other parties expectation, ... including offenders. Sure they plea for as low a sentence as possible as that is even how our economy runs; maximize profits and minimise losses (well the bit of the economy excluding governments that seem to go for the opposite). You could say that they feel the sentences are too low by the fact that they are not already dissuaded from their career path.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
That really only works if they truly are remorseful. Many have shown utter disdain for their victims family, who are in themselves victims.Quote:
That being said, there is definitely a place for the offender to be confronted by the trauma caused, and that may provide assistance to all parties to deal with the ongoing issues of coming to terms with what has happened.
first of all sidney lets face a coupla facts about your beloved law ok.
No1-the westminster system is an adverserial system ,and as has often been proven open to manipulation and abuse.
no2 -the arean of judicial process is an artificial one for gods sakes.with the absolute plethora of legislation ocvering every minute factor about the process ,what actually goes into proving a case is in all probablitiy a fraction of what in essence is the ungarnished truth ;what exactly went on at that very point in time of the act being committed ,what is relevant to the setting of the actions.
Part of our forensic rehab process is getting those placed in psych hosptial to do violence prevention groupwork and individually offence chain work.this is often very painful andat least uncomfortable.In the words of one of my residents recently-"why the fuuck has it taken me so long to realise what I put people through."his actions -Obviously i cannot say due to privacy but hes well and truly up there in shagnasty rankings.
yeah the victims suffer from the moment of the offence ,but the offender ,dependent on circumstances and moreso attitude ,may well go through like with "so what " or the mispent adulation of dysfunctional peer groups commonly referred to as "staunch"
the work done by the offender ipsofacto is often never communicated to the victims due to legal process imposed barriers,mostly to do with the protective factor ,or usually the victims whanau wishing to forget the trauma., let alone the malfunctioning DNA sample who caused it.
We aren't talking cross purposes here, and I don't pretend that the application of the law is rehabilitive very often. Nor do I pretend that any system is perfect, but in my considered opinion, this one ain't as bad as I was expecting it to be.. everything is artificial if humans create it.....
Of course I see value in the sort of work you are doing. The issues I have and was referring to are around an emotive response to sentencing, driven by victim perceptions. That is a can of worms with potentially very negative outcomes...
The lock em up and throw away the key approach is simple, satisfying at a rudimentary level and actually doesn't solve the problem... we have a ways to go to get to the american level of failure in that regard, but we are in second place....
If this requirement is not addressed then there are very major negative outcomes. At the moment it is skewed far too far towards the favour of the perpetrator with little regard to the victims. As you said earlier that all things must be weighed up, that means all things including the victims expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Gagetman
Again, we apparently have the lowest rate of serious offending for 15 years and the fullest prisons. I would suggest that public perception is most likely inaccurate.
Deterence is a very subjective area and is not well understood by anybody, let alone the average poorly trained & environmentally challenged, under 25 yr old offender, with low empathy, and non complete frontal lobe development..... it doesn't occur to them that they might get caught, let alone how serious the sentence might be.
Confrontation of the damage caused is part of accountability, but you are correct, further damage to the victims is not appropriate and strict criteria for both parties has to be evident before any benefit can result...
@Sidney whats your opinion on the NZ based Sensible Sentencing Trust........if we have the lowest rate of serious offending and full prisons, why do you think victims families and concerned citizens went to the trouble to set up this organisation?
There are many, many more ordinary citizens out there who think along the same lines....we all know we will never live in some crime free utopia, WE (the majority) just want them off our streets and 'punished' for their offence not given the "arr poor boy, its not his fault his parents/one parent, either didnt give him the love and upbringing he deserved, shite"....so put him 'right' inside, when hes doing his minimum 10 year stretch....not 10 months to be released and re offend.....
It wont work for the the vast majority of crims, but at least it keeps the bastards out of lives for longer.....their going to end up back inside sooner or later anyway (stereotyping again).....
I would happily support a Chinese style system for certain offenders😆
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
If they took the word "sensible" out of their name, I would listen more. If the only solution that organisation has is for longer sentences, then frankly they are just feeding off other peoples misery (the victims) and perpetuating the idea that that might actually work.
There is a place for preventative detention for those that cannot function outside. I would just like to see less of those people being created by "sensible" people.
There is a logistical problem with prisons, if you accommodate larges numbers of the same sort of people, in a confined environment - you will not produce a different type of person when you let them go.... that would be the definition of stupidity wouldn't it? - to expect something different?
We cannot continue to grow our prison population and not have cumulative and snowballing effect.... kids without fathers, families locked into single parenting.... a whole increasing generation of resentment...
This ain't about being soft on offenders, its about our future as a society.....
This whole discussion winds me up far more than it should do but it is probably because I see the solution as being simple. If we rid society of all inmates in our prisons that have been convicted for crimes such as murder, rape and causing harm etc by transporting them to Auckland Island and set up an exclusion zone patrolled by our navy,then we could leave them to their own devices without their being a burden on society. Yes they would likely die quick from exposure or slowly from starvation but frankly I couldn't care less. The money saved from prison closures and from not catering for these scum could be directed toward feeding the many hungry children in our schools.
I have, for some time believed that our prison inmates should be housed in prisons on a Pacific Island...would be a great income earner for the Islands...their rules would differ from ours as far as growing their own food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
No good building prisons on remote islands near Antarctica as under our present rules only heating is provided for inmates and not their jailers.
A society with the the capacity to do that, or behave like the Chinese do as suggested, would eventually turn on itself with the same vengeance and viciousness. That would then justify rule by a police state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
The book Lord of the Flies comes to mind.
Oh come on Sid mate.....enough of the pseudo intellectual lawyer bollocks, first 'commensurate' twisted to serve your point of view, now youve hijacked 'sensible' from sensible sentencing........sure your not going to drop Law and become a politician........i recon your just arguing for arguments sake and taking the piss......
Quite simply, what we have is not working, the government cant afford to build more prisons, so if there full, that must mean the judges are being told to lessen the sentences.......you cant fool ALL of the people all of the time......
13 pages of :wtfsmilie:
You misunderstood me Spook. I would not build them anything nor give them anything. Just drop them off and wave goodbye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook
I heard on the news last night that some young prick tried to rob an elderly woman at an ATM. Apparently a woman with a young family in tow tried to intervene so the young prick gets all violent on it and now this law abiding Good Samaritan has a skull fracture. I don't want to hear that the little shit head wasn't cuddled. If he is found he should be bound and placed on his knees in front of the injured woman's husband, brothers, father, uncles, cousins neighbours and any other bugger that wants to be in the line up so they can kick the living shit out of his head. If this sounds like I am angry then it is because I am sick and tired of this sort of shit happening in our society.
just read the post and process it... maybe the prisons are full because of tougher sentencing... that would seem a "sensible" conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scouser
if you don't understand that increasing prison populations will have a negative and cumulative effect, then I would have to question just how "sensible" you are...
i got faith in you.... I'm sure you be able to get there with a bit of effort.... us pseudo intellectuals just get pissed off with people who appear to only know enough to know the solutions :D
Touche.....im going to leave this thread alone now, ive said my 2c.....maybe more!!!!!....everyone knows where i stand.....society will never change, neither will i.......
Closure...strange expression really...how the blazes does it manifest itself...what is it...? Its a cliche...
Hahaha 3 strikes then Rushy double taps ya
Your details are lacking and what you have put up do not support your argument. The only statistic that would indicate the 'sensibility' of terms would be the length of sentences of those behind bars now compared to some other earlier time; not the fullness of the rooms. If beer dropped 66% in price, and twice as many people drunk 10% less, then less money would be spent on beer but the pubs would be fuller. Another way is that the sentences could be 33% less but 100% more people could be desperate enough to have to turn to crime to support themselves. Another useful measure could be the current rate of people appearing in court compared to earlier times and the length of the sentences they receive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Maybe you should consider that the prisons are fuller for another reason than the stiffer sentences, that to everyone but you, are not being handed out?
so pretty much everyone agrees to disagree and always will , the law is fucked but could be much worse , all lawyers are word ninjas , and always blow on the pie
Lawyers are like bandaids...we can knock them for all we like, until, we need one...
Mr Gadget.. I am afraid that because I am opinionated and can argue, you might believe that I know what the answer is. :)
An increasing prison population could be a result of a few things.... longer sentences, more criminals per head population, increasing population for the same sentencing levels, or more imprisonable offences...
In the last 2o years, the latter has occurred, population has increased, legislative punishment has gotten tougher, and judges have sentenced more vigorously. They actually are cognisant of societal expectations to some extent.
So its probably combination of all of the above, plus a few other things... the nett effect being fuller prisons. And despite statistical outliers that hit newspapers, the premise that judges are softer has had no evidence presented to justify that argument. Full prisons may suggest that that actually hasn't been the case, at least until they are completely full. So lets see data to show judges are sentencing more lightly......if thats your contention.... because plucking newspaper headlines aint evidence...
Sensibility is not an increasing prison population......
haha horrible analogy but i feel what your saying . anyway fuck stressing about what this dickhead dummer dude might or might not do and go hunting/shooting. theres dickheads in every corner of society, huntings no different, some people get what they deserve, most dont. in this life anyway. thats why we got beers and mountains and stripclubsQuote:
Originally Posted by EeeBees
Sidney,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
I have not plucked any newspaper headlines. I don't tend to bother with news as most of it is ill researched, ill written sensationalism. I am very un-opinionated and if you have followed what I've posted in various posts in this thread you will have noticed that I've put in a lot of arguments on both sides of your argument.
There is a lot more crime now, that cannot be denied. 30 years ago if a vehicle was stolen it was quite a thing; when mine disappeared earlier this year I got a letter from the police saying they are not looking for vehicles but is someone finds it it will be found. The whole level of what is investigated has moved even with more police about. Why is that? A mixture of the police not having the respect they once held, more crime, a lot more paperwork, higher levels of evidence needed, ....
If you look at periods of low crime levels it is when there is low unemployment and good economic times. When things go pear shaped in the economy and unemployment increases then more tend to turn to crime. Once they have a record it is hard for them to find employment; the guy with a clean slate will generally get the position first. Hey, we're in a vicious cycle. As I said earlier the issue is being looked at from completely the wrong angle. We need to get to a position where the severity of the sentencing isn't really the issue, ... it is the lower amount of sentencing due to lower crime we want to get to.
Back in the day it was easy for the local bobby to put the 'fear of' up a young fella and steer him back on the right tracks. There were more fathers at home that would provide a good guiding influence, including a good clip round the ear when required, particularly with adolescent males. ... There are many things that have changed.
They are in their own self perpetuating world that we unfortunately must tread from time to time.Quote:
Originally Posted by EeeBees
Actually most of the law jokes I've heard came from one of my law lecturers/tutors.
Q: What do you call 2000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.
Q: Why don't sharks eat lawyers that fall off yachts?
A: Professional courtesy.
Q: Why are scientists using lawyers for lab experiments rather than rats?
A: They grow less of a personal attachment.
Yes! This exact thing! That's what I was trying to say...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
There is absolutely no way that prison in Wellington anyway is a deterrence to offenders. Why do you think I can spell so many tricky names correctly? Repetition. This also has me believe that prison isn't a punishment either.
For police anyway, the Bail Oppositions I've seen are all about public and victim safety, not "lock him up because he's an asshole and he did bad stuff"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, I've been too busy playing with my guns that I missed this boat...
Anyway, good chat lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"maybe the prisons are full because of tougher sentencing... that would seem a "sensible" conclusion?"
Oh Sid, had to come back in so all the 'pieces of shit' reading this on their laptops in prison will understand (front lobel development, withstanding).......
The 'piece of shit' gets his (reduced) sentence from the judge......the prisons are full.....dilemma, how do we lock this 'piece of shit' away?....easy....part 2 of our fantastic legal system comes into effect.....drum roll please!!!!!!!
the fukin Parole board.....they then release another 'piece of shit' early, from his reduced sentence to make way for the new 'piece of shit' to take his warm bed (and laptop) in prison.......and so the cycle revolves....kapish?
C'mon mr gadget....
The whole tenor of this thread is that the justice system is soft on crime. That reaction is solely based on various emotional stories and headlines but no actual data. It is a popular media and political sponsored idea that I am yet to see actually substantiated. Scouser thinks that explaining his version of how the parol board works is somehow relevant... but again no actual data.
When I point out that out prisons are full its not be conclusive to say that prison sentencing is tougher, but it is at least indicative that it might not be as soft as is assumed.
All of these threads are the same... isn't it dreadful, lock em up forever, the justice system is soft, put em on an island to eat themselves. That is simple emotional response and these issues are bigger than that.
The implication is that by being tougher, we would deter more offenders... that is not reality. When I point out that increasing the prison population is not desirable, the short term view is that just as long as they are all locked up whats the problem? The problem is that with a larger prison pop, we also have a larger rotation of freshly trained and resentful re-offenders cycling through our community, we have more frustrated and deprived kids growing up without fathers and we have a long term cumulative increasing problem. That all spells increasing levels of crime which perpetuates the issue.
The "Sensible" Sentencing Trust don't offer anything apart from tougher sentencing, that is one dimensional thinking and we need better than that.... in fact don't call yourself sensible until your have the capacity to consider the issue from a larger perspective.
These are big issues, they deserve better thought and consideration, and the traditional emotive response doesn't actually work....
"The implication is that by being tougher, we would deter more offenders... that is not reality."..........err Sid, we KNOW that.....the crims KNOW that....we just want the 'shite' locked up and out of our houses, cars, pockets, lives ect, ect, ect........
How many times do i have to say the same thing!!!!...the softly, softly kid gloves approach has/is not worked/working....the 'vast majority' of people who are currently in the prison system are not the 'Dummers' who made one ill judge mistake.....
NO...there in there because they have embraced that counter culture lifestyle of not 'working for the man'.....the staunch "ill make my living off the herd".......WELL FUK THEM.....if you cant live with us, we will lock you away from us......
as we are not allowed to castrate them to stop them making more crims, we as a society will just have to carry the burden.....
Sidney, lets hear your views on how we will make NZ into a crime free utopia......one that doesn't involve the government taxing me into the ground?.....there will ALWAYS be crime, so we have to do SOMETHING, the shite that do crime (for a living)
have no conscience, empathy, ect for their victims, thats why 'letting them out early' is not working.....tell me one, just one, thing you would change in the present system that would rehabilitate prisoners, because its not working at the moment, Dougie
and Kotuku are both 'nostril deep' in it at the coal face, i get the feeling you have all the theory but non of the practise?.....prove me wrong
I used to put people into prison for a living Mr Scouser, I am well aware of re-offending, social issues around offending and intergenerational criminality, as well as having some legal training, and a whole lot of other life experience that I am not sure that you have...
Now how long is yours?:D
Your response seems rather irrational, given that my position is that we cannot simply rely on what you are proposing. It doesn't actually reduce crime as the good ole USA shows us.
The interesting thing to me is Dougie and Kotuku don't seem to have a problem with my position, but you do? Given that we all have some experience in these areas and you don't?
In so far as taxing us into the ground, that will happen if we have to continue building prisons... if you are interested in not being taxed into the ground you may have to consider the other options.
Not much is a short term solution, but that is all you got..... and somehow you resent the idea of thinking more widely that that?