So no I’m not excluding that person who committed two armed robberies within three years. Your own numbers say that only 103 people fit into that category.
Yes, you are. I have provided the numbers for:
offending that would have been a second strike from Jun '05 - Jun '10;
offending that was a second strike from Jun '10 - Jun '15.
I have not provided the numbers for offending that would have been a second strike from Jun '10 - Jun '15 but was not because what would otherwise have been the first strike would have been between Jun '05 - Jun '10.
So yes you can absolutely add those numbers together.
You really can't.
Is someone who committed their first armed robbery on on 1 January 2010, who committed a further armed robbery on 1 January 2013, after they were released someone who has re-offended? I say they are.
Under your addition theory, they are a person who didn't re-offend pre-three-strikes, and committed a wholly new offence, counting as a first-time offender post-three strikes. Why do you exclude this person, who committed two armed robberies three years apart, both within the 10 year period you are measuring from the group of 171 people who re-offended?
For that to have happened you’d have to argue that “first strike” crime rate dropped to near zero in the second five years and the only people committing first strike crimes were those who’d committed them in the previous five years.
I do not say that that is what happened. In fact, I have other data showing it didn't. I am merely pointing out that the data we have in this post does not show this hasn't happened, and if that had happened, the data I have here would look identical. Because of this you cannot add the numbers together to get overall recidivism rates.
Over 10 years, of 10765 “first strike” offenders, a mere 171 re-offended!!!
You can't add these together. A bunch of the pre-first strike serious offenders will have reoffended since three strikes was enacted. In fact, nearly every single one of them could have re-offended with a strike offence, and it would count as their first strike, and not show up in this comparison.
Some, but so little that it is effectively negligible. Politics being a numbers game, the advocates of deterrence ideology would have to be able to cite significant numbers to win the public debate by presenting the policy as validated by testing.
Well, what type of evidence would convince you?
Okay, so no evidence of deterrence.
Some evidence of deterrence. The reduction in strike recidivism is greater than the reduction in strike offending.
I had a few suggestions, but if it's anything other than Brexit, your system is broken.
If the number of cases has fallen from 256 to 81, that is a fall of 68.4%, not 62%.
It's been a while since I wrote this, so am not sure the basis for my number. I think I accounted for the lower 1st strike offending (ie this is a proportion of those who committed what would have been first strikes who then committed what would have been second strikes). As strike crime was down, the recidivism rate per person who committed what would have been a first strike was not as great a fall.
Of course, that doesn't mean I didn't get it wrong, anyway :-)
So, contrary to that press release, what would have been the man’s incentive to plead guilty?
Plead guilty so that:
1) the judge is more likely to allow him to have parole, which could knock 4 years 8 months of his sentence (the judge would "ordinarily" be required to impose a three strike sentence with no possibility for parole)
2) in the event that happens, make it more likely the parole Board will actually give him parole, if not at the first opportunity, then still earlier than it otherwise might (accepts he's guilty, acknowledges offending etc.)
It is also of note that there is no incentive for a person charged with a 3rd strike offence to plead guilty because the sentence will be exactly the same after a costly and pointless trial which exposes victims unnecessarily to the trauma of being in court.
Odd to make this point following a case where the defendant pleaded guilty. Also, I would certainly see the guilty plea in this case as part of the reason the judge determined it manifestly unjust to refuse the possibility of parole.
Also the next time Chris Bishop says “X isn’t suitable for a Statutes Amendment Bill”, we can simply point to this, and tell him to go away?
why would a bylaw saying “Queenstown airport may sell lost property by way of an auction on the Trade Me website” be ultra vires?
I’m not saying it would. On balance, I agree with you. I’m think it would probably be lawful. Perhaps even highly probably so. The beauty of select committee consideration of legislation is that we can turn very high probabilities into certainties. And for me, that’s appropriately part of the test of when select committee consideration can be justifiably dispensed with: are we certain the legislation is flawless?