Posts by Richard Aston
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
On a tangential note - I notice in the Vote Internal Affairs section of the budget the amounts for Former Governors-General, $435,000 annuities and Former Prime Ministers $430,000 annuities and domestic travel . That's $860 grand to former leaders, Why? I mean they are not going to be short of money, work offers or speakers fees.
I also hear from a good source that Helen Clark still uses the above fund when she comes back to NZ or flies her husband to New York.
Yeah yeah I know its not a lot of money but ....just saying
-
Legal Beagle: The law may be that stupid, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Hilary - the sinking lid policy may be a smokescreen , Manukau and Waitakere councils were running a sinking lid, not sure whats happened to that under the super city, but its not a nationwide policy . Others are worried the extra 500 pokies is actually an extra 500 pokies.
COGS is a separate system to the Gaming Trusts but is under the same govt ministry , can't see how the two would be linked. Mind you the word was the COGS money this year was way down because some of it was siphoned off to Whanau Ora .
If there is a downturn in the gaming trust money its likely Sports bodies will be affected the most as they get most of it . -
Legal Beagle: The law may be that stupid, in reply to Hilary Stace,
<q>"However, the overall effect of the SkyCity deal will be a large amount less for all the other charities and NGOs that depend on their annual funding from the contestable Lotteries and COGs grants distributed by the Department of Internal Affairs (and the others such as Pub Charity).<q>
How does that work Hilary - I run a charity and am keen to figure out what the impact will be - at first glance it's more pokies and a suspicion that Sky City does distribute pokie money in the same way the gaming trusts are required to do - ie less. -
Hard News: The Very Worst, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
I am not convinced that separating minimum,medium and maximum prisoners makes much difference and what about remand , not sure remand prisoners are separated.
Separation by age is as important - Ngawha for example does not have a youth unit as such but they say they keep prisoners aged between 18 and 20 in a separate space.
I have been there (as a visitor) and noticed the young guys in constant yelling conversation with the old guys with plenty of other chances of getting together.Prison is still a process of institutionalizing people - we learned some hard lessons with this in mental health and got rid of the loony bins ages ago.
-
Benn makes an important point re who you are in prison with. We can talk about rehab etc but if you are locked up for years with harder crims bordering on psychopathic you risk ,as Benn said becoming like the people we spend the most time with. I have heard of this happening often.
Mental hospitals ( in the past ) had the same problem - sane but troubled people went in - after a few years locked up with the loonies they came out insane .
How do we "punish" people via loss of liberty and attempt to rehabilitate them without throwing them all in a bin together?I think the old Roper report ( can't find a link) attempted to answer this .
-
Hard News: The Very Worst, in reply to Russell Brown,
Most of the literature says that certainty of of punishment is a considerably stronger deterrent than severity of punishment
But isn't the down side of this is it effectively needs a police state or at least a well policed up state.
-
I was there when Bill English made his speech with the "Prisons are a fiscal and moral failure" comment. I couldn't believe what I was hearing from a conservative politician and I felt a great optimism when he talked about the financial good sense in investing in work that stops people going to prison in the first place.
But nothing has happened since. The prison juggernaut rolls on and the cries for more and harsher imprisonment continue unabated.
We desperately need some prolonged intelligent debate on this. So firstly big ups to you Russell for your post. How can a more reasoned dialogue arise when the vengeance and punishment lobby is so loud and so able to wield the sound bite to strike the fear into the public?
-
Hard News: The Very Worst, in reply to Stephen Judd,
I think it's purely and simply that vengeance is an element in any penal code. There has to be some element of revenge in order that people are satisfied enough that they don't try to get revenge themselves. McVicar etc simply aren't satisfied with existing levels of vengeance.
A very good point Stephen. The fear based blood baying is not about seeking punishment but is for revenge and vengeance. Its just so bloody primitive!
But it appeals to so many people and so our politicians attempt to crank up the harshness of prisons to appeal to this public need for vengeance - the sad irony is prisons, especially harsh prisons, make people worse ... almost guaranteeing they will come out somewhere high on the psychotic spectrum but still they don't seem to satisfy this public need for vengeance . I hear phrase like "lock em up throw away the key"... " hard labor that's what they need" etc.
I wonder if it might be better to simply flog criminals publicly until the sight of blood satisfies the baying crowd.. ah yes vengeance is done and it is sweet. Then release them back into the world. At least they won't be turned psychotic by the dehumanization of prison.
Maybe when our Rodney the dancing queen talked about 3 strikes he originally meant strikes with something hard and painful.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Chris Waugh,
I agree with you Chris about true MMP forcing parties to compromise will lead to more stable government - my hope is it will evolve past compromise to collaboration . I reckon the indicators of this starting to happen may be seen pre-election as parties publicly partner up rather than waiting to see who's got what slice of the pie before "compromising" .
Speaking of the Chathams exiling Hone and the Greens there would change the Rongotai electorate majorly - that would be interesting for Wellington . -
The more I think about percentages the less clear I am. They seem arbitrary but I am not aware of what thinking went behind setting these thresholds 0- 5% .
From the angle of groups and the whole.
If electorate seats represent people grouped by geographical area and List seats represent people grouped around ideas or ideals.
Then what size should a group be before the rest of us recognize it's right to have some influence on the whole?It would be an interesting exercise to model this with a microcosm eg a whole group of a 1000 people. If 20 (2%) people said we stand for x, would the rest of us be happy to give them a voice? What if it was 50?
I am wondering if it is not just about individuals and smaller groups getting some kind of substantive representation but also the willingness of the larger group to tolerate a spread of ideas.
In times of peace and prosperity I suggest the larger group is more willing to tolerate a broader spread of ideas and views. But in hard times that tolerance shrinks - think of the conscientious objectors of WWII.
Should our electoral system allow the larger group an influence or should it be above that?
Aside from percentages how many voters are needed before their view - via a representative - is heard.