Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 91617	2008-07-13 00:58:00	Disgusting.	qazwsxokmijn (102)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
688413	2008-07-15 21:25:00	[QUOTE=rob_on_guitar;693551] Well how would you know - we hardly spend any money on rehab in this country. The Sensible Sentencing Trust has been hekping crank up sentences and that doesn't seem to be working. When the Police Union boss seriously suggests tougher penalties will prevent people fleeing crime scenes in vehicles you have to wonder what planet he is on. The reality is it will make the criminals drive even more recklessly to get away, killing more innocent people. Cranking up sentencing? Where is this happening? Our most violent criminals still get less than 20years for multiple murder, its a f*ckin joke. You would assume someone trying to get CRIMINALS to serve tougher sentences would be applauded twelve volt... What would you do, give them a pat on the ass and congratulate them? Out of curiosity, where do people like you and banana come from. Im guessing its the north island somewhere....	Veale (536)
688414	2008-07-15 22:02:00	www.stuff.co.nz (Apologies to the Trev in this forum.)	the_bogan (9949)
688415	2008-07-15 22:17:00	12v, its not the penalties!....its what the penalty entails, 1-6 yrs isnt going to make much difference UNLESS they dont like prison....hell, its a regular holiday in there....that NO deterrent. what we need is some hard ass new york city cops in prisons :D lol	Codex (3761)
688416	2008-07-15 23:25:00	I reckon just shoot everyone. Sentences can include how long it takes you to die. Jay walkers get a headshot, mass murderers lose their toes, feet, lower legs, fingers, ears etc before they're put out of their misery. All cars to be hardwired with c4, and the second the car touches 50.5km/h kaboom. Children to be set in concrete (to protect them from harm), and any minorities just dropped in the middle of the ocean.	Thebananamonkey (7741)
688417	2008-07-16 03:00:00	Well how would you know - we hardly spend any money on rehab in this country. The Sensible Sentencing Trust has been hekping crank up sentences and that doesn't seem to be working. When the Police Union boss seriously suggests tougher penalties will prevent people fleeing crime scenes in vehicles you have to wonder what planet he is on. The reality is it will make the criminals drive even more recklessly to get away, killing more innocent people. We do spend - or rather misspend - money on rehab in this country. Unfortunately it is not spent where it will do the most good, on first/second offenders and other low level offenders. Instead it is wasted on psychopaths with long histories and bad attitudes when we would we best to isolate them from society permanently. We also waste money and resources on "treatment programmes" of extremely dubious long term value for child molestors and other sex offenders, such as Kia Marama. Given that the research now indicates this condition to be a largely biological one, the inevitable outcome is that sooner or later they reoffend - and yet the powers that be sned some of these offenders out for a another round of treatment, which once again doesn't work If the limited rehab budget was instead focussed on drug and alcohol treatment programmes and hands on vocationl training at the early stages of offender criminal careers then we would see better results. As for sentences being cranked up, well this is still mostly only happening at the top end, and so has limited incapacitative effect. If the government really took the Sensible Sentencing Trust's message to heart and locked up psychopaths and paedophiles for life after their third conviction then we'd see a real reduction in offending, not because of deterrence but incapacitation (there is some limited deterrent effect as a bonus though, but only with some offenders, most are too thick to take the message on board) Regards Peter Jenkins	laworder (12738)
688418	2008-07-16 03:26:00	We do spend - or rather misspend - money on rehab in this country. Unfortunately it is not spent where it will do the most good, on first/second offenders and other low level offenders. Instead it is wasted on psychopaths with long histories and bad attitudes when we would we best to isolate them from society permanently. We also waste money and resources on "treatment programmes" of extremely dubious long term value for child molestors and other sex offenders, such as Kia Marama. Given that the research now indicates this condition to be a largely biological one, the inevitable outcome is that sooner or later they reoffend - and yet the powers that be sned some of these offenders out for a another round of treatment, which once again doesn't work If the limited rehab budget was instead focussed on drug and alcohol treatment programmes and hands on vocationl training at the early stages of offender criminal careers then we would see better results. As for sentences being cranked up, well this is still mostly only happening at the top end, and so has limited incapacitative effect. If the government really took the Sensible Sentencing Trust's message to heart and locked up psychopaths and paedophiles for life after their third conviction then we'd see a real reduction in offending, not because of deterrence but incapacitation (there is some limited deterrent effect as a bonus though, but only with some offenders, most are too thick to take the message on board) Regards Peter Jenkins Though I am a supporter of "three strikes", the problem with using this with regard to those that offend against people (as opposed to property) is that you end up with three victims (plus associated collateral damage) per offender. Perhaps a "single-strike" methodology could be applied to 'people offenders'...	johcar (6283)
688419	2008-07-16 04:39:00	Though I am a supporter of "three strikes", the problem with using this with regard to those that offend against people (as opposed to property) is that you end up with three victims (plus associated collateral damage) per offender. Perhaps a "single-strike" methodology could be applied to 'people offenders'... Yes, you are absolutely right of course - certainly in cases of murder, grevious bodily harm and child molestation (unless the murder or GBH occurs in the course of self defence or there are extraordinarily extenuating circumstances) Usually with repeat violent offenders they dont start with serious offences but work their way up to GBH or murder, so under a well designed three strikes system we incapacitate them for other lesser assaults before they get to that stage. Of course if the first/second offence is of a serious nature, then what you suggest should apply. And with child molestors a single strike methodology is best as you say. Regards Peter Jenkins	laworder (12738)
688420	2008-07-16 05:50:00	Well how would you know - we hardly spend any money on rehab in this country. The Sensible Sentencing Trust has been hekping crank up sentences and that doesn't seem to be working. When the Police Union boss seriously suggests tougher penalties will prevent people fleeing crime scenes in vehicles you have to wonder what planet he is on. The reality is it will make the criminals drive even more recklessly to get away, killing more innocent people. Id probably have a better idea then you if think sentences are cranked up. Have you had access to criminal records? Have you had to sit there and study all the people that reoffend? Have you had to work in prisons? The sentences these days are crap, a frikin joke, sure the white collar may think its tough, or maybe even those who are good people, but you look at the scum of NZ and threaten them with going to prison, see how they smile?	rob_on_guitar (4196)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8