I neither trust or consider this group sensible.
If it's knee-jerk reactions to complex issues you want, then I can see the appeal (and hey! here comes Mr Dunne!) but any form of reasoned approach to "eliminating" crime as opposed to "punishing" it seems to escape them.
Of concern also lately, has been the prevalence of comments in cases involving Maori offenders, yet when millionaire White ex-cop Gang Rapists who get a bullshit sentence, their crimes covered up by their colleagues, father children whilst "doing time", threaten witness, ruin related cases, fail to acknowledge guilt, refuse to take anti-sex abuse courses, and in general display awful misogynist behavior, THE SILENCE IS NEAR DEAFENING.
why is this?
clearly the Pack Rape story is a veritable goldmine of issues to challenge and address ongoing concerns with the Justice (or lack of it) system. Yet I have seen no one associated with this group publicly comment on the shameful situation, call for tougher sentences, harsher sentences, of offer anything to the victims....I'm happy to be shown we're I have missed this of course.
If we want "Sensible Sentencing", can it be for all offenders, regardless of their lobbying power, economic clout, or blue uniform?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
I actually think you might
I actually think you might be some sort of political news filtering robot.
my beautiful Wife tells me
my beautiful Wife tells me
McVicar was on the 3News last night(?) lambasting the Parole Board for "revictimising the victim" re: the release of certain millionaire gang rapist.
if this is so, good for you Gavin, justice for all or no justice at all.
It's a good bet that the
It's a good bet that the term "rent-a-quote" was coined with this lot in mind.
Anyone with half a brain recognises the Sensible Sentencing Trust has turned into a joke. Maybe that's why the NZ media keep going to them for comments. (Boom boom! Thangyu, thangyu; you're a wonderful audience).
More like the Vindictive
More like the Vindictive Sentencing Trust. They want to make our prisons more like Joe Arpaio's prison camp in Arizona. That's the one where prisoners die in custody and the authorities destroy the evidence to save themselves.
I remember when McVicar was on Eye to Eye he kept ranting on about "a failed [social] experiment" and when Tariana Turia asked him what he was talking about he said something about Civil Unions. What the hell do they have to do with crime? SST are just another one of those lunatic lobby-groups who want to take us back to the 1950s when women stayed at home and didn't divorce, Maori knew their place and homosexuals "didn't exist".
hmm, maybe a little harsh in
hmm, maybe a little harsh in that list of generalizations there homeslice.
I certainly think the membership is "generally" right wing...but people tend to turn to these sort of ideologies when they are scared.
and who can argue with violence stats?
let's face it it's all bad and getting worse
I kind of wish members of groups like SST would switch onto the fact it is the very political parties they endorse/support that is the single biggest contributor to this situation.
GET TOUGH ON CRIME
by laying off 100 000 workers and keeping 30% of the population on wage below the poverty line
sort of arse about face eh?
i got carried away I meant
i got carried away
I meant to say that SST is challenging the new parole laws AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE CASE ABOVE.
unfortunately Stephen Franks is involved in proceedings but hopefully that won't fuck things up royally.
and I guess Annette King cut them off at the pass over the Corner Court legal aid debacle
which indicates if she is one of the Governments better performing Ministers we are all in the shit.
//hmm, maybe a little harsh
//hmm, maybe a little harsh in that list of generalizations there homeslice.//
I was talking about the leadership not the membership.
looking forward to what is
looking forward to what is (un)said about Peter Stewart's sentence today
3 1/2 years for 7 years of offending against a 10 -16 year old
including sodomy , no less.
interesting how the Law respects privilege eh?
case sounded complicated,
case sounded complicated, according to Stuff about a month ago. they painted it like the girl was fully consential if not instigator, the sodomy was bj, and the girl later attempted to blackmail Peter Stewart, do you know if any of that slant is accurate foal or if it was just bought news?
looking at the article i'm reading today, it would like that previous stuff article was heavily biased if not simple paid PR, but surely the new zealand media wouldn't be open to that?
well you can ever know in
well you can ever know in these cases
the point I was admittedly poorly making was in comparative sentences for criminal convictions
"he'll be doing it tough, they're having savory mince for tea tonight"
as for the blackmail, my understanding is Stewart's mother in law offered the complainant a house in Fendalton if the noise being generated would subside. I'm interested in whether this is being followed up as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. This implies to me corruption not blackmail.
Given the way we treat white privilege criminals in NZ I guess not. I mean did this happen? If it did, what is happening?If it didn't , why the F was it in the Press? Does this make Mummy an apologist for the sons sex crimes? Or worse still a mechanism for it to continue?
I'm skeptical that 11 year olds can in any way be "the instigator". but I am aware that this is used by sex offenders to mitigate the crimes they do not wish to face.
again, all these cases should be no where near the media until after a conviction.... it's bad news all the way round and the Paper has reported it like some bunch of tattling voyeurs.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/storie
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0803/S00248.htm
End of the day, putting the
End of the day, putting the trust aside, what are the views on current penalties for criminals?
10 years for Murder (the default non-parole period in this country), does that sound fair to you?
Wrongful convictions aside (which is another kettle of fish altogether), if someone breaks societies rules (and i'm talking the big ones here, murder, rape, molestation), you do the crime, you shouldn't be allowed to participate in society.
And what about those career criminals? You know, the ones that realise they've got a sweet deal, meals provided, no resonsibilities, etc.
This is not an easy thing to debate - do we throw them all on a island (or space colony) somewhere? How long should someone get for murder? they've effectively robbed entire families of people numerous years of living with the person that was killed.
Why call a life sentence a life sentence? Especially when it's only 10 years, that's hardly 'Life' is it?
If more people end up in jail due to longer sentences, then that's going to negatively affect the economy as more tax payer money is spent on providing facilities for the criminals. But if we let them out that also impacts due to the cost of the crimes being committed.
Maybe a space colony is good idea?? (lol) If you don't want to live by societies rules, then you're shipped off. Of course the colony would be martial law, no police no law. It would also have to be an environment condusive to survival though, needing food and a temperate climate. Then, if you survive the time on your sentence you can be allowed to return to society. Screw up again and off you go. I reckon (as ridiculous as that idea is) it would solve at least the problem of tax payers funding criminals through the penal system...
Anyway, it's late and i'm ranting now.
Space-based Absoslom ftw!!
Prison is a crime school and
Prison is a crime school and there are too many people in prisons. Home detention should replace prison in most cases with prison for people who break home detention rules. For potentially dangerous offenders like murderers and rapists prison is the best option. I'm not sure whether ten years is too long or too short. It depends on the nature of the crime and the attitude and mindset of the offender.