Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Mark - a reason was given for the suppression:
An interim order for name suppression was continued as the matter was to go before the High Court following an appeal by the defence.
I read this as: the judge refused to continue name suppression, but having been advised an appeal against that refusal would be made, made an interim order so that the appeal wouldn't be fruitless.
But yes, whole heartedly, three strikes? Why not just change the county's name New Illinois...
a little imagination from legislators could go a long way.Instead of Franchise deals.
Is the issue the name "three strikes" or the legislation itself? Because this is a vastly different law from any in application in a US state.
-
really?
Yes. Why?
-
This week's Media7 has two themes. One is media coverage -- or the lack of it -- of the trade union movement
I think I posted this in the comments one Friday roundup - the first 9 minutes or so of a 20-year-old edition of One News. The union article struck me at the time I saw it (on Youtube...) as being something we don't get much of anymore. It's a little over six minutes in (and it follows a story about how Federated Farmers had recommended industrial action - well stopping spending - so that that others hurt as they themselves are hurting).
Talk of a national strike, demands for a 17% pay rise, and 1000 delegates . Are there 1000 union delegates in total in Auckland nowadays? And when was the last time they all got together for a meeting over something like this.
-
He did. He sang, he danced, he was funny and charming. But bizarrely, some US TV critics came over all shocked and appalled because he said "human excrement".
...
It was quite a different production, and I thought it really worked well.
From today's TVTattle coverage (clink through for their story links, though they'll be gone in a week):
Finally, an Oscars worth watching
This year's Academy Awards was a big improvement thanks to its new producers, not Hugh Jackman, according to Robert Bianco. "Credit new producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark, who made last night's gorgeously designed ABC broadcast feel faster and more intimate without sacrificing Hollywood glamour," writes Bianco. "They didn't just reshape the theater, they reshaped the show — focusing on this year's movies, rather than trying to work around them, and explaining why the awards mattered. Unfortunately, the improvements often seem to come more in spite of host Hugh Jackman than because of him."Ratings rise 6% from last year // Brangelina snub Ryan Seacrest -- again!
Best Oscars in years // Worst Oscars ever // One of the best-ever Oscarcasts?
Drop Queen Latifah and "Show us the damn dead people!"
5 intros for 5 nominees = snoozeworthy // Terrible! Perhaps Oscars can't be saved!
Jackman worse than Letterman? // Jackman gets a B+, but where was he all night?
Whole Oscarcast had more to do with TV than movies // New format a success
-
Did Hugh Jackman do OK?
"New Zealand" was one of his punchlines...
-
How To Troll Your Own Legislation In Nine Easy Steps?
Well, Labour accused National MPs of filibustering the EFA repeal the other day, so it's not entirely without precedent...
-
I think there are a couple of serious technical problems with a three strikes law. The first Graeme identified in his main post - a mandatory 25 year sentence may simply be too harsh a punishment for a particular third offence.
This concern turned out to be over-stated (my original post was based on the SST draft, not the bill as introduced). It's still a concern, but even on what would be the third strike the sentencing judge has discretion. The judge determines what the sentence would have been, and if it's less than 5 years, it doesn't count as a strike and they just serve the sentece normally. Prison isn't even mandatory (though is likely because the person will have a serious criminal history).
Only if the appropriate sentence for the offending of 5 or more years does it count as the third strike, and the 25 years to life sentence is imposed.
Secondly, because there is no possibility of early release for genuine rehabilitation, the bill requires continued imprisonment even where inmates are no longer likely to re-offend, even where they did not 'deserve' a 25 year sentence on purely retributive grounds.
This is certainly an issue with the bill in its current form. I suspect the response is that having already served two 5-year+ prison terms genuine rahbilitation is perhaps unlikely.
You will also have a bigger concern with the life *with no parole* aspects of the law - spending $50,000 a year to keep someone confined to a hospital bed in prison isn't the greatest use of money.
If they were to replace the third strike consequence of life with 25 years non-parole with preventive detention with a non-parole period equal to the finite sentence that would have been imposed, I'd probably still be opposed, but I'd have a much harder time making the case.
-
You know, this discussion might have been completely different if the legislation were called the Recidivist Violent Offender Incapacitation Bill.
Because the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill sounds too draconian?
[I believe "Reform" is in there because to substantively amend separate pieces of legislation - generally not allowed under standing orders - the bill has to be called a reform bill]
-
I also wonder how many of the people commenting have actually READ the Bill? The ACT version is still available on our website; the latest incarnation which blends ours into National's Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is available on parliament's website.
Those who can be bothered to actually look at both will see that National's list of "strike" offences is actually considerably broader and longer than mine.
That is true, but I'd also not that the original draft had some relatively minor crimes on it - injuring by unlawful act, for example. And had a bunch of omissions that didn't make much sense - assault with intent to injure was considered serious enough to count as a strike, but assault with intent to rape wasn't.
The current combined version makes a lot more sense when considering what's been left in and what was left out. It also avoids the much greater injustice likely under the original by applying at each step only to crimes that would actually result in five-year sentences.
But then why bother actually reading the bills? Much more satisfying to simply rant on here!
To be fair, most of the recent comment has been around these statements of yours:
by and large, the middle class don't understand that deprivation of liberty per se is NOT a great punishment for many criminals.
...
Habitual crims are relatively happy with three square meals a day cooked and paid for by someone else, TV 24/7 if they wish, gyms that as Simon Power said in the House that would cost a hefty annual fee out in the community, and being in a place where work is entirely voluntary.Have you actually BEEN inside a prison... etc
And not about the bill per se. It's been discussion about the efficacy of prisons and arguments around rehabilitiation and the (in)humanity of our current justice system for a couple of pages now. I'm happy to play host to either :-)
-
The idea that three accusations of copyright infringement would result in your Interest being turned off.