Legal Beagle: Three strikes (w/ updates)
226 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
I think that's most of the reason for the underfloor heating Andrew. It's not done for luxury, it's done because it would cost more than normal to put the heating above ground because prisoners would break it, or use it, so it would need to be made differently to be secure.
Underfloor conductive (conduct? convect? high school science has been a while) heating is safe and impossible for them to get to.
Regular posters to the 'your views' section typically haven't ever had to design and build a prison. It's not just a house with locks on the outside.
-
Garrett just stated on the B ,when asked why 3? NZers are a fair lot and everyone deserves a 2nd chance so 3 it is. He thinks Judges are not giving out PD when a crime warrants it because they don't want appeals so they only hand out 2/3rd sentences hence very few Preventative Detention when it already exists in law. Also Emery was a first offence and he "most likely wont kill again" and manslaughter was appropriate for him. Geez we is such a fair bunch eh?
-
Regular posters to the 'your views' section typically haven't ever had to design and build a prison. It's not just a house with locks on the outside.
You know, I'd heard grumbling about underfloor heating in prisons before, and had somehow sneakily wondered whether it was an unneeded luxury. I honestly had never thought of a security or cost angle. Thanks to both of you for pointing it out!
Semi-related note: are Your Views commenters the new Kiwiblog Right? We need to think up a catchy name or something...
-
Thanks to both of you for pointing it out!
you're welcome - I can assure you that prison food truly sucks too.
-
We Should Heat Prisons With Power's Rhetoric (2006)</self-promotion>
-
Hee. Simon "Power". Good work. How can we squeeze "Simon Sez" in there too?
-
Garrett just stated on the B ,when asked why 3? NZers are a fair lot and everyone deserves a 2nd chance so 3 it is.
Well that's a little illogical. This is actually an argument for a two-strike law (your chance not to commit your second strike after committing your first is the second chance society gives you)
He thinks Judges are not giving out PD when a crime warrants it because they don't want appeals so they only hand out 2/3rd sentences hence very few Preventative Detention when it already exists in law.
Then why go so far as to automatically impose life sentences with minimum non-parole periods on qualifying third strikes? Why not automatically impose preventive detention, while alloing non-parole periods to be set normally?
Also Emery was a first offence and he "most likely wont kill again" and manslaughter was appropriate for him.
And not even serious enough to count as a first strike anyway...
-
Garrett just stated on the B ,when asked why 3? NZers are a fair lot and everyone deserves a 2nd chance so 3 it is.
Well that's a little illogical. This is actually an argument for a two-strike law (your chance not to commit your second strike after committing your first is the second chance society gives you)
I think the number three thing is in the collective subconscious, nothing to do with baseball. It's like when you tell a child you're going to count to three.
-
And not even serious enough to count as a first strike anyway...
Yeah, stuck in traffic and shouting does not for a lady make, so I continued on with my original impression of the fuknuckle and accepted that there are plenty of ignoranus's on the planet.IMO
-
We Should Heat Prisons With Power's Rhetoric (2006)</self-promotion>
And, by my reckoning, Simon Power would be renewable too - at least for the small investment in Bellamy's Bangers & Beans once a day.
-
A relative of mine used to work for the police and had a good line in conversation about the things you need to consider when constructing things like holding cells. He had a number of interesting stories about stuff like the maximum height above the floor that you can have anything sticking out that someone might be able to hang themselves from.
And as I recall, one of the arguments for the flatscreen TVs was that it was easier to reinforce/protect them from damage. Makes sense to me.
The one time I was in the back of a police car, I remember being quite surprised by the lack of cushions or handles on the inside of the door. Thinking about it, it made sense, but at the time it was a bit disconcerting.
-
Did anyone see Back Benches last night? Did Rodney Hide say that 3 Strikes will pass because they have a deal with National in exchange for the Gang insignia bill having their vote?
-
Judging by the Labour PR, Hide said he supported the Gang bill because he wanted to pass the three strikes. Sounds like deal.
I also note this apparent endorsement from Pansy Wong
The National-led government has introduced two pieces of legislation aimed at tackling the problem of domestic violence; the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, giving police the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders keep victims safe, and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, which takes away the right of parole for repeat violent or sexual offenders sentenced to five or more years in jail.
These two pieces of legislation will help protect women from abusive partners...
-
Judging by the Labour PR, Hide said he supported the Gang bill because he wanted to pass the three strikes. Soundslike deal.
Yes thanks Lyndon, I just read this
-
I also note this apparent endorsement from Pansy Wong
The National-led government has introduced two pieces of legislation aimed at tackling the problem of domestic violence; the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, giving police the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders keep victims safe, and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, which takes away the right of parole for repeat violent or sexual offenders sentenced to five or more years in jail.
These two pieces of legislation will help protect women from abusive partners...
You've read too much into it.
The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill has two broad underpinnings:
1. It keeps National's promise to ACT to introduce a three strikes bill and support it to select committee.
2. It keeps National's pre-election promises to voters to enact legislation to:
2.1 remove the possibility parole for repeat violent or sexual offenders sentenced to five or more years in jail; and
2.2 introduce life sentences without parole for the worst murderers.The quote from Pansy Wong is about the aspects of National's policy included in the bill - i.e. the consequences (no eligibility for parole) on the second qualifying strike. It does not address ACT's policy - the additional consequences (life with no parole for 25 years) on the third qualifying strike.
-
Self-transcribed transcript:
Wallace: ... whaddaya reckon - banning patches in Wanganui? ...
Rodney: Well, I don't think it will have much impact ... ah ... we voted for it because it ...
[interuption]
Rodney: ... well here's here's the thing, we voted for it because what it's gonna to do is get three strikes through ah this Parliament and that will actually make a difference, right through New Zealand keeping us safe.
Metiria: no, that was a deal, it was a deal done, they're voting against their own policy.
Rodney: I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, Wallace, those people that are booing, those people that are boing for three strikes, they're actually clapping for the murderers and the rapists of New Zealand.
Wallace: that's it - a round of applause for tonight's crew!
Video at the Back Benches' web page. Episode 2, 4 Mar 2009 (three-quarters into the second chapter.
-
Metiria: no, that was a deal, it was a deal done, they're voting against their own policy.
So this does suggest that both parties are voting for policies they don't believe in and we are left holding the baggage. Now that's a more transparent govmint eh?
-
Now that's a more transparent govmint eh?
No. Just MMP.
-
David Garrett: crap politician or the crappiest politician? Patrick Gower has more.
-
Incidentally, that was a wanton act of journalism from Gower. Ruining the Herald's near-perfect record, he is.
-
Knowing this, Act tightened the criteria to a group of the more serious offences like rape, murder, aggravated assault - but did not get Corrections to adjust the "78 killers" figure. Act has just kept using it, without any qualification.
Did they, though?
Because they were quite right to campaign that way - the law they wanted would have played out like that. If they have used the 78 number SINCE making the changes then that's obviously dishonest but it's not a number I've seen bandied about since the campaign?
So nobody wants ACT's bill because it's so extreme, and the rewrite would have ZERO impact on stopping killers. So why exactly are we trampling the BORA again? Just for good times fun? -
If they have used the 78 number SINCE making the changes then that's obviously dishonest but it's not a number I've seen bandied about since the campaign?
But it was bandied about recently in the House(not the big house)when Garrett in question time did seek the Minister of Corrections to confirm the number. I did think he used 77 though but I could be wrong. Hansard would know.
-
So Garrett asked Collins to confirm a number that was actually completely wrong? Did she confirm it?
A quick look through Hansard didn't show it up for me unfortunately.
-
From Hansard:
12. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she agree that information released under the Official Information Act by the Department of Corrections indicates that not one of the 423 prisoners serving life sentences would have been stopped by the proposed “three strikes” law?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): If, when the member says “the proposed ‘three strikes’ law” he actually means the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, then the answer is yes.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she agree with her support party colleague David Garrett, who said in the first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that the victims of 77 murderers in jail “would be alive today if, at the time they were killed, this bill had been enforced. That is not arguable; it is simply arithmetic.”, a myth that he is continuing to mislead the public with even after he received the same advice from her department that proves it is not true?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The bill is currently before the Law and Order Committee. I am sure that the committee, of which the member is deputy chair, will be able to take into account all those sorts of comments, and it may well bring about changes.
...
David Garrett: Can she confirm that the difference, in effect, between ACT’s “three strikes” bill and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is National’s addition of a requirement that an offender must, in addition to having been convicted of a listed offence, have been sentenced to imprisonment for at least 5 years?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There is clearly a difference between the ACT policy and the bill as it was first introduced. But after the select committee has finished with the bill, I am not sure what it will come back with, because that will be a matter for the select committee to determine.
-
David Garrett, who said in the first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that the victims of 77 murderers in jail “would be alive today if, at the time they were killed, this bill had been enforced. That is not arguable; it is simply arithmetic.”,
So that would have been a straight lie in Parliament from Mr Garrett then?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.