Thread: Wtf

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?

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?

Oh well....looks like we will just have to agree to disagree........see you at the hanging, im bringing beer and cashews!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Sidney

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.

I've yet to see you show us some data that substantiates your claim, all I've done it propose another and more plausible means by which our prisons are full. There are is simply more people repeatedly committing crimes.

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.

There are those that should be sentenced more heavily. Not the majority, but some. You seem to be assuming that we are talking about all. If the overall level of crime reduced then the prisons would not be so full and the few that do need putting away for longer could more easily be accommodated. If there is an overwhelming general public perception is that some are too light, then yes that does mean that the sentences are too light. There are quite a few cases each year where the sentence really is a wet bus ticket compared to the effects of their crimes.

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.

Helloooo Mr Sydney, .... have you actually taken in what I've been writing? This is it!

But I've been approaching it from a totally different angle. Lower crime through better economic decisions and responsible social, yes we are all responsible. As I've said, "Why have they turned to crime?" The vast majority of the time it is through economic hardship. Many turn to drugs to 'dull the pain' of this hardship which just means they have to increase their level of crime to pay for that too.

There was a lot of discussion about 30 years ago about reducing sentences, and the statutes were actually changed to accommodate this and it did happen. The thought was that the prisons had just become a 'school for criminals' and that it was better to rehabilitate and release. Like they didn't talk to each other out of prison for training and setting up their black market connections.

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....

It is a valid part of an overall change. Perpetrators of crimes should be sentenced in proportion to the effects of their crimes. That quite frankly is what the justice system was set up to do. As I've mentioned on many occasions we possess the means to reduce a lot of crime through better governmental economic decisions and better communities. Changing overall sentencing in the current climate will have little effect of crime levels, it is just moving the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff from one side of the beach to the other. We need to look up and wider and stop people coming off that cliff, at the moment the ambulance crew are overworked.

I haven't read any of this thread as "one side or another". Just wanted to put it out there that I've enjoyed reading it, for the most part people have played nice. I think it's really great to discuss these things as they are obviously impacting all of us!

I don't think the way things are are particularly correct - I'm pretty young and this is all new to me, it's all I've ever known - and I certainly don't have the answers. Just good to think about how changes could impact the future.

As for Dummer - I reckon this is something he has to nut out in his own head, the court has decided his fate and that's done and dusted no matter what I guess. As for him picking up a firearm in future, I have no doubts that he already has and will continue to do so. And most likely lawfully too, as where there is one Dummer there are others - who still have their FALs!

Anyway like I said, good chat

sidney -another wee facet youve overlooked old chap and im bloody suprised you didnt produce it.In psychiatric institutions we face a n inescapable hurdle known as institutionalisation; sets in subtly but never completely erasable.
what is it .
put simply its where the individual reaches a stage where he or she realises whilst theyre in detention all their so called life decisions are in fact made for them ,likewise all facilities -recreation ,food ,housing ,medical attention ,legal resources are on tap and free of charge. they need not worry about bills .mortgages, where to get bedding -all provided.likewise you have highly professional house staff ,they only downside being of course ,theyve got the authority to enforce routine and give orders. however after a few years you become used to that ,and if youre smart become "the grey man- completely innocuous(all care no responsibility) ,just doin time ,kickin back and woe is me surviving boredom.Mental illness is a little different as often psychosis (usually drug induced )means mood disorders ,hallucinations etcetc and self control has flown out the window and often completely incurable
release into the community means what exactly -what was previously free requires paying for -,and if in prison you were topdog or whatever-out in society it matters SFA-youre just another entity. fuck this is tough -all these choices and no monies to socialise with the bros etc etc.BTW -the above is sourced from conversations ive had over the years with those whove done a lag!!
doesnt take einstein to realise which option mr crim is going to gravitate toward.
now before you jump in -dont forget there are thousands out society already who face the same challenges daily -BUT-tough it out in a law abiding way and often with dignity barely intact but choosing to grind it out rather than offend against fellow man.
In saying this Iaint forgotten that theres fucking rich crims and fucking poor ones ,but at the end of the day same applies.
How to reduce crime _better self fucking discipline for starters!!!!- the last 20yrs have seen governmentally sponsored social engineering (clark was an exponent), producing a generation of "Iwant it now "type "Who you lookin at" types and last but not least if one arthur taylor is any measure a subsect of institutional bush lawyers who'd give a QC a run for his money.
anyhow Ive laid out my POV so i thinks illleave it there as obviously some are overwhelmed by the plethora of info.,although if anyone has questions ,happy to reply .

@Sidney lets hear your views on how we will make NZ into a crime free utopia

still waiting bro......

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.

Originally Posted by Scouser

@Sidney lets hear your views on how we will make NZ into a crime free utopia

still waiting bro......

I'll give a response to a "sensible" question... ya want to rephrase?

If you agree (im still not sure) that the present system is not working, and in your view rehabilitation is the way forward and not primitive emotive responce...what would YOU change to get NZ out of its current malaise, if you had the power to change the law?

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?