NZ Judiciary
-
@crucial said in NZ Judiciary:
@kirwan said in NZ Judiciary:
I think the ship may have sailed for a guy that murders someone over a car park.
You have an alternative? A serious one?
Get them while they are young, and make sure that there are consequences for violent behaviour.
If you kill someone, you serve the full sentence. If it's particularly bad, you don't get out at all.
I know Andrew Little wants to let criminals out of jail, but that's not a serious option.
-
@kirwan said in NZ Judiciary:
@crucial said in NZ Judiciary:
@kirwan said in NZ Judiciary:
I think the ship may have sailed for a guy that murders someone over a car park.
You have an alternative? A serious one?
Get them while they are young, and make sure that there are consequences for violent behaviour.
Doesn't really apply in this case but yeah Youth Courts have an even trickier balancing act to consider.
If you kill someone, you serve the full sentence. If it's particularly bad, you don't get out at all.
And you are happy to pay for that? Serious question. These are your taxes at work. Are you also happy with the concept that punishment will change behaviour? Again a serious question as the stats don't support that position and not only does society usually suffer again the perp ends up back costing us all more money. Not having a carrot of parole means worse behaviour inside prisons (again costing more money).
I know Andrew Little wants to let criminals out of jail, but that's not a serious option.
Little isn't the MoJ anymore but if he said that it certainly isn't his position alone. The approach that you suggest doesn't work, has never worked. It's why we build bigger jails that cost more money, have generational users of those facilities and have them released to be free to make another person suffer.
A system where rehabilitation is offered, tested and chances given through reintegration is proven to reduce re-offending meaning lower prison numbers, less community damage and breaks the cycle of family generations committing crime.
No one is of the illusion that this ideal works for everyone or is even applicable to everyone but even a 25% success rate has massive short and long term effects. -
I think having a safe society for my children is money well spent.
My preference is for a system that considers the victim and potential future victims over the offenders "rights".
Even if it's a deterrant for 5% of offenders, it's money well spent. And for the other 95%, keep them away from society as much as possible.
But as I said, the prison system is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. If you don't get the kids out of terrible homes where violence is the norm, say with gangs, then IMO it's too late.
-
@kirwan I completely agree with the focus being on victims/future victims. Would argue our system isn't nearly victim-focused enough.
(it will forever grate that 'remorse' is a sentencing factor and that restorative justice seems so much more about offender gaining brownie points than actual justice for victims.) -
@kirwan said in NZ Judiciary:
I think having a safe society for my children is money well spent.
Does your way achieve that? Seems to me that while following hard line policies of no rehab and long sentences crime increased not decreased. Even if you 'throw away the key' you've just passed the problem on to another generation on both sides.
My preference is for a system that considers the victim and potential future victims over the offenders "rights".
It's not about 'rights'. The only rights a prisoner gets are those that we sign up to as human rights. If you want to throw those away we should probably stop this discussion now. I assume though that you mean their ability to be put forward for parole after serving a portion of their sentence (which the sentencing judge is fully aware of at the time). Potential future victims are considered by rehabilitation, that's the whole point of it. The balance is trying to provide an incentive for rehab while also providing consequences to satisfy the victim.
Even if it's a deterrant for 5% of offenders, it's money well spent. And for the other 95%, keep them away from society as much as possible.
Again, pushing the problem down the track. Your kids will be happy when even more embittered and institutionalised crims walk out the gates lining up their next victim.
But as I said, the prison system is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. If you don't get the kids out of terrible homes where violence is the norm, say with gangs, then IMO it's too late.
Taking kids away from their families is one of the major causes of NZ having the second highest incarceration rate in the OECD. I don't get this line of thinking at all.
Of course fixing a cause is better than trying to repair damage, I wouldn't try and argue against that at all. What I'm saying is that an ambulance is better than a hearse as long as the ambulance has the right equipment to try and save the cliff jumper. -
@mokey said in NZ Judiciary:
@kirwan I completely agree with the focus being on victims/future victims. Would argue our system isn't nearly victim-focused enough.
(it will forever grate that 'remorse' is a sentencing factor and that restorative justice seems so much more about offender gaining brownie points than actual justice for victims.)I don't disagree about victims not being a big enough part of the system. Restorative justice only works in a few situations and still never really ends up achieving a lot.
A really blunt way to look at things is that shit has happened and the clock can't be turned back. From the point of a crime the victim is a victim and the criminal the criminal and that's where separation and treatment should start. If the victim has a need to vent at the crim they should have that opportunity but the focus should be on helping the victim physically, emotionally and financially.
Equally the crim needs to be punished but at the same time we need to try and fix them. Not so much for their own sake but for ours.
It's not an easy balancing act but sure as hell removing parole isn't the answer. -
@crucial said in NZ Judiciary:
Taking kids away from their families is one of the major causes of NZ having the second highest incarceration rate in the OECD. I don't get this line of thinking at all.
Is there a data source for incarceration rates that supports the 2nd highest incarceration rate? I looked here but it doesn't seem to agree:
One thing that did stand out from that site though was the huge disparity between the proportion of people imprisoned for sexual offenses (38.3 per 100,000) vs the median (6.7 per 100,000) and in fact "interpersonal offenses" overall. Is there a causal link between removing kids from their families and this type of crime? Not just a correlation I mean.
-
@jc said in NZ Judiciary:
@crucial said in NZ Judiciary:
Taking kids away from their families is one of the major causes of NZ having the second highest incarceration rate in the OECD. I don't get this line of thinking at all.
Is there a data source for incarceration rates that supports the 2nd highest incarceration rate? I looked here but it doesn't seem to agree:
You are correct in that it is an ever changing picture and depends on what you measure eg imprisonment sentences vs numbers in prisons. The two differ (and are fluid) especially when you consider that in NZ 40% of those locked up are on remand.
I found some more recent stats (the one I used was an oft quoted old one) https://www.statista.com/statistics/300986/incarceration-rates-in-oecd-countries/
Apart from the US (that imprisons people for very low level crimes for short periods) and Turkey (no surprise) we sit among a bunch of east european countries almost 20% more than Australia and almost 50% more than the UK.
Those are May 200 figures and don't take into account the recent reduction due in part to COVID.One thing that did stand out from that site though was the huge disparity between the proportion of people imprisoned for sexual offenses (38.3 per 100,000) vs the median (6.7 per 100,000) and in fact "interpersonal offenses" overall. Is there a causal link between removing kids from their families and this type of crime? Not just a correlation I mean.
That's a really interesting stat and would take quite a bit of research to come up with anything resembling an answer.
Some possible reasons for the high number of imprisonments for sexual offending would be the seriousness applied to the offence by courts compared to other countries, a higher rate of prosecutions, a higher rate of reported crimes or even the ranking of the crime in order of severity as stats usually count the 'highest' crime when someone is convicted of multiple offences.
As for the question of causal links? Without digging for nasty stats and going down a rabbit hole of unpleasant reading I do believe that the rates of sexual offending in state care and places like youth correctional facilities is higher than the norm. Then we know all about what happens in church care.EDIT: here is an interesting excerpt from the OECD that may go some way to explaining an unusual disparity in sexual offending rates. The quote doesn't give NZ %s but the linked graph indicates that it is around the 7% mark.
Social acceptance of domestic violence against women by women themselves weakens the functioning of legal frameworks and is an obstacle to addressing violence against women. SIGI 2019 shows that within OECD countries, 8% of women say that a husband may be justified in hitting or beating his wife, from 1% or less in Denmark and Ireland to up to 18% in Korea and 20% in Germany (Figure 8.8). In emerging economies, acceptance of violence against women can be much higher – 34% of women in Indonesia and 61% of women South Africa say that spousal violence can be justified.
I think you could safely say that in a country that feels that violence in a marriage is acceptable the acceptance of sexual violence is also high and under prosecuted.
-
@crucial I just remember a story recently, about a woman on a scooter hit by a learner driver who was entirely at fault. Woman had significant injuries. Cops allegedly told woman that a conviction would ruin young learners life, so woman agreed to restorative justice. Turns out the learner was mid 20s, and stopped paying the 20 bucks a week 'compensation' after a few months. But now apparently it can't go to court because settled. So woman got broken arms, all the pain and physio for years, and that 20-something shit head skipped away. Not much justice there.
-
@mokey said in NZ Judiciary:
@crucial I just remember a story recently, about a woman on a scooter hit by a learner driver who was entirely at fault. Woman had significant injuries. Cops allegedly told woman that a conviction would ruin young learners life, so woman agreed to restorative justice. Turns out the learner was mid 20s, and stopped paying the 20 bucks a week 'compensation' after a few months. But now apparently it can't go to court because settled. So woman got broken arms, all the pain and physio for years, and that 20-something shit head skipped away. Not much justice there.
Yep shitty process and I'm not trying to stand up for every failing of the justice system here. I was, however, standing up for the concept of parole after proven rehabilitation with a robust challenge.
I'm guessing that there might be some shitty reporting in that story as well. I'm pretty sure that the victim doesn't have to take the person back to court to get what the court has already said she is entitled to. There is a process to deal with that but good on her for calling out if it isn't followed through.
-
No conviction for sex offender wanting to become pilot
A Dunedin man who sexually offended against two boys has avoided a conviction, paving the way for a career as a commercial pilot.
The 20-year-old, whose name was permanently suppressed this afternoon, appeared in the Dunedin District Court after pleading guilty to four charges of sexual conduct with a person under the age of 16 and one of sending an indecent communication to a person under the age of 18.
Judge Kevin Phillips said giving the defendant a criminal record would "destroy" him.
"There's no issue ... that if there's convictions entered, his opportunities in relation to a commercial flying career are ended," he said.
The second set of offences occurred when a 14-year-old, who shared the interests of the defendant, went to his home.
First, the man put his hands on the victim's crotch while they watched a movie.
He stopped when told to by the teenager but later that day he tried to put his hand down the back of the boy's jeans.
The act was repeated even as the defendant drove the victim home.
"Please stop," he repeated, until he was finally dropped off.
That victim read a statement to the court this afternoon, detailing how his life "crashed" after he was molested by the defendant.
-
@crucial said in NZ Judiciary:
@kirwan said in NZ Judiciary:
I think the ship may have sailed for a guy that murders someone over a car park.
You have an alternative? A serious one?
I reckon we could offer substantial incentive payments for people to get voluntarily sterilized (with potential reversibility).
Offer, say, a $30K payment for anyone willing to get sterilized that has never produced a child (diminishing as they produce more). If they want to get it reversed later - they have to pay the $30K back.
I reckon a large proportion of those who would take the deal would be people who wouldn't make decent parents anyway. And the $30K might help them turn their lives around.
-
@chris-b said in NZ Judiciary:
@crucial said in NZ Judiciary:
@kirwan said in NZ Judiciary:
I think the ship may have sailed for a guy that murders someone over a car park.
You have an alternative? A serious one?
I reckon we could offer substantial incentive payments for people to get voluntarily sterilized (with potential reversibility).
Offer, say, a $30K payment for anyone willing to get sterilized that has never produced a child (diminishing as they produce more). If they want to get it reversed later - they have to pay the $30K back.
I reckon a large proportion of those who would take the deal would be people who wouldn't make decent parents anyway. And the $30K might help them turn their lives around.
Count me in!
-
@tim said in NZ Judiciary:
No conviction for sex offender wanting to become pilot
A Dunedin man who sexually offended against two boys has avoided a conviction, paving the way for a career as a commercial pilot.
The 20-year-old, whose name was permanently suppressed this afternoon, appeared in the Dunedin District Court after pleading guilty to four charges of sexual conduct with a person under the age of 16 and one of sending an indecent communication to a person under the age of 18.
Judge Kevin Phillips said giving the defendant a criminal record would "destroy" him.
"There's no issue ... that if there's convictions entered, his opportunities in relation to a commercial flying career are ended," he said.
The second set of offences occurred when a 14-year-old, who shared the interests of the defendant, went to his home.
First, the man put his hands on the victim's crotch while they watched a movie.
He stopped when told to by the teenager but later that day he tried to put his hand down the back of the boy's jeans.
The act was repeated even as the defendant drove the victim home.
"Please stop," he repeated, until he was finally dropped off.
That victim read a statement to the court this afternoon, detailing how his life "crashed" after he was molested by the defendant.
Fuck him, I reckon any just society would convict him, put the brakes on that career and let him scrape by as a janitor or whatever job he can get for the rest of his days. That’s the price you pay for offending, or what it should be.
Everything is subjective but I have a feeling the two young guys and their families won’t be thrilled about this verdict.
-
@tim I hate stories like this to the maximum, and also judges who insist that criminals not being able to do their first choice job is a cruel and unusual punishment. Oh, he couldn't be a pilot if he was convicted of molesting teens? Fucking good!
Gah. Now this sack of shit skips away, but those teens have to live with the fallout of sex offences against them. So much for victim-centred justice. -
@mokey said in NZ Judiciary:
@tim I hate stories like this to the maximum, and also judges who insist that criminals not being able to do their first choice job is a cruel and unusual punishment. Oh, he couldn't be a pilot if he was convicted of molesting teens? Fucking good!
Gah. Now this sack of shit skips away, but those teens have to live with the fallout of sex offences against them. So much for victim-centred justice.I would hope that this one is being contested. Judge seems to have put way to much weight on the perps future as opposed to the victim.
-
A Greymouth woman has told a court she thought she was going to die during a home invasion by retired soldier George Robert Tweedy in May.
Reading her victim impact statement in the Queenstown District Court on Monday, the woman described the terror she felt when she awoke to find Tweedy (60), a former New Zealand Army major, pointing a rifle at her face.
A short time later, after he had stopped her from running out of the house, he put a belt around her neck and applied pressure.
''I honestly thought I was going to die on the floor of my own home.''
She scratched his ankle to get his DNA on her hands so people would know who had killed her.
Besides her physical injuries, which included extensive bruising, strangulation marks on her neck, and a broken toe for which she still needed crutches, the incident had caused severe and lasting mental trauma.
She suffered from nightmares, anxiety and severe PTSD on a daily basis, and was terrified by the prospect of his release from prison.
After making deductions for Tweedy's guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, and good character before the imposition of the protection order, and allowing for the five months he had already spent in custody, Judge Walker came to a term of 23 months' prison.
That was converted to 12 months' home detention at a Waitati property to allow him to undergo rehabilitative treatment.
He must pay the victim $2500 reparation for emotional harm, and is subject to special conditions for 12 months after his release.
-
Must be bloody difficult to be the lawyer tasked with providing a defence for someone like this.
How do you even start trying to put humanity back into someone that thinks it's OK to smack their kids up with a hammer?
-
@crucial Terrible case that, family is loaded with pieces of work. For the defense lawyers, they just represent them to the best of their ability to ensure a fair process. Point out flaws in the prosecution case, ensure the law is applied correctly, and if guilty, provide a list of relevant mitigating factors (if any) for the judge prior to sentencing.