(2017) Was this act eventually amended or repealed?
No. I remain hopeful an MP will pick up the bill I drafted to amend it, but nothing yet.
Incidentally, about 8% (depending on how you round it) of the movement in countries from 2015 to 2016 was caused by the inclusion of a new source.
I knew there'd be a bunch of extra things going on in there :-)
And when that opposition party was National, and its leader was Don Brash, they called Helen Clark’s government “corrupt” (not implied it, but explicitly said it). When it was pointed out that NZ was top of the very same world rankings (and it was) they said “oops, our bad” … well no, of course they didn’t, they just said “corrupt” again.
This arose from a very specific set of facts:
1. The Labour Party had spent a bunch of money they were not entitled to spend on Pledge cards and leaflets (this bit adds a little to the concern, but isn’t particularly noteworthy).
2. More importantly, the Electoral Commission advised them before the election that the card were election advertising, and that the money spent on them was an election expense.
3. Number 2, above, should have been no surprise to anyone. While there might have been confusion about whether they money was able to be spent on the pledge cards, there should have been no confusion whatsover that the material was election advertising and that its cost was an election expense. This was not a difficult call.
4. Knowing that this spending would count toward their spending limit, and knowing that it may already have put them over their spending limit, Labour decided that the rules oughtn’t to apply to them, and kept spending money on election expenses, knowing that this would mean they spent well in excess of the spending limit we put in place to ensure fair elections.
5. Deliberately spending more money on election expenses than the spending limit is a corrupt practice. It can result in prison, and anyone involved in the decision who was an MP could be convicted as a party to that corrupt practice, and would lose their seat.
6. The Electoral Commission referred this deliberate over-spending to the police. The Police interviewed the Prime Ministers chief of staff who told police that there was a dispute about whether the spending on the pledge card was permitted within Parliamentary rules, and that this meant no-one had deliberately overspent. This was false. Even if the auditor-general had ruled that the spending on the pledge card and leaflet were proper uses of Parliamentary funds, this would have made no difference to whether the spending counted toward the overall spending limit. It clearly did, and there is literally no argument against this.
Having been presented with a government that had deliberately committed a corrupt practice, for the purpose of winning an election, Don Brash and others called the government corrupt. The title was truly earned, and a bunch of people are lucky they didn’t end up in prison, or kicked out of Parliament.
The incompetence of the police, in accepting the legal interpretation of the Electoral Act given by a suspect over that offered by the Electoral Commission, and the short time-frames that then applied for filing prosecutions are the only reasons they got off.
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 :-)