Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Making it up on smacking

189 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Moz,

    the many and various meanings given to “democratic” and which of them can usefully be applied to NZ. I mean, you have the “Democratic Republic of Congo” currently under military rule (or being invaded/occupied, depending on your viewpoint)

    The rule of thumb for countries is that the more they pronounce their status as "democratic" or "of the people" in their name, the less they are "democratic" or "of the people" in practice. I give you, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    The rule of thumb for countries is that the more they pronounce their status as "democratic" or "of the people" in their name, the less they are "democratic" or "of the people" in practice. I give you, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

    And the Liberal Democratic Parties in Russia and Japan are anything but. And certainly nothing like the UK Liberal Democrats.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5416 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Moz,

    If we had a system for rehabilititating people that would be an excellent thing to think about.

    When it comes to sex offenders, who are the people who fit into both camps of "sterilisation" and "preventative detention" as ways to curtail their offending, NZ actually does try and do proper rehabilitation. It's just about the only category of offending where there's much of a fuck given about reducing the risk of recidivism.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Moz,

    sod all resemblance to its historical use

    You mean when it was all those defined as citizens that were allowed to vote and who gladly resorted to poison and assassination if the vote went against their personal wishes all the while happily using the non-citizens as slaves.

    Ah history, so glad it's in the past.

    There is a lot of wishful thinking about "democracy" and how good it is. Similar to the wishful thinking about the free-market.

    Interestingly, technology may make both things quite different in the future, it is technically possible now for the populous to vote on the fly on issues (security issues notwithstanding) and the market is already much free-er than many businesses would like.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4451 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks, in reply to nzlemming,

    Actually, I think that’s exactly why they get it, to prevent them from committing further crimes. Not given lightly, but there are some who just continue to offend and are deemed a risk to public safety.

    Yeah but just “we think they might” commit a crime isn’t enough. The court has to be satisfied that they’d be likely to commit particular crimes. So you’re making the basically the point I was getting at, but was too lazy to expand upon.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Steve Parks,

    The court has to be satisfied that they’d be likely to commit particular crimes.

    And for them to be kept inside beyond the court-imposed non-parole period, the Parole Board must continue to be satisfied that the prisoner continues to be likely to commit those particular crimes. Preventative detention is not a set-and-forget sentence, it requires ongoing intervention by the state, and if it’s such an abhorrent idea that the state decides someone poses a continued risk to society, let’s just do away with the concept of parole entirely and require prisoners to complete the entire sentence before release.

    The incidence of prisoners who are serving sentences of preventative detention is, from what was posted earlier, on the order of 1/320. It’s not something that the courts are throwing around wildly.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    You are awfully confused about preventative detention, it seems. It's not a sentencing option for murder ... And one could be facing preventative detention before the age of 20, assuming a conviction for some form of culpable homicide before the age of 17.

    Forgive me for chopping out much of your post, but that doesn't make sense to me. Is there some legal subtlety that makes murder so distinct from "culpable homicide" that it's impossible to commit the latter just by beating children to death?

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1193 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Steve Parks,

    So you’re making the basically the point I was getting at, but was too lazy to expand upon.

    I kinda figured that after I posted ;-)

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    You mean when it was all those defined as citizens that were allowed to vote and who gladly resorted to poison and assassination if the vote went against their personal wishes all the while happily using the non-citizens as slaves.

    That is pretty much what I was alluding to. Or the more recent enthusiasm for women and children being treated as property while the franchise was extended to more adult men. I believe that for a while Maori women landowners were allowed to vote while white women were not so privileged. That was quickly corrected, possibly before any of them actually got to vote. But also without the nastiness around aboriginal men being granted the vote in Australia around the time of federation.

    I'm not sure my depth of cynicism about "rah rah democracy" came through in the previous post.

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1193 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Moz,

    Is there some legal subtlety that makes murder so distinct from “culpable homicide” that it’s impossible to commit the latter just by beating children to death?

    Murder is a form of culpable homicide, along with manslaughter, and distinct from infanticide where there is accepted to be a “disturbance of the mind” which moderates (or completely negates) the culpability. There is no offence of "culpable homicide", merely a set of facts which lead to murder: did it and meant it; or manslaughter: did it but didn't mean to do it; or infanticide: did it but was affected by childbearing/childbirth/childrearing so wasn't of right mind. Beating one’s children to death would tend to be murder or infanticide, depending on the circumstantial niceties, though I suppose one might accidentally beat them to death and thus be convicted of manslaughter; juries tend not to deliver that verdict too much in such cases, however.

    What one would not expect to find is that one beat one’s children to death more than once but was only convicted of manslaughter the second time around. Your ridiculous, convoluted scenario really doesn’t withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    What one would not expect to find is that one beat one’s children to death more than once but was only convicted of manslaughter the second time around. Your ridiculous, convoluted scenario really doesn’t withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.

    You'll note that I have not used any of the legal jargon terms, because I have little to no knowledge of what they mean. I have never suggested, as you say, that "one beat one’s children to death more than once but was only convicted of manslaughter". You have put words into my mouth, labelled them ridiculous, then dismissed my argument.

    Classic lawyer move, and an example of why lawyers rate with politicians in public esteem.

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1193 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Moz,

    No, I'm not a lawyer, or even the holder of an LLB.

    In positing a construct with a legal outcome, not knowing the law meant your scenario looked ridiculous and withstood no scrutiny. You don't know what preventative detention is used for or how it operates, but you're against it. You don't know the difference between murder and manslaughter. You concocted a bizarre psychopathic parent who would somehow manage to kill their children three separate times before finally being sentenced to preventative detention, clearly without having the slightest understanding of the law that applies to unlawful death; particularly the law that applies to the unlawful death of children.
    Don't shoot the messenger. You've been furnished with all the necessary links to read the legislation. Educate yourself.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    Can I just point out that the term is preventive detention, not preventative, despite what you will hear on the radio or tv?

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to nzlemming,

    the term is preventive detention

    Fair cop. I even knew that.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.