Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Shame it's in Flash.
It will still be in flash, but the latest [application redacted] will at least let you save it to your hard drive...
[I'm not on commission - promise]
-
For United Future I’m trying to think of something offensively Middle of the Road. Air Supply?
Air Supply are currently hosting a great infomercial for Time Life's Soft Rock collection ... perfect.
-
BTW, I frequently use Firefox add-ons to grab website video for review purposes in the context of Media7.
Having just changed computers, I was reinstalling a bunch of the free programs I use, and downloading the latest versions of stuff. Real Player does this now!
And I was using savetube...
-
Or possibly, just don't read.
Feral and inbred like West Coasters, Russell?
-
Racist catcalls and calls for Obama to be put to death are OK, but actual interviews?
Well ... given one of those death calls was from Biden, who wanted to do it himself...
:-)
-
__Kris Gledhill, of Auckland University's law faculty, said the policy seemed to target a group of people unlikely to be released anyway.__
Well that comment seems pretty likely to be a reaction to the actual policy, as Gledhill understands it, rather than a reaction to a summary provided by the reporter.
It does, but given most of the application of the policy will still be people receiving finite sentences (and thus will be released), it's still not paticularly informed comment.
I was contrasting it in that sense with the page one story based on the reaction of some of the commentors in stuff's comments section. I feel the latter is dangerously close to the media saying something's now a public discussion because they say it's a public discussion.
Absolutely. I guess I was just a little miffed when I saw that DomPost article held up as good journalism ... I guess I'm of the view that neither was.
-
Now that story is a valid news story about the reaction to National's policy announcment. That was on page two of the Dom Post today.
No. The Story began:
National says the "two strikes" plan, which denies parole to anyone convicted of two violent offences, would put an extra 572 offenders in prison over the next three years and would require a new prison to be built at a cost of $314 million, plus $43 million a year to keep them there.
The story is therefore pointless.
National's policy does not deny parole to anyone convicted of two violent offences. Not even close.
Such a gross inaccuracy means that pretty much any comment in the article must be taken with a grain of salt - were they commenting on the actual policy, or the reporter's gross misunderstanding?
Moreover, it is a parole policy, so it cannot put extra offenders in prison, but only keep prisoners already there, there for longer. And because it will only apply to (some) sentences of 5+ years passed after it comes into effect, people sentenced to which would only be eligible for parole at two-third under recent changes to parole laws, the total increase in the prison muster over the next 3 years must be zero.
Far from being a valid news story, it was so innaccurate and ill-informed that if there isn't a press council complaint the DomPost can consider itself very lucky!
-
I even tried the "donate" button on the app, which triggers a phone call to a US number. But the number didn't include the right STD code to dial from New Zealand, so I can't tell whether my call would have been answered by a donation robot or a human. They'll have to get that fixed before we get to voting for President of the New World Order.
It's not a problem, it's a design feature...
As a non-American, you're not entitled to donate to Obama.
-
__And I understand it's not retrospective in any respect.__
Surely if that were the case they would have time to generate any extra prisoners by 2011?
An excellent point. I suspect I've been misled on that point. Ignore criminal A in my above examples.
-
__Are we all familiar with the number of people currently in prison for murders committed after they served time for an earlier murder?
I believe it's three.__
According to the Herald, murderers imprisoned under the proposed legislation will need a new prison, costing $314 million.
Are the tories expecting a massive rise in the number of second-time-around murderers, or will this prison be a holiday camp for the three prisoners?
The policy does not just apply to murderers, although that is the place where it will have biggest effect. It also does not just take the Californian three strikes law and make it two strikes, which Colin Espiner seems to think. And I understand it's not retrospective in any respect.
From the information currently available, here are some examples of its application:
Criminal A has 20 convictions for aggraveated robbery, and is currently serving an 8 year prison term. A gets out, and murders someone. Upon conviction A will receive a life sentence, but would be eligible for parole. The law is not retrospective - previous sentences don't count.
Person B is convicted for assault with a weapon after the law has come into effect. The maximum penalty is 5 years, but they get three. Upon release, they murder someone. On conviction for murder they will be entitled to parole. Your qualifying offence has to involve a sentence of 5 years, not a possible sentence of 5 years.
Person C is convicted for wounding with intent post-law. Max 14 years, sentenced to 6 years. After release they commit another wounding and get 8 years. They will serve the full 8 years.
Person C's second wounding was only with intent to injure, max 7 years, sentenced to 4. Person C is eligible for parole. The removal of parole only applies for sentences over 5 years, whatever the maximum.
Person D gets a post-law sentence of 8 years for aggravated robbery, upon release they commit a bunch of burglaries, for which they get 6 years. They are eligible for parole, because burglary is not a crime involving violence.
The Californian three-strikes system is much more draconian. First, it included as qualifying offences, convictions the pre-dated the law. Second, it included as qualifying offences any felony, whatever the maximum penalty or the actual penalty. Third, and most importantly, it didn't just revoke parole. It vastly increased the sentence on the third conviction - even if the third conviction carried a maximum of five years, that was increased to life imprisonment.