Posts by Moz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to BenWilson,
. IIRC there is an upper speed limit for powered bikes as well as power limitations
Nope, 300W electric and that's it: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicle/your/low-powered.html If you've got more than 300W or an infernal combustion engine, but are limited to 50kph you mjight have a moped rather than a motorbike, but either way you need rego and a license.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Danielle,
Moz, your conditions for compulsory sterilisation are confusing to me.
I actually said that I'm not convinced of the one but supportive of the other, and I see it as a "where do we draw the line" exercise. But faced with a flat "it is never ok to sterilise someone" argument I thought it easier to establish that there are conditions under which sterilisation is a good idea. I brought up the cases where we indefinitely imprison people to make the point that in those cases the question is not whether we grossly violate someone's human rights, but how we choose to do so.
My thought last night was that it's relevant that I decided a long time ago that I'm unlikely to be a fit parent, so I didn't. I've met a complete comprehension gap on that issue from some people, so it's probably necessary to say that not everyone would die rather than be sterilised. My point that there's no shortage of people being killed in horrible ways is also worth emphasising.
I'm pretty utilitarian, so the question I would like an answer to is: what works? Followed closely by: of the things that work, which ones can we do?
The first question is science, the second politics. Obviously rehabilitation is out of the question regardless of effectiveness because it's politically unacceptable, while lynching doesn't work regardless of its popularity. The question is which forms of punishment best balance human rights (of the offenders, victims and bystanders) against political viability.
If any of the human rights unconditionalists are willing, I'd love to hear a defense of the state forcibly denying a child their right to access their parents (article 9.1) put in human rights terms. It's a violation our government does not even acknowledge, let along try to compensate for.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Sterilisation simply takes away any chance of ever having kids again, so it society’s going to do that to them, why should they bother sorting themselves out?
My guess is that faced with the choice between sterilisation and indefinite imprisonment some people will choose the former. I would like to see the experiment performed.
I’m also not at all sure how preventive detention allows the possibility of reform in a way that sterilisation doesn’t. Even for a model prisoner who starts early and commits the absolute minimum offenses, I expect you’d be looking at have baby at 16, kill it, prosecution and sentence, serve 5 years, get out at 22, baby at 23, repeat, serve 5 years (let’s assume the parole board is convinced by a conversion to devout Christianity or something), released at 29, baby at 30, kill it, so at best that decision as to first release from PD will happen at about age 40. By which time most women have a 50/50 chance of another baby. And for men the odds are better and the timeframe a little shorter, so this might all happen by 35. And I suppose if baby kill 2 was egregiously awful you might get PD at that point. Is offering sterilisation and release so much more awful?
I realise I’m shifting the goalposts a bit, since I’m trying to take your “every criminal life has infinite value” approach, while mine is more “gosh, there’s an awful lot of people and we’re very blase about killing them off”. We sentence about 100 people to agonising death every year purely for the convenience of the survivors, for example. Except we call it “the right to drive” or somesuch nonsense. Compared to that even sterilising every single child abuser seems pretty mild – at least those people have done something wrong.
I am bemused that you consider indefinite imprisonment less an abuse of human rights than sterilisation, despite both being severe violations according to bodies like the UN.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to BenWilson,
I guess a shaft drive fits that definition. It’s geared.
That would be something you'd need to discuss with the officer on the spot. Given the ignorance of many officers about bicycle-related laws I personally would accept the ticket and decide whether to pay it or fight it depending on the size of the fine (I would need to take at least one day off work which costs money). Flip side is that they're unlikely to pull anyone up unless the bike is very odd indeed. I've had cops drive past when I had a couch on the back and not bat an eyelid (it was definitely illegal, BTW, but safe so I think they made the right call).
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to B Jones,
Given the apparent majority who think preventive detention is an acceptable solution, I suspect the numbers who object to sterlisation would be smaller than you think.
Apparently I'm way out on the fringe thinking that permanently imprisoning someone because we think they might commit crimes if released is an awful thing to do. If it is that or sterilisation, should we allow people to choose?
Like euthanasia, this is another issue where the way we treat animals is better than the way we treat people. Similar situation, in fact. After you're found to have tortured a few animals to death you're often banned from ever having care of an animal again. But with kids we just say "next time you do that we will punish you again", or "to stop you doing that we're going to put you in jail until you die". One of which is evidently not a deterrent, the other is IMO worse than sterilisation. I realise you disagree, and I think it's enough of a grey area that both sides are reasonable.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Danielle,
I… think it’s, uh, REALLY REALLY PROBLEMATIC, from a human rights perspective, to suggest forcible sterilisation for people who spank their children
I agree it’s problematic, just as democracy is a problematic system of government. The question I have is “what’s better”. To me the problem is how many of their children does someone get to beat to death before the state says “we shouldn’t let you do that any more”?
Simply removing each child as soon as it’s born is not necessarily effective. Not only is that traumatic, children can be mistreated before they’re born too, and unfortunately it’s even more problematic to put them in state custody before they’re born. So I think preventing the children is the least awful alternative.
If you accept that, the question becomes where to draw the line. Which is the problem I stated before.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to WH,
You keep saying “undemocratic” as though that’s a bad thing. If I grant you the “85% want assaulting children to stay legal” number that is exactly why we can’t have a democratic government. I could have sworn I linked to “tyranny of the majority” above and explained it. But just so we’re clear, democracy allows exactly this to happen – a majority decides to take rights away from a minority.
With a universal franchise you might find the tables turned, and “correcting” elders with violence would be voted in. Which no doubt you would support on the basis that it would be democratic
-
Seems stupid, if its really a law at all?
My mistake, the current rule is purely based on wheel size and human power. Under 355mm it’s a toy, over that it’s a bicycle. See traffic control definitions for example. Australia and other countries generally use something like “A bicycle is a legal vehicle with two or more wheels that is built to be propelled by human power through a belt, chain or gears.” which could exclude shaft drives but is specifically designed to exclude the direct drive you find on kids tricycles.
Note that there are things that look very much like bicycles but are “toy vehicles” in NZ, and things that look like toys but are actually bicycles. For instance, a kids tricycle with a front wheel bigger than 355mm (I had one of those). But some folding bikes are “toys”.
-
Hard News: Crashing the party before it starts, in reply to Paul Williams,
I assumed his motivation was comparable with Julian Assange's.
You mean personal aggrandisement without regard for anything else? Or did you miss the implosion of the wikileaks party before the Australian election, largely as a result of the two Assange's treating the party as their personal toy? I'd hope that Dotcom is more respectful of his supporters than that.
I have to say that that brouhaha did more to convince me that there's substance behind the rape allegations than anything else he's done since leaving Sweden. Misrepresentation, ignoring (lack of) consent, huge sense of entitlement, refusing to understand that other people have rights and feelings, it was all there.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to WH,
The discussion of whether it was acceptable to smack your child's hand in a supermarket devolved into the discussion of whether it is good parenting to beat a child around the head with a piece of bamboo. Supporters' inability to maintain the distinction at the heart of the conversation created a deeply unpleasant and fractious atmosphere.
I think blaming Sue Bradford for the insanity of the child beaters is a stretch too far. If the pro-beating crowd could have restrained themselves and only supported parents who smacked a child's hand the discussion would have been very different. Instead we were treated to the spactacle of pro-beaters saying "we support this parent who's been unjustly charged" ... "with punching a five year old in the face", which didn't help anyone.