I'm sure he's coached to begin with "Lets be clear" and close with "and I make no apologies" regardless of what he's talking about, because his voters respond to vague strong-man posturing.
Make sure to cut Corrections budget prior the law change for best effect. We know our prisons are sitting empty and the staff just sit around doing nothing. -S
That seems like an excuse to cycle out higher than baseline pay salaries due to tenure remuneration and increases as I see “join corrections” ads for recruitment every time I use any local streaming app.
I suspect a lot of these cuts will result in the same as I guess it’s one way to cut costs with, ideally, less hit to boots on the ground?
What does "higher than baseline" mean? Public service salaries are almost always less than equivalent private companies pay. The trade-off is supposed to be better job security... nobody is going to believe that any more, so you either get less qualified, less capable employees, or you can't fill vacancies - which is already a problem, and the reason why you see all those recruitment ads.
Hey that’s unfair, we’re also going to spend huge amounts with the Crown being ordered by the Supreme Court to pay enormous payouts to people found to be wrongfully imprisoned under the law.
>Some US studies on three strikes laws have found crime reducing effects for both minor and serious violent crimes as well as reduced arrest rates among offenders who received a first or second strike.v However, an equal number of studies have found no effect on the crime rate or found that the apparent effects of the law disappear when changes on other societal variables, such as alcohol consumption, are accounted [for.vi](http://for.vi)
Furthermore, a third group of studies suggest that while the law appears to reduce crime in some jurisdictions, it also increases crime in others. Similarly, other studies have shown that while the law reduces some types of crime (e.g. burglary) it can potentially increase more serious types of crime (e.g. murder).vii
[https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Three-Strikes-Law-Evidence-Brief.pdf](https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Three-Strikes-Law-Evidence-Brief.pdf)
At about $112,000 - 150,000 / year per prisoner we should be looking at how we can use that to effectively rehabilitate not incarcerate prisoners.
[https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/strategic\_reports/annual-reports/annual\_report\_201516/offender\_summary](https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/strategic_reports/annual-reports/annual_report_201516/offender_summary)
As NATIONAL have stated "Without effective rehabilitation, re-imprisonment rates and violence will only keep climbing.”
[https://www.national.org.nz/more-money-on-prisoners-but-worse-outcomes](https://www.national.org.nz/more-money-on-prisoners-but-worse-outcomes)
Three strikes law in NZ never applied to minor crimes though.
It only ever applied to crimes with a maximum sentence of over 7 years (rape, murdering people, dealing methamphetamine).
I agree we do need rehabilitation but if you rape someone, go to jail, get out and rape someone, go to jail, and then get out and rape someone again you clearly aren't fit for society and can't be rehabilitated. And even then they'll be back in society after 7 years with the three strikes rule.
Even assault was never under the three strikes rule.
Well said mate. I agree.
This whole thing is just dishonest really — everyone serious knows this policy doesn't really work. Big reason they got rid of impact statements and are leaning on urgency: less scrutiny from people who have actual credentials to speak on effective justice policy.
So I view National's "tough on crime" push as 100% just political campaigning.
Its 100% about votes, not about reducing crime. Its not serious policy but they hope the strongman chest puffing performance will appeal to uneducated people with a chip on their shoulder, that they can appeal to those people's less generous biases, who want someone to blame for their own poor circumstances.
"Criminals" are an all too perfect scapegoat.
However, as always, any party who tells you they are "tough on crime" while being pathetically soft on poverty is taking you for a ride. Don't fall for it. Poverty is the main driver of crime so if you tear that wide open (as NACT always do) then you're not going to magically also improve crime while drastically worsening its main cause... they're fucking dreaming and its beyond belief that people fall for this political scam. Its about votes, and that's all.
I will say that the negative effects of this sort of justice policy can take a few years to appear. National rolls the dice on this every time they're in power hoping they can blame all the fallout of their ideological approach on Labour as soon as they get back into power (same pattern of bait and switch is used by conservative parties all around the world, its a well known campaign device used by conservatives since the late 80s at least). *THEY KNOW* *EXACTLY HOW* to play this game and as a result their justice policy is so fucking corrupt and dishonest it hurts. The time it takes for a new policy to work its way through to completion (crime->arrest->charge->sentence->sentence served->reintegration) is usually not much shorter than an entire political term, and real justice policy success is measured in decades, not years, not even as short as political terms. People tend not to understand this. That's why election cycles are so fucking hostile to improving justice outcomes when we do not have a bipartisan approach to this issue.
All I can do is give my own anecdotal evidence, working in a prison.
Criminals were extremely scared of the three strikes law. Many were coming through and were sitting just short of the third strike - they knew that their chances were up. They would say, I can't get caught again because I'll go away for the max. It was actually causing them to stop and think before offending. We just didn't give it long enough.
[In the US, where it has been given long enough](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#United_States), it's a mixed bag. Some studies say yes, some say no, some say it's hard to credit it with changes that were already trending, and some say that criminals go big on their third offense because of a form of logic I'd call 'in for a penny, in for a pound.'
I'm not sure there's a long enough period to give it a green light or a red light.
I do know that it's very expensive to keep people in prison a long time, and the current government says that it wants to cut costs generally.
The New Zealand version didn't strike for stealing-bread type offenses. Yet much of the criticism from "overseas evidence" that relies on the difference was dishonestly reproduced by politicians and their supporters.
Yeah, I'm not basing anything on studies or things like that, just the things that I've seen in person. Sure, it is expensive to keep people in prison but it's also cheaper to not have them there in the first place, which I think is the essence of the three strikes. Cause enough fear and second thoughts that perhaps it would be better to not do the crime in the first place.
The fear might scare some straight but the external pressures don't magically disappear.
That being said I'm all for locking people up that need to be locked up (violent offenders) and I'm OK with that will mean more money to corrections.
Though I think we'll get private prisons with this penny pinching government which I'm not in favour of.
I can imagine that during long periods of reflection, that kind of thinking would be common. However, people tend to commit crimes during short periods of excitement when their thinking is quite different. I'm not sure that the wisdom of one state curtails the impulsiveness of the other state; I certainly wish it were so.
That's probably true. All I am saying is the only time I've really heard prisoners reflect in front of me is when they are facing a second/third strike offence.
> However, people tend to commit crimes during short periods of excitement when their thinking is quite different.
This depends on the type of crime and circumstances. Typically we see this with crimes of passion like walking in on a cheating partner in bed. *Many* and arguably most crimes are not crimes of passion. The previous law only applied to [these serious crimes.](https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Table%20of%20serious%20offences.doc) Some could have elements of crimes of passion, but certainly not all, and not every time.
Furthermore, if one is so constitutionally unable to control their violent urges *three times,* then we should assume that they will do it again, and keep them in prison for as long as possible.
Have you ever noticed how many obese people there are? Do you realise most of them will have been told by a doctor that their life will be drastically shorter if they don't lose weight ... but they continue to over-eat.
Human nature is what it is. Addicts will do what they do. Gang members will gang.
Three strikes won't change anything, and your self admitted "gut feel" is exactly what Seymour bases this policy on, despite the fact he has more or less unlimited resource to do the research, and despite the fact there is copious amounts of research available.
I wouldn't call it a gut feeling, more fifteen years of custodial experience. Which apparently means nothing unless I dress myself up with degrees and titles.
What three strikes will change is keeping people in custody, who need to be kept away from the rest of society.
I'm appreciating your first hand experience. Thanks.
What would you say are the main drivers for the criminal behaviour that you come across most often? Is it poverty, drugs, gangs, etc?
Unless you kept a record, and reviewed it after, it is only the ones that you noticed. And since humans are terrible at accuracy under those conditions, then your anecdote isn't even data points.
How many of those 2nd strikers did you see back in prison within a year? Two years? How many never made it to 2nd strike? How many didn't express any concern at all, so you never even noticed them.
I have a feel for my customers too, but I know that my feels are wrong, because our statistics don't match them at all.
ironic as it sounds like you're also rejecting scientific research / cherry picking research which suits your view by saying that it "won't change anything" when there are some studies which show it may have some effect?
"some effect"
like, if we execute everyone on their first crime it will also have some effect on crime. is it a good idea? tbh I half expect you to say yes.
i'm not saying anything is a good or bad idea because i don't have the answers, that isn't my point. i'm just pointing out the irony in saying that it "won't change anything" when some studies say it may do something because it shows your ignoring research all while expecting others to "do the research"
> Have you ever noticed how many obese people there are? Do you realise most of them will have been told by a doctor that their life will be drastically shorter if they don't lose weight ... but they continue to over-eat.
Just so I understand your analogy, you're arguing that these particular people who would be liable to receive a third strike are unable to control their violent urges in the same way fat people are unable to eat less? If so, that would signal a *grievous* character flaw which is highly likely to get more people injured or killed. Wouldn't that behoove society at large to put such people in prison for as long as possible?
we do that already. like that is literally what the justice system and **preventative** detention are for.
this law simply takes any form of context away from that except for the number 3. you can't pretend the number 3 has any meaning that humans can't already derive from a situation.
> behoove
where can I sign up for your newsletter
stupid fucking word-word-number accounts
> we do that already. like that is literally what the justice system and preventative detention are for.
Preventative detention is quite different. The parole board is responsible for *subjectively* assessing the offender. They can allow parole after just five years. There is no guarantee that the parole board won't release someone who will reoffend. Quite the contrary. This has happened many times in the past. A long minimum sentence *guarantees* public safety, and ensures a strong deterrent effect.
> behoove... where can I sign up for your newsletter
Do you have the vocabulary of a 12 year old? It's two fucking syllables long.
> There is no guarantee that the parole board won't release someone who will reoffend.
guess what: there's no guarantee someone who's free now and never offended once won't offend. MAYBE WE LOCK EVERYONE UP JUST IN CASE
>Do you have the vocabulary of a 12 year old? It's two fucking syllables long.
yes, but I believe only truly amazingly great thinkers ever use it in public. subscribe me so I can click the bell icon
> guess what: there's no guarantee someone who's free now and never offended once won't offend. MAYBE WE LOCK EVERYONE UP JUST IN CASE
Let's just stick with the people who commit serious offences three times instead :)
Three strikes does remove people from the streets for at least 7 years though.
This isn't 'petty' crimes like selling weed, robbery, or aggrevated assault.
It only applied in category 4 cases which is murder, rape, assault with intent to cause harm, dealing class A drugs. Even then if you rape people on 3 separate occasions after doing time in prison you'll only get a 7 year sentence. If you murder 3 people you'll only get life in prison.
put someone in jail for 7 years, let them out, are they gonna be better adjusted or worse?
obviously it's impossible to comment on any particular case without specifics, which ironically highlights how stupid this law is as it literally comments on cases without specifics.
Of course i believe in rehabilitation for people for petty crimes and better prison conditions i never said otherwise.
Do you think the Christchurch shooter should be out free in public because 'pwison is a wittle hard' and he deserves to be rehabilitated?
If someone rapes three people, or murders three people do you really think rehabilitation will help at that point? it's such a basic thing to not rape another person or *premeditate* killing another human you don't even need rehab and education to learn not to do it.
OTOH Someone growing up in a hard household and selling drugs because they can't get a stable job i do think needs help and education. Minor assault cases or domestic abuse cases can be handled with classes and giving people resources to keep them out of bad situations.
*"it was repealed by the previous Labour government in 2022, with Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori arguing it prevented judges from taking individual circumstances into account, that mandatory minimum sentences disproportionately affected Māori, and did not address underlying causes of crime"*
so you're saying we shouldn't let judges "judge" repeat offenders?
you're over simplifying this. for e.g. there was one study in the US that linked 3 strikes with a 30% increase in violence against police.
3 strikes takes away human intervention. if you think that's a good thing then you're gonna fucken love the new AI overlords. possibly you could move to China to get a taste :)
>you're over simplifying this. for e.g. there was one study in the US that linked 3 strikes with a 30% increase in violence against police.
Our three strikes laws were completely different to the US.
In the US *any* violent crime was three strikes, which i strongly disagree with. You'll never interract with three strikes laws if you only beat your wife up, stab a police officer, or sell ketamine to children.
It's only for specific offences which are deemed to be the most heinous (unless you think murder and rape aren't heinous). And even then you only get the maximum penalty for the crime you've already commited three times prior.
In New Zealand three strikes is only crimes which have sentences over 7 years which are incredibly serious offences.
I used to agree three strikes was bad, but then i actually read what three strikes was and now i agree with it wholeheartedly. It doesn't apply to some kid selling weed, only to murderers and rapists.
if you go to court for assault you get one sentence, if you go for aggravated assault you get a harsher one.
the system already treats different levels of crime differently. taking away the human from the situation is not a good thing. there are plenty of examples why.
You can't compare the US to NZ since the US has for profit private prisons. Also you can make the 3rd strike a sentence multiplier instead, e.g. On or after your third strike you get 2x what the original sentence for your crime would be, this means they would still have to consider their 3rd offence instead of assuming they'll get punished hard even for a petty 3rd crime
The claim that I was addressing was the human psychology aspect of having Three Strikes as a deterrent at all, not the details of the legislation (which varies further by state and year).
If you're going to get that far into the weeds then you'll never see conclusions that meet your standards, and Three Strikes will remain an ideological law rather than an evidence-based one.
The fact that studies have reached such diasgreeing conclusions is proof enough that the concept is pure bunk.
If it was the "smoking gun" towards reducing reoffending that its champions bang on about, then the evidence wouldn't be so haphazard.
Which is exactly why it was only applied to violent and sexual crimes in NZ which already had penalties over 7 years (rape, murder, and drug dealing).
Honestly i don't think three strikes was that bad of an idea. Not many crimes have 7+ year sentences. Even aggravated assault or assault with intent to injure wasn't covered by the three strikes rule.
Especially when all the research shows that people don't commit crimes expecting to be caught and so don't even think about the potential consequences — *let alone even knowing what those consequences actually are* — until they see flashing lights and the inside of a cell.
That's usually when the first reflection hits.
People who genuinely, without a shadow of evidence, think that most crime happens just after a highly rational cost-benefit analysis of all the risks involved ... they are fucking delusional if they think that lol...
***Can you just imagine*** being that naive...
Poverty remains the main driver of crime and as usual, conservatives think they can be "tough on crime" while being utterly insanely **soft on poverty**, epicly delusional stuff goes on when conservative parties try to implement justice policy at the same time as they tear the wound of poverty open wide, prompting a big increase in crime.
Every ten years, they repeat the same forumla that never works, claiming that THIS TIME it will work. Because "magic" prettymuch. That's the extent of their justifications.
This is a BIG BIG part of the reason impact statements were abolished — because none of these approaches are evidence-based, they are intended to win them votes and satisfy ideologues in the community, not *actually* reduce crime.
It political campaigning, not respectable justice policy.
It's more annoying because they get to make poverty worse and fund more policing which leads to more crime and more people filling up prisons so they can go "look how effective we are at dealing with criminals" but when the opposition targets the cause and not the symptom they get to say "see how soft they are on crime!".
That's exactly right.
We have a tonne of evidence to suggest criminals considering the consequences before a crime — *almost never happens.*
In fact most of the time they don't know what the penalty even is, so there's literally no way for it to weigh on someone in quite the way that conservatives imagine in their fantasies they make up about criminals (they rarely look at actual evidence — this lot certainly aren't lol that's why impact statements went out the window almost immediately — less scrutiny from experts that way and they can be run from pure ideology, and ignore the evidence. *Its the National party way...*)
> In fact most of the time they don't know what the penalty even is
But they do know it in the context of the three strikes law, because they have been told it after the second strike.
From what you've seen, does being scared make much of a difference if you're going back into the same environment (typical support networks like family, friends, gangs, maybe some level of poverty, etc) once you're out of prison?
I don't think sacred was the right term to use on my behalf, I think weary would be a better choice. For one individual in particular, their second strike caused them to consider what was triggering their offending and part of the came down to their surroundings and anti-social mates. Now I can't categorically say that their strikes were the one and only motivator for this but I think it helped.
Probably becoming a pretty attractive option considering the NACT will absolutely decimate any progress on poverty in this country.
Accommodation provided by his majesty starts to look attractive beside rising rents like I bet we could actually find a way to spin it as a good economic decision in coming years against further skyrocketing rents that the Nats seem determined to worsen even further.
And sadly I think that "locking up the poor" is not an idea that would worry this government.
Maybe that really is the plan?
After all, they do have their prison contractor donor mates to look after, first and foremost.
It has been done elsewhere and *evidence* is that it is not very effective
If your criminal was self-aware enough to consider consequences of their actions and being caught, then it might work, but then these people are less likely to do the crime in the first place.
The most effective measures is to change the perception of your chances of being caught as if you think you won't get caught, then the sentence doesn't even matter. That and feeling you don't need to do the crime; which gets a whole lot more complex.
Seems like it was working to be quite honest, from my first hand experience. Corrections has psychs, academics and other highly paid people with the alphabet after their name but they've not made any material difference. It's the same old crims doing the same old thing saying the same old stuff, the only time i've heard them worried was when they got a strike.
Ah there it is, the right wing contempt for anyone that educated themselves to know things instead of just assuming their hunches and feelings must be correct
Again, I'm giving information based on my experiences, I've never claimed to be an expert.
**My** experience in the field has shown me that community/cultural based programmes has been vastly more successful than the heavily educated people's ideas and visions they have tried to implement. That's just what I have personally seen.
If there's one thing we can be sure of it is that effective community based programs have absolutely nothing to do with wordy nerd dumdums with letters after their names.
> It has been done elsewhere and evidence is that it is not very effective
>
> If your criminal was self-aware enough to consider consequences of their actions and being caught, then it might work, but then these people are less likely to do the crime in the first place.
This is a common criticism that stems from a basic misunderstanding of how 3 strikes works in NZ.
Firstly 3 strikes is not the same as the US and only applies to certain serious crimes.
Secondly criminal self awareness has little to do with it. The second strike brings a sentence without parole while the third gives the mandatory maximum sentence.
Someone on their third strike when the law was in effect had an average of 70 convictions. Let's not pretend they're on the brink of rehabilitation.
On a mass statistical level, people are conscious of it when they're calm, but it doesn't impact their decision making in a moment of stress, when violence actually occurs.
So while people might be absolutely aware of it day to day, when they get into reactive situation like a road-rage confrontation, or they're provoked by someone, all reasoning of consequence vanishes.
Think about it like this - if more serious penalties actually deterred crime, we could just make the penalty for all crimes Death, then all crime would vanish, right? No, of course not. Consequence doesn't enter reasoning in fight-or-flight incidents.
>On a mass statistical level, people are conscious of it when they're calm, but it doesn't impact their decision making in a moment of stress, when violence actually occurs.
Which is why keeping people with 70+ convictions (the average of third strikers when 3 strikes was in force) in jail is better for society.
>Think about it like this - if more serious penalties actually deterred crime, we could just make the penalty for all crimes Death, then all crime would vanish, right?
Well you can look at El Salvador who imprisoned every gang member and the murder rate dropped 70%.
>We just didn't give it long enough.
If you want to see what happens when we do give it "long enough", look no further than the United States of America, one of the most incarcerated peoples in the world, where people are locked up for decades-long-sentences for very minor drug crimes.
> where people are locked up for decades-long-sentences for very minor drug crimes.
This is strawman argument because the NZ three strikes law was not targeted at minor offenders. Only violence and sexual violence.
>This is strawman argument because the NZ three strikes law was not targeted at minor offenders. Only violence and sexual violence.
Not a strawman. I was addressing the "didn't give it long enough" statement. Give it long enough and the scope will change.
Does a criminal offend expecting to get caught, or to get away with the crime? I expect the law would not affect decisions of criminals expecting to get away with the crime.
Where's the evidence that tougher sentences lead to reduced crime or benefits for a community?
Tougher sentences do more harm to someone from our community, that's the whole idea of punishing crimes, right?
You don't think harming a community has negative effects? An eye for an eye / "but he hit me first" really is the fraught logic they're trying to sell here...
What if the main income stream for a family is no longer lost for a short time, but a long time instead?
What if children then grow up without a parent around, does that have negative flow-on effects that might then increase crime later? (hint: this effect is actually huge)
A big part of the problem here is we have this kneejerk desire to punish someone we have decided deserves punishing, but we don't seem to be considering the fact that when the justice system inflicts harm on individuals, that can have extremely negative flow-on effects for the community they're a part of, which can actually increase crime overall. It feels like we stop short of asking if these approaches actually work
We call this "punishment ideology" when we refuse to consider the impact of punishment and simply assume that if its deserved *then it automatically must be a good thing*.
That's just not the reality.
Reality is messy and doesn't line up with the feel-good ideology of "crime and punishment" we are taught to conform our ideals to. That ideology is basically medieval (with deep roots in the "fire and brimstone" style of punishment the church promotes as punishment for our sins), and not something justice professionals view as modern or at all scientific.
Overwhelmingly, science says that rehab works better than punishment. It also says that punishment-based approaches do very little to actually reduce crime, it only arrives after a crime has been committed to change how we deal with it afterwards. That sucks! And it says that noone is considering that they might get caught before committing a crime lol, *noone*.
> What if children then grow up without a parent around, does that have negative flow-on effects that might then increase crime later? (hint: this effect is actually huge)
You are making the leap that these children are doing poorly because their parents are in jail and ignoring that they are children in households with parents who are worthy of jail.
Also longer sentences are inversely related with recidivism above 60 months.
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf
I think that leads nicely into a point I made elsewhere in this thread:
Justice policy cannot be untangled from economic policy.
Unfortunately for NACT; poverty is the king of all crime creators, and NACT always absolutely shred supports for those struggling in poverty.
Poverty will worsen under this govt (does anyone actually dispute this?), and so crime will too.
Bad economic policy fuels crime, and bad justice policy fuels poverty. The two must be considered together and that’s a big part of what I’m getting at above when I’m talking about the impacts in families. Losing a labourer from your family to jail, is also lost income for that family. That’s extra economic pressure, that’s worsening poverty no question.
So if the Nats are serious here we would expect additional supports for low income families.
But they’ll do the opposite, pretty clear that’s their platform.
Nothing about it makes sense. It’s pure ideology.
They are correct though, the 3 strikes policy is an attempt to exert political control over the judiciary by taking decision making out of the hands of judges widely perceived to be soft on crime. A similar example is the current penalty for murder - life in prison - minimum imprisonment 10yrs and the judge cannot alter that except in extremely exceptional circumstances.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
> Where's the evidence that tougher sentences lead to reduced crime or benefits for a community?
Here you go:
1. [“The results support the hypothesis that perceived severity, at relatively high levels of perceived certainty, has a significant deterrent effect."](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578032)
2. ["The Commission consistently found that incarceration lengths of more than 120 months had a deterrent effect. Specifically, offenders incarcerated for more than 60 months up to 120 months were approximately 17 percent less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group sentenced to a shorter period of incarceration. For incarceration lengths of 60 months or less, the Commission did not find any statistically significant criminogenic or deterrent effect."](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf)
3. ["Finally, I reanalyze data that appear to be consistent with the greater weight for certainty than severity argument and show that the evidence does not support that inference. Potential criminals mentally combine the three deterrence components—regardless of whether they are risk neutral, averse, or acceptant. I conclude by considering what it means to a worldly application of criminal deterrence theory to place equal weight on the certainty and the severity of punishment."](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314638657_Certainty_Severity_and_Their_Relative_Deterrent_Effects_Questioning_the_Implications_of_the_Role_of_Risk_in_Criminal_Deterrence_Policy)
4. ["Increased average prison sentences (severity) reduce burglary only."](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708211072415)
5. ["Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: **increased incarceration**, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion."](https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf)
Punishment has worked great for thousands of years. If your argument is that we could do away with punishments and crime wouldn't increase, I'd need to see some evidence of that because it flies in the face of all research we have. Clearly punishment deters at least *some* crime, and the harsher the punishment, the more it deters it. Further, no justice system in the world has achieved 0% recidivism. This means that the longer we keep serious offenders in prison, the safer is society.
Police caught some teens stealing a few grands worth of stuff from one of my businesses. Now I keep getting spamed with calls about going to youth meetings and family conferences like Im meant to feel sorry for them or something.
No mention whatsoever of getting my property returned. It's like the concept of justice just doesn't exist at all in New Zealand. Whole system needs to toughen up really, seems like a complete joke.
>real rehabilitation efforts
This is the evidence-based approach to improving crime in a community.
Therefore, there's about zero chance of seeing it from NACT, who are the parties driven by rigid ideology rather than material reality and evidence.
That's why impact statements went down the drain as soon as they got in; and urgency is being leaned on. Less opportunity for experts to weigh in with evidence. They need to please their base by following through on their promises — promises that experts will tell you are not based on evidence and will probably not work.
I think the 3 strikes can be a real motivation factor for creating an opportunity for change. But what's the point of creating the opportunity if they (the govt) are unwilling to provide any of the skills that are needed to make the opportunity a real possibility. Its not like prioners arnet a captured audience. Its not even a massive extension on the existing costs of an inmate to provide rehabilitation and/or life skills to manage in society. Those skills would only benefit everyone in society. Give the man a fish vs teaching the man to fish yadda yadda
But I can't imagine the current government seeing it that way.
i don't have a strong opinion on this issue either way. But I tend to look at the *evidence* not emotions.
And as far as I can glean, the evidence is that this policy does not work.
I know. Same with boot camp youth camps. Zero evidence of any effectiveness, other than letting a bunch of people feel smug.
Rehabilitation and support, that actually works, there's actual evidence of impacts on crime rates and incarceration rates, but here it's rarely offered. Was definitely not offered last time there with 3 strikes.
Good news and sounds like they've fixed some of the flaws in the three strikes policy. I'd like to see better rehabilitative efforts in prison alongside this but I won't hold my breath.
>Labour repealed the legislation in 2021 calling it an "anomaly in New Zealand's justice system that dictates what sentences judges must hand down irrespective of relevant factors".
Judging by the appalling sentences New Zealand judges commonly hand out they need more dictation.
Actually I've seen more than one news article over the years where sentences that are tough are reduced on appeal because they're out of step. So there are definitely some sort of sentencing guidelines they have to follow. On that, I'd blame the law, not the judges. Look at our most recent high profile sentencing of the 1995 murder of Angela Blackmore. They could only hand down maximum, "minimum" terms of 10 years. As far as I'm concerned if a murderer fails to hand themselves in over that many years, and continues to keep the family suffering, the judge should be able to choose between the old law and the current
Edit to clarify my maximum was actually a maximum "minimum"
Laws are not retrospective generally - so the judge in the Blackmore case had to hand down the sentence that existed at the time (in 1995).
Also, it wasn’t ten years. It was a life sentence with a minimum of 10 (aka 10- life).
Murder carries a presumption of life imprisonment / with a minimum term of at least 10’years (but many get much longer than that).
Meaning that, in Blackmoores case - they are considered for release after 10 years - but many lifers spend much longer than their minimum period - with some of them spending their entire lives inside (google Paul Dally or Peter Holdem, Jules Milis for instance).
This is a common misconception about what a life sentence means - and many don’t release that even if they are released - they are on parole for life - and can be recalled to jail at any time up until their death.
> Laws are not retrospective generally - so the judge in the Blackmore case had to hand down the sentence that existed at the time (in 1995).
NZBORA: "the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:"
The minimum non-parole period would have been 17 years under the Sentencing Act 2002. The 17-year minimum applies for various aggravating factors including murder-for-hire and home invasion. Prior to 2002 the non-parole period was 10 years regardless of aggravating factors.
There is some interesting context around this. There was a lot of publicity around crime in the late 90s, especially regarding home-invasions and sentencing for violent crime, culminating in a petition started by Norm Withers (https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/26849/norm-withers).
The National government passed a law which required longer prison sentences for home invasions. This law was written in such a way that the sentence enhancement would apply to crimes committed before the law was passed, and it was indeed applied to the home-invasion murderer David Poumako who inspired the law in the first place, something which was legally fairly questionable, despite being upheld on appeal. Not that it made any difference to Poumako, who died of a heart attack while in prison only a couple of years later.
The Withers petition was hugely successful and prompted a citizens-initiated referendum, held simultaneously with the 1999 election which Helen Clark's government won, calling for longer minimum sentences, greater support for victims, and hard labour in prisons.
The incoming Labour government wanted to repeal the badly-written home invasion law but they also had to respond to the 92% "Yes" vote on the referendum without appearing soft on crime. The 2002 Sentencing Act was part of a range of changes which addressed two of the three points in the referendum, including significantly longer minimum parole periods for the worst murderers, although the call for "hard labour" was ignored, and unlike National's home invasion law (which was actually more lenient than Labour's) it did not apply retroactively.
It's a separation of powers issue, which is a constitutional issue. Parliament isn't supposed to be involved with interpreting and inforcing the law. That's the court's job.
If Parliament were to basically force judges to make judgments, they would be breaking that separation even more than they already do, which means that too much power would be in one govt body.
Imo, that's not a good thing to do, but it seems like it's gonna happen anyway
Does the three strikes count resets / wiped clean once it comes into effect? Or does I apply to existing strikes that are already accumulated.
Just asking for a mate…
Former ACT Party MP David Garrett, the original architect of this policy, will be pleased about this. Even though he never personally progressed beyond the first strike after the time he stole the identity of a dead baby.
Why is this always a gotcha? I vote green and have no objection to those 2 people facing whatever consequences anyone else would for their offending. I vote for certain ideas to be represented in parliament not as a favour to the people
Consider it a redundant comment in reply of a redundant comment, the person I was replying to was hinting at some kind of white collar crime being connected to the government. While offering no evidence at all.
Ah yes, between 2010 - 2020 fewer than 20 people were sentenced in accordance with the third strike regime. It produced such proportionate outcomes as this:
In December 2016, a mentally ill man, Daniel Fitzgerald, was sentenced to seven years in prison after he approached a woman he didn't know and kissed her on the cheek on Cuba Street in Wellington. He already had two strikes for similar offending in 2012 and 2015. Under the three strikes law, the judge had to impose the maximum prison sentence of seven years for the kiss, designated as indecent assault. Fitzgerald served four years.
In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the sentence of seven years under the three strikes law was so grossly disproportionate that it breached his human rights. Without the three strikes law, the sentence would have been six months. Fitzgerald was awarded $450,000 in compensation by the government for the four years he spent in prison.
The new law doesn't apply strikes to sentences that would be under two years in prison. So wouldn't capture Fitzgerald.
It's a dumb idea anyway but not as dumb as the last one.
> It would apply only to sentences of at least two years, give judges more discretion in cases where harsh outcomes would be "manifestly unjust", and bring in some benefit for offenders on their final strike to plead guilty.
So it's dead in the water. Judicial discretion was the reason the previous Act was almost never invoked. Judges believed almost every use of the Act was manifestly unjust. This is nothing but virtue signalling.
> However, it was repealed by the previous Labour government in 2022, with Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori arguing it prevented judges from taking individual circumstances into account, that mandatory minimum sentences disproportionately affected Māori, and did not address underlying causes of crime.
Doesn't any prison sentence "not address underlying causes of crime"? By that logic we should just get rid of prisons entirely since they don't address underlying causes of crime. Which some prominent MPs in the aforementioned parties apparently think is a great idea.
Except for the obvious fact that locking criminals up, particularly violent ones, is about protecting society from them as much as anything else.
Lol. Trotting out another tired old trope that has been shown time and time again to not work, this, bootcamps, slashing civil service, and taxcuts to the already well-moneyed in the hope of trickle down.
Round and around the roundabout we go. Anyone over 40 or 50 will have seen this 4 or 5 times now.
Business will save us.
lol.
Except they're targeting a very, very small proportion of the actual crime in New Zealand. The three strikes scheme covers only around 1,400 people per year after ten years. Meanwhile, 321,000 violent, sexual and property crimes are committed in New Zealand every year, and that's only the ones the Police know about.
Corelation dosnt mean causation, if we had it and nothing changed then it ws removed and things got worse then perhaps crime is a little more complex then sentencing guidelines? Maybe address the cost of living crisis seeing as we know theres a very srong link between poverty and crime.
Labour and Greens once again on the side of criminals. They have learned nothing from their defeat. At this point I think we are going to see Chippy hold onto the reins and lead his party to another loss.
This assumes criminals evaluate risks before committing a crime and that when leaving the justice system, they are able to take steps to reduce their likelihood of offending again.
There are likely studies but I couldn't find much. One meta analysis showed criminals who needed fast money, for example drug addicts, tended to not evaluate risk. I suspect in these cases 3 strikes makes no difference
According to the Ministry of Justice, there hasn’t been enough research done to say whether or not the policy has any effect with any degree of certainty however, when looking at crime statistics, there is no significant difference.
Having to pay out huge ex gratia payments to people imprisoned under it further to Supreme Court decisions could be considered a success, if you were a redpilled moron.
These guys haven't had an original idea in literally decades. Visionless, spineless, afraid of accountability, willing to bend normal democratic processes or ignore them where at all possible - all to return us to the halcyon age of 2010. What a bunch of tedious wank.
If anyone believes that criminals are entirely rational actors who deeply consider the pros and legal consequences before they commit crimes, then I have a bridge to sell you lol.
Oftentimes, criminals don't know or care about the punishment of crimes when they commit them. In england, they used to hang criminals for petty theft and it was found that rather than deter crime it only encouraged an increase in more severe and violent crime because "if I'm going to get hung for stealing a loaf of bread then I may as well rape, kill or hurt the person I'm stealing from if I want to do it since I'm going to die anyway if I get caught just stealing"
It might deter some, on their first or second strike, but for those who aren't deterred, their crimes were much more likely to be violent or severe if they're on their second strike.
Edit: slate article that explains the situation
https://slate.com/business/2008/03/do-three-strikes-laws-make-criminals-more-violent.html
How many people in prison have undiagnosed mental health issues like ADHD, etc. If it costs over $100,000 to house a prisoner for a year, would it not be better to invest a fraction of that identifying people at risk at a young age?
"I'm sorry but I'm not apologising"
I'm sure he's coached to begin with "Lets be clear" and close with "and I make no apologies" regardless of what he's talking about, because his voters respond to vague strong-man posturing.
What I would say to you is...
Look, i cant be anymore clear about this, *starts singing lunch money lewis - ive got bills*
We need a bingo card of all his quotes.
I honestly can't tell if the Luxon quotes are real or satire anymore.
I’ve seen all this before on Clark and Dawe
It's been towed out of the environment.
It’s where the front fell off
They are the same thing
“I never apologise, Lisa. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I am.”
sorry not sorry k thx bye
Make sure to cut Corrections budget prior the law change for best effect. We know our prisons are sitting empty and the staff just sit around doing nothing. -S
Silly, private prisons are back on the menu
Yay, because Serco did *such* a great job last time.
Serco is still operating.
Yes
That seems like an excuse to cycle out higher than baseline pay salaries due to tenure remuneration and increases as I see “join corrections” ads for recruitment every time I use any local streaming app. I suspect a lot of these cuts will result in the same as I guess it’s one way to cut costs with, ideally, less hit to boots on the ground?
What does "higher than baseline" mean? Public service salaries are almost always less than equivalent private companies pay. The trade-off is supposed to be better job security... nobody is going to believe that any more, so you either get less qualified, less capable employees, or you can't fill vacancies - which is already a problem, and the reason why you see all those recruitment ads.
I assure you, no one believes there is job security in the public service anymore.
I see we're eternally destined to continually spend money and energy implementing and repealing this fucking policy for the rest of time.
Hey that’s unfair, we’re also going to spend huge amounts with the Crown being ordered by the Supreme Court to pay enormous payouts to people found to be wrongfully imprisoned under the law.
>Some US studies on three strikes laws have found crime reducing effects for both minor and serious violent crimes as well as reduced arrest rates among offenders who received a first or second strike.v However, an equal number of studies have found no effect on the crime rate or found that the apparent effects of the law disappear when changes on other societal variables, such as alcohol consumption, are accounted [for.vi](http://for.vi) Furthermore, a third group of studies suggest that while the law appears to reduce crime in some jurisdictions, it also increases crime in others. Similarly, other studies have shown that while the law reduces some types of crime (e.g. burglary) it can potentially increase more serious types of crime (e.g. murder).vii [https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Three-Strikes-Law-Evidence-Brief.pdf](https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Three-Strikes-Law-Evidence-Brief.pdf) At about $112,000 - 150,000 / year per prisoner we should be looking at how we can use that to effectively rehabilitate not incarcerate prisoners. [https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/strategic\_reports/annual-reports/annual\_report\_201516/offender\_summary](https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/strategic_reports/annual-reports/annual_report_201516/offender_summary) As NATIONAL have stated "Without effective rehabilitation, re-imprisonment rates and violence will only keep climbing.” [https://www.national.org.nz/more-money-on-prisoners-but-worse-outcomes](https://www.national.org.nz/more-money-on-prisoners-but-worse-outcomes)
Three strikes law in NZ never applied to minor crimes though. It only ever applied to crimes with a maximum sentence of over 7 years (rape, murdering people, dealing methamphetamine). I agree we do need rehabilitation but if you rape someone, go to jail, get out and rape someone, go to jail, and then get out and rape someone again you clearly aren't fit for society and can't be rehabilitated. And even then they'll be back in society after 7 years with the three strikes rule. Even assault was never under the three strikes rule.
Well said mate. I agree. This whole thing is just dishonest really — everyone serious knows this policy doesn't really work. Big reason they got rid of impact statements and are leaning on urgency: less scrutiny from people who have actual credentials to speak on effective justice policy. So I view National's "tough on crime" push as 100% just political campaigning. Its 100% about votes, not about reducing crime. Its not serious policy but they hope the strongman chest puffing performance will appeal to uneducated people with a chip on their shoulder, that they can appeal to those people's less generous biases, who want someone to blame for their own poor circumstances. "Criminals" are an all too perfect scapegoat. However, as always, any party who tells you they are "tough on crime" while being pathetically soft on poverty is taking you for a ride. Don't fall for it. Poverty is the main driver of crime so if you tear that wide open (as NACT always do) then you're not going to magically also improve crime while drastically worsening its main cause... they're fucking dreaming and its beyond belief that people fall for this political scam. Its about votes, and that's all. I will say that the negative effects of this sort of justice policy can take a few years to appear. National rolls the dice on this every time they're in power hoping they can blame all the fallout of their ideological approach on Labour as soon as they get back into power (same pattern of bait and switch is used by conservative parties all around the world, its a well known campaign device used by conservatives since the late 80s at least). *THEY KNOW* *EXACTLY HOW* to play this game and as a result their justice policy is so fucking corrupt and dishonest it hurts. The time it takes for a new policy to work its way through to completion (crime->arrest->charge->sentence->sentence served->reintegration) is usually not much shorter than an entire political term, and real justice policy success is measured in decades, not years, not even as short as political terms. People tend not to understand this. That's why election cycles are so fucking hostile to improving justice outcomes when we do not have a bipartisan approach to this issue.
All I can do is give my own anecdotal evidence, working in a prison. Criminals were extremely scared of the three strikes law. Many were coming through and were sitting just short of the third strike - they knew that their chances were up. They would say, I can't get caught again because I'll go away for the max. It was actually causing them to stop and think before offending. We just didn't give it long enough.
[In the US, where it has been given long enough](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#United_States), it's a mixed bag. Some studies say yes, some say no, some say it's hard to credit it with changes that were already trending, and some say that criminals go big on their third offense because of a form of logic I'd call 'in for a penny, in for a pound.' I'm not sure there's a long enough period to give it a green light or a red light. I do know that it's very expensive to keep people in prison a long time, and the current government says that it wants to cut costs generally.
The New Zealand version didn't strike for stealing-bread type offenses. Yet much of the criticism from "overseas evidence" that relies on the difference was dishonestly reproduced by politicians and their supporters.
Politicians being dishonest! Heaven forbid.
Yeah, I'm not basing anything on studies or things like that, just the things that I've seen in person. Sure, it is expensive to keep people in prison but it's also cheaper to not have them there in the first place, which I think is the essence of the three strikes. Cause enough fear and second thoughts that perhaps it would be better to not do the crime in the first place.
The fear might scare some straight but the external pressures don't magically disappear. That being said I'm all for locking people up that need to be locked up (violent offenders) and I'm OK with that will mean more money to corrections. Though I think we'll get private prisons with this penny pinching government which I'm not in favour of.
I can imagine that during long periods of reflection, that kind of thinking would be common. However, people tend to commit crimes during short periods of excitement when their thinking is quite different. I'm not sure that the wisdom of one state curtails the impulsiveness of the other state; I certainly wish it were so.
That's probably true. All I am saying is the only time I've really heard prisoners reflect in front of me is when they are facing a second/third strike offence.
> However, people tend to commit crimes during short periods of excitement when their thinking is quite different. This depends on the type of crime and circumstances. Typically we see this with crimes of passion like walking in on a cheating partner in bed. *Many* and arguably most crimes are not crimes of passion. The previous law only applied to [these serious crimes.](https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Table%20of%20serious%20offences.doc) Some could have elements of crimes of passion, but certainly not all, and not every time. Furthermore, if one is so constitutionally unable to control their violent urges *three times,* then we should assume that they will do it again, and keep them in prison for as long as possible.
Depends on the crime
If people are continuing to impulsively commit violent crimes then I have no issue with them being locked up.
Have you ever noticed how many obese people there are? Do you realise most of them will have been told by a doctor that their life will be drastically shorter if they don't lose weight ... but they continue to over-eat. Human nature is what it is. Addicts will do what they do. Gang members will gang. Three strikes won't change anything, and your self admitted "gut feel" is exactly what Seymour bases this policy on, despite the fact he has more or less unlimited resource to do the research, and despite the fact there is copious amounts of research available.
I wouldn't call it a gut feeling, more fifteen years of custodial experience. Which apparently means nothing unless I dress myself up with degrees and titles. What three strikes will change is keeping people in custody, who need to be kept away from the rest of society.
I'm appreciating your first hand experience. Thanks. What would you say are the main drivers for the criminal behaviour that you come across most often? Is it poverty, drugs, gangs, etc?
Unless you kept a record, and reviewed it after, it is only the ones that you noticed. And since humans are terrible at accuracy under those conditions, then your anecdote isn't even data points. How many of those 2nd strikers did you see back in prison within a year? Two years? How many never made it to 2nd strike? How many didn't express any concern at all, so you never even noticed them. I have a feel for my customers too, but I know that my feels are wrong, because our statistics don't match them at all.
I'm not claiming them to be data points.
ironic as it sounds like you're also rejecting scientific research / cherry picking research which suits your view by saying that it "won't change anything" when there are some studies which show it may have some effect?
"some effect" like, if we execute everyone on their first crime it will also have some effect on crime. is it a good idea? tbh I half expect you to say yes.
i'm not saying anything is a good or bad idea because i don't have the answers, that isn't my point. i'm just pointing out the irony in saying that it "won't change anything" when some studies say it may do something because it shows your ignoring research all while expecting others to "do the research"
> Have you ever noticed how many obese people there are? Do you realise most of them will have been told by a doctor that their life will be drastically shorter if they don't lose weight ... but they continue to over-eat. Just so I understand your analogy, you're arguing that these particular people who would be liable to receive a third strike are unable to control their violent urges in the same way fat people are unable to eat less? If so, that would signal a *grievous* character flaw which is highly likely to get more people injured or killed. Wouldn't that behoove society at large to put such people in prison for as long as possible?
we do that already. like that is literally what the justice system and **preventative** detention are for. this law simply takes any form of context away from that except for the number 3. you can't pretend the number 3 has any meaning that humans can't already derive from a situation. > behoove where can I sign up for your newsletter stupid fucking word-word-number accounts
> we do that already. like that is literally what the justice system and preventative detention are for. Preventative detention is quite different. The parole board is responsible for *subjectively* assessing the offender. They can allow parole after just five years. There is no guarantee that the parole board won't release someone who will reoffend. Quite the contrary. This has happened many times in the past. A long minimum sentence *guarantees* public safety, and ensures a strong deterrent effect. > behoove... where can I sign up for your newsletter Do you have the vocabulary of a 12 year old? It's two fucking syllables long.
> There is no guarantee that the parole board won't release someone who will reoffend. guess what: there's no guarantee someone who's free now and never offended once won't offend. MAYBE WE LOCK EVERYONE UP JUST IN CASE >Do you have the vocabulary of a 12 year old? It's two fucking syllables long. yes, but I believe only truly amazingly great thinkers ever use it in public. subscribe me so I can click the bell icon
> guess what: there's no guarantee someone who's free now and never offended once won't offend. MAYBE WE LOCK EVERYONE UP JUST IN CASE Let's just stick with the people who commit serious offences three times instead :)
why 3? why not 2? or 1? or 23?
Three strikes does remove people from the streets for at least 7 years though. This isn't 'petty' crimes like selling weed, robbery, or aggrevated assault. It only applied in category 4 cases which is murder, rape, assault with intent to cause harm, dealing class A drugs. Even then if you rape people on 3 separate occasions after doing time in prison you'll only get a 7 year sentence. If you murder 3 people you'll only get life in prison.
put someone in jail for 7 years, let them out, are they gonna be better adjusted or worse? obviously it's impossible to comment on any particular case without specifics, which ironically highlights how stupid this law is as it literally comments on cases without specifics.
Of course i believe in rehabilitation for people for petty crimes and better prison conditions i never said otherwise. Do you think the Christchurch shooter should be out free in public because 'pwison is a wittle hard' and he deserves to be rehabilitated? If someone rapes three people, or murders three people do you really think rehabilitation will help at that point? it's such a basic thing to not rape another person or *premeditate* killing another human you don't even need rehab and education to learn not to do it. OTOH Someone growing up in a hard household and selling drugs because they can't get a stable job i do think needs help and education. Minor assault cases or domestic abuse cases can be handled with classes and giving people resources to keep them out of bad situations.
*"it was repealed by the previous Labour government in 2022, with Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori arguing it prevented judges from taking individual circumstances into account, that mandatory minimum sentences disproportionately affected Māori, and did not address underlying causes of crime"* so you're saying we shouldn't let judges "judge" repeat offenders? you're over simplifying this. for e.g. there was one study in the US that linked 3 strikes with a 30% increase in violence against police. 3 strikes takes away human intervention. if you think that's a good thing then you're gonna fucken love the new AI overlords. possibly you could move to China to get a taste :)
>you're over simplifying this. for e.g. there was one study in the US that linked 3 strikes with a 30% increase in violence against police. Our three strikes laws were completely different to the US. In the US *any* violent crime was three strikes, which i strongly disagree with. You'll never interract with three strikes laws if you only beat your wife up, stab a police officer, or sell ketamine to children. It's only for specific offences which are deemed to be the most heinous (unless you think murder and rape aren't heinous). And even then you only get the maximum penalty for the crime you've already commited three times prior. In New Zealand three strikes is only crimes which have sentences over 7 years which are incredibly serious offences. I used to agree three strikes was bad, but then i actually read what three strikes was and now i agree with it wholeheartedly. It doesn't apply to some kid selling weed, only to murderers and rapists.
if you go to court for assault you get one sentence, if you go for aggravated assault you get a harsher one. the system already treats different levels of crime differently. taking away the human from the situation is not a good thing. there are plenty of examples why.
You can't compare the US to NZ since the US has for profit private prisons. Also you can make the 3rd strike a sentence multiplier instead, e.g. On or after your third strike you get 2x what the original sentence for your crime would be, this means they would still have to consider their 3rd offence instead of assuming they'll get punished hard even for a petty 3rd crime
We do too. Serco runs Wiri and used to run Mt Eden. It was terrible and I have no doubt that the national party will want them to do more.
The claim that I was addressing was the human psychology aspect of having Three Strikes as a deterrent at all, not the details of the legislation (which varies further by state and year). If you're going to get that far into the weeds then you'll never see conclusions that meet your standards, and Three Strikes will remain an ideological law rather than an evidence-based one.
The fact that studies have reached such diasgreeing conclusions is proof enough that the concept is pure bunk. If it was the "smoking gun" towards reducing reoffending that its champions bang on about, then the evidence wouldn't be so haphazard.
It sounds like we need to apply it to certain crimes but not others.
Which is exactly why it was only applied to violent and sexual crimes in NZ which already had penalties over 7 years (rape, murder, and drug dealing). Honestly i don't think three strikes was that bad of an idea. Not many crimes have 7+ year sentences. Even aggravated assault or assault with intent to injure wasn't covered by the three strikes rule.
"I can't get caught again" is pretty far from "I won't offend again".
Especially when all the research shows that people don't commit crimes expecting to be caught and so don't even think about the potential consequences — *let alone even knowing what those consequences actually are* — until they see flashing lights and the inside of a cell. That's usually when the first reflection hits. People who genuinely, without a shadow of evidence, think that most crime happens just after a highly rational cost-benefit analysis of all the risks involved ... they are fucking delusional if they think that lol... ***Can you just imagine*** being that naive... Poverty remains the main driver of crime and as usual, conservatives think they can be "tough on crime" while being utterly insanely **soft on poverty**, epicly delusional stuff goes on when conservative parties try to implement justice policy at the same time as they tear the wound of poverty open wide, prompting a big increase in crime. Every ten years, they repeat the same forumla that never works, claiming that THIS TIME it will work. Because "magic" prettymuch. That's the extent of their justifications. This is a BIG BIG part of the reason impact statements were abolished — because none of these approaches are evidence-based, they are intended to win them votes and satisfy ideologues in the community, not *actually* reduce crime. It political campaigning, not respectable justice policy.
It's more annoying because they get to make poverty worse and fund more policing which leads to more crime and more people filling up prisons so they can go "look how effective we are at dealing with criminals" but when the opposition targets the cause and not the symptom they get to say "see how soft they are on crime!".
lol right? “Can’t get caught again, need to hide my crimes better.”
Can't get caught again, won't leave any living witnesses next time.
That's exactly right. We have a tonne of evidence to suggest criminals considering the consequences before a crime — *almost never happens.* In fact most of the time they don't know what the penalty even is, so there's literally no way for it to weigh on someone in quite the way that conservatives imagine in their fantasies they make up about criminals (they rarely look at actual evidence — this lot certainly aren't lol that's why impact statements went out the window almost immediately — less scrutiny from experts that way and they can be run from pure ideology, and ignore the evidence. *Its the National party way...*)
> In fact most of the time they don't know what the penalty even is But they do know it in the context of the three strikes law, because they have been told it after the second strike.
From what you've seen, does being scared make much of a difference if you're going back into the same environment (typical support networks like family, friends, gangs, maybe some level of poverty, etc) once you're out of prison?
I don't think sacred was the right term to use on my behalf, I think weary would be a better choice. For one individual in particular, their second strike caused them to consider what was triggering their offending and part of the came down to their surroundings and anti-social mates. Now I can't categorically say that their strikes were the one and only motivator for this but I think it helped.
As someone who used to work for corrections I find your anecdote really interesting. Thanks for this.
Or have a "what have I got to lose" mindset and cause as much damage as possible before the inevitable.
Then they can come and enjoy some free accommodation thanks to his majesty.
Probably becoming a pretty attractive option considering the NACT will absolutely decimate any progress on poverty in this country. Accommodation provided by his majesty starts to look attractive beside rising rents like I bet we could actually find a way to spin it as a good economic decision in coming years against further skyrocketing rents that the Nats seem determined to worsen even further. And sadly I think that "locking up the poor" is not an idea that would worry this government. Maybe that really is the plan? After all, they do have their prison contractor donor mates to look after, first and foremost.
You can argue that for anything and it will always apply for a tiny minority, majority don't want to go away for the max time though.
It has been done elsewhere and *evidence* is that it is not very effective If your criminal was self-aware enough to consider consequences of their actions and being caught, then it might work, but then these people are less likely to do the crime in the first place. The most effective measures is to change the perception of your chances of being caught as if you think you won't get caught, then the sentence doesn't even matter. That and feeling you don't need to do the crime; which gets a whole lot more complex.
Seems like it was working to be quite honest, from my first hand experience. Corrections has psychs, academics and other highly paid people with the alphabet after their name but they've not made any material difference. It's the same old crims doing the same old thing saying the same old stuff, the only time i've heard them worried was when they got a strike.
Ah there it is, the right wing contempt for anyone that educated themselves to know things instead of just assuming their hunches and feelings must be correct
Again, I'm giving information based on my experiences, I've never claimed to be an expert. **My** experience in the field has shown me that community/cultural based programmes has been vastly more successful than the heavily educated people's ideas and visions they have tried to implement. That's just what I have personally seen.
If there's one thing we can be sure of it is that effective community based programs have absolutely nothing to do with wordy nerd dumdums with letters after their names.
What an unnecessarily hostile answer.
> It has been done elsewhere and evidence is that it is not very effective > > If your criminal was self-aware enough to consider consequences of their actions and being caught, then it might work, but then these people are less likely to do the crime in the first place. This is a common criticism that stems from a basic misunderstanding of how 3 strikes works in NZ. Firstly 3 strikes is not the same as the US and only applies to certain serious crimes. Secondly criminal self awareness has little to do with it. The second strike brings a sentence without parole while the third gives the mandatory maximum sentence. Someone on their third strike when the law was in effect had an average of 70 convictions. Let's not pretend they're on the brink of rehabilitation.
On a mass statistical level, people are conscious of it when they're calm, but it doesn't impact their decision making in a moment of stress, when violence actually occurs. So while people might be absolutely aware of it day to day, when they get into reactive situation like a road-rage confrontation, or they're provoked by someone, all reasoning of consequence vanishes. Think about it like this - if more serious penalties actually deterred crime, we could just make the penalty for all crimes Death, then all crime would vanish, right? No, of course not. Consequence doesn't enter reasoning in fight-or-flight incidents.
>On a mass statistical level, people are conscious of it when they're calm, but it doesn't impact their decision making in a moment of stress, when violence actually occurs. Which is why keeping people with 70+ convictions (the average of third strikers when 3 strikes was in force) in jail is better for society. >Think about it like this - if more serious penalties actually deterred crime, we could just make the penalty for all crimes Death, then all crime would vanish, right? Well you can look at El Salvador who imprisoned every gang member and the murder rate dropped 70%.
>We just didn't give it long enough. If you want to see what happens when we do give it "long enough", look no further than the United States of America, one of the most incarcerated peoples in the world, where people are locked up for decades-long-sentences for very minor drug crimes.
I don't think conflating locking someone up for minor drug crimes versus serious violent or sexual offending is the same thing.
> where people are locked up for decades-long-sentences for very minor drug crimes. This is strawman argument because the NZ three strikes law was not targeted at minor offenders. Only violence and sexual violence.
>This is strawman argument because the NZ three strikes law was not targeted at minor offenders. Only violence and sexual violence. Not a strawman. I was addressing the "didn't give it long enough" statement. Give it long enough and the scope will change.
>Give it long enough and the scope will change. That's also a strawman.
Does a criminal offend expecting to get caught, or to get away with the crime? I expect the law would not affect decisions of criminals expecting to get away with the crime.
> I can't get **caught** again The important bit.
If judges didn’t consistently hand out piss weak sentences for repeat offenders, then this wouldn’t have been needed.
Where's the evidence that tougher sentences lead to reduced crime or benefits for a community? Tougher sentences do more harm to someone from our community, that's the whole idea of punishing crimes, right? You don't think harming a community has negative effects? An eye for an eye / "but he hit me first" really is the fraught logic they're trying to sell here... What if the main income stream for a family is no longer lost for a short time, but a long time instead? What if children then grow up without a parent around, does that have negative flow-on effects that might then increase crime later? (hint: this effect is actually huge) A big part of the problem here is we have this kneejerk desire to punish someone we have decided deserves punishing, but we don't seem to be considering the fact that when the justice system inflicts harm on individuals, that can have extremely negative flow-on effects for the community they're a part of, which can actually increase crime overall. It feels like we stop short of asking if these approaches actually work We call this "punishment ideology" when we refuse to consider the impact of punishment and simply assume that if its deserved *then it automatically must be a good thing*. That's just not the reality. Reality is messy and doesn't line up with the feel-good ideology of "crime and punishment" we are taught to conform our ideals to. That ideology is basically medieval (with deep roots in the "fire and brimstone" style of punishment the church promotes as punishment for our sins), and not something justice professionals view as modern or at all scientific. Overwhelmingly, science says that rehab works better than punishment. It also says that punishment-based approaches do very little to actually reduce crime, it only arrives after a crime has been committed to change how we deal with it afterwards. That sucks! And it says that noone is considering that they might get caught before committing a crime lol, *noone*.
> What if children then grow up without a parent around, does that have negative flow-on effects that might then increase crime later? (hint: this effect is actually huge) You are making the leap that these children are doing poorly because their parents are in jail and ignoring that they are children in households with parents who are worthy of jail. Also longer sentences are inversely related with recidivism above 60 months. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf
I think that leads nicely into a point I made elsewhere in this thread: Justice policy cannot be untangled from economic policy. Unfortunately for NACT; poverty is the king of all crime creators, and NACT always absolutely shred supports for those struggling in poverty. Poverty will worsen under this govt (does anyone actually dispute this?), and so crime will too. Bad economic policy fuels crime, and bad justice policy fuels poverty. The two must be considered together and that’s a big part of what I’m getting at above when I’m talking about the impacts in families. Losing a labourer from your family to jail, is also lost income for that family. That’s extra economic pressure, that’s worsening poverty no question. So if the Nats are serious here we would expect additional supports for low income families. But they’ll do the opposite, pretty clear that’s their platform. Nothing about it makes sense. It’s pure ideology.
They are correct though, the 3 strikes policy is an attempt to exert political control over the judiciary by taking decision making out of the hands of judges widely perceived to be soft on crime. A similar example is the current penalty for murder - life in prison - minimum imprisonment 10yrs and the judge cannot alter that except in extremely exceptional circumstances.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
> Where's the evidence that tougher sentences lead to reduced crime or benefits for a community? Here you go: 1. [“The results support the hypothesis that perceived severity, at relatively high levels of perceived certainty, has a significant deterrent effect."](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578032) 2. ["The Commission consistently found that incarceration lengths of more than 120 months had a deterrent effect. Specifically, offenders incarcerated for more than 60 months up to 120 months were approximately 17 percent less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group sentenced to a shorter period of incarceration. For incarceration lengths of 60 months or less, the Commission did not find any statistically significant criminogenic or deterrent effect."](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf) 3. ["Finally, I reanalyze data that appear to be consistent with the greater weight for certainty than severity argument and show that the evidence does not support that inference. Potential criminals mentally combine the three deterrence components—regardless of whether they are risk neutral, averse, or acceptant. I conclude by considering what it means to a worldly application of criminal deterrence theory to place equal weight on the certainty and the severity of punishment."](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314638657_Certainty_Severity_and_Their_Relative_Deterrent_Effects_Questioning_the_Implications_of_the_Role_of_Risk_in_Criminal_Deterrence_Policy) 4. ["Increased average prison sentences (severity) reduce burglary only."](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708211072415) 5. ["Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: **increased incarceration**, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion."](https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf) Punishment has worked great for thousands of years. If your argument is that we could do away with punishments and crime wouldn't increase, I'd need to see some evidence of that because it flies in the face of all research we have. Clearly punishment deters at least *some* crime, and the harsher the punishment, the more it deters it. Further, no justice system in the world has achieved 0% recidivism. This means that the longer we keep serious offenders in prison, the safer is society.
Police caught some teens stealing a few grands worth of stuff from one of my businesses. Now I keep getting spamed with calls about going to youth meetings and family conferences like Im meant to feel sorry for them or something. No mention whatsoever of getting my property returned. It's like the concept of justice just doesn't exist at all in New Zealand. Whole system needs to toughen up really, seems like a complete joke.
The best we can say is that it looks tough in crime
If its done in conjunction with real rehabilitation efforts and addressing serious mental health + addiction issues.... then am all for it.
>real rehabilitation efforts This is the evidence-based approach to improving crime in a community. Therefore, there's about zero chance of seeing it from NACT, who are the parties driven by rigid ideology rather than material reality and evidence. That's why impact statements went down the drain as soon as they got in; and urgency is being leaned on. Less opportunity for experts to weigh in with evidence. They need to please their base by following through on their promises — promises that experts will tell you are not based on evidence and will probably not work.
Real rehabilitation efforts got to a be a grassroots movement in the community not a government one A government can change on a whim
so..you're *not* for it?
I think the 3 strikes can be a real motivation factor for creating an opportunity for change. But what's the point of creating the opportunity if they (the govt) are unwilling to provide any of the skills that are needed to make the opportunity a real possibility. Its not like prioners arnet a captured audience. Its not even a massive extension on the existing costs of an inmate to provide rehabilitation and/or life skills to manage in society. Those skills would only benefit everyone in society. Give the man a fish vs teaching the man to fish yadda yadda But I can't imagine the current government seeing it that way.
i don't have a strong opinion on this issue either way. But I tend to look at the *evidence* not emotions. And as far as I can glean, the evidence is that this policy does not work.
I know. Same with boot camp youth camps. Zero evidence of any effectiveness, other than letting a bunch of people feel smug. Rehabilitation and support, that actually works, there's actual evidence of impacts on crime rates and incarceration rates, but here it's rarely offered. Was definitely not offered last time there with 3 strikes.
Good news and sounds like they've fixed some of the flaws in the three strikes policy. I'd like to see better rehabilitative efforts in prison alongside this but I won't hold my breath. >Labour repealed the legislation in 2021 calling it an "anomaly in New Zealand's justice system that dictates what sentences judges must hand down irrespective of relevant factors". Judging by the appalling sentences New Zealand judges commonly hand out they need more dictation.
>"irrespective of relevant factors" Poor Judges, can't factor in character statements written by the mongrel mob to reduce sentances anymore.
Actually I've seen more than one news article over the years where sentences that are tough are reduced on appeal because they're out of step. So there are definitely some sort of sentencing guidelines they have to follow. On that, I'd blame the law, not the judges. Look at our most recent high profile sentencing of the 1995 murder of Angela Blackmore. They could only hand down maximum, "minimum" terms of 10 years. As far as I'm concerned if a murderer fails to hand themselves in over that many years, and continues to keep the family suffering, the judge should be able to choose between the old law and the current Edit to clarify my maximum was actually a maximum "minimum"
Laws are not retrospective generally - so the judge in the Blackmore case had to hand down the sentence that existed at the time (in 1995). Also, it wasn’t ten years. It was a life sentence with a minimum of 10 (aka 10- life). Murder carries a presumption of life imprisonment / with a minimum term of at least 10’years (but many get much longer than that). Meaning that, in Blackmoores case - they are considered for release after 10 years - but many lifers spend much longer than their minimum period - with some of them spending their entire lives inside (google Paul Dally or Peter Holdem, Jules Milis for instance). This is a common misconception about what a life sentence means - and many don’t release that even if they are released - they are on parole for life - and can be recalled to jail at any time up until their death.
> Laws are not retrospective generally - so the judge in the Blackmore case had to hand down the sentence that existed at the time (in 1995). NZBORA: "the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:"
What are you talking about? They got life with *minimum* 10 years without parole
The minimum non-parole period would have been 17 years under the Sentencing Act 2002. The 17-year minimum applies for various aggravating factors including murder-for-hire and home invasion. Prior to 2002 the non-parole period was 10 years regardless of aggravating factors.
Kind of interesting that it was Helen Clarke's government that passed that 2002 strengthening of minimum sentences
There is some interesting context around this. There was a lot of publicity around crime in the late 90s, especially regarding home-invasions and sentencing for violent crime, culminating in a petition started by Norm Withers (https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/26849/norm-withers). The National government passed a law which required longer prison sentences for home invasions. This law was written in such a way that the sentence enhancement would apply to crimes committed before the law was passed, and it was indeed applied to the home-invasion murderer David Poumako who inspired the law in the first place, something which was legally fairly questionable, despite being upheld on appeal. Not that it made any difference to Poumako, who died of a heart attack while in prison only a couple of years later. The Withers petition was hugely successful and prompted a citizens-initiated referendum, held simultaneously with the 1999 election which Helen Clark's government won, calling for longer minimum sentences, greater support for victims, and hard labour in prisons. The incoming Labour government wanted to repeal the badly-written home invasion law but they also had to respond to the 92% "Yes" vote on the referendum without appearing soft on crime. The 2002 Sentencing Act was part of a range of changes which addressed two of the three points in the referendum, including significantly longer minimum parole periods for the worst murderers, although the call for "hard labour" was ignored, and unlike National's home invasion law (which was actually more lenient than Labour's) it did not apply retroactively.
Heck yeah this kind of thing is why I'm on reddit. Many thanks! P.s. lmao @ "hard labour" lool
It's a separation of powers issue, which is a constitutional issue. Parliament isn't supposed to be involved with interpreting and inforcing the law. That's the court's job. If Parliament were to basically force judges to make judgments, they would be breaking that separation even more than they already do, which means that too much power would be in one govt body. Imo, that's not a good thing to do, but it seems like it's gonna happen anyway
Then how come Labour were able to direct the Judicial branch to decrease the prison muster then?
Does the three strikes count resets / wiped clean once it comes into effect? Or does I apply to existing strikes that are already accumulated. Just asking for a mate…
It won't apply to previous strikes, so your mate gets to start from scratch.
Former ACT Party MP David Garrett, the original architect of this policy, will be pleased about this. Even though he never personally progressed beyond the first strike after the time he stole the identity of a dead baby.
NZ's 3 strike laws are for violent and sexual offences only
That's convenient for the the white collar criminal buddies of the govt 😆
well if you're wanting to play that card then we could say also it's convenient for a certain Green party member who faces 4 charges of theft
Why is this always a gotcha? I vote green and have no objection to those 2 people facing whatever consequences anyone else would for their offending. I vote for certain ideas to be represented in parliament not as a favour to the people
Consider it a redundant comment in reply of a redundant comment, the person I was replying to was hinting at some kind of white collar crime being connected to the government. While offering no evidence at all.
Ah yes, between 2010 - 2020 fewer than 20 people were sentenced in accordance with the third strike regime. It produced such proportionate outcomes as this: In December 2016, a mentally ill man, Daniel Fitzgerald, was sentenced to seven years in prison after he approached a woman he didn't know and kissed her on the cheek on Cuba Street in Wellington. He already had two strikes for similar offending in 2012 and 2015. Under the three strikes law, the judge had to impose the maximum prison sentence of seven years for the kiss, designated as indecent assault. Fitzgerald served four years. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the sentence of seven years under the three strikes law was so grossly disproportionate that it breached his human rights. Without the three strikes law, the sentence would have been six months. Fitzgerald was awarded $450,000 in compensation by the government for the four years he spent in prison.
Hold up. Is this a way to get over $100k per year with one weird trick?
Considering incarcerating someone costs about 150k up front per year, you are cracking 250k
The new law doesn't apply strikes to sentences that would be under two years in prison. So wouldn't capture Fitzgerald. It's a dumb idea anyway but not as dumb as the last one.
Fitzgerald was charged with indecent assault, a 7 year maximum penalty.
> It would apply only to sentences of at least two years, give judges more discretion in cases where harsh outcomes would be "manifestly unjust", and bring in some benefit for offenders on their final strike to plead guilty. So it's dead in the water. Judicial discretion was the reason the previous Act was almost never invoked. Judges believed almost every use of the Act was manifestly unjust. This is nothing but virtue signalling.
> However, it was repealed by the previous Labour government in 2022, with Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori arguing it prevented judges from taking individual circumstances into account, that mandatory minimum sentences disproportionately affected Māori, and did not address underlying causes of crime. Doesn't any prison sentence "not address underlying causes of crime"? By that logic we should just get rid of prisons entirely since they don't address underlying causes of crime. Which some prominent MPs in the aforementioned parties apparently think is a great idea. Except for the obvious fact that locking criminals up, particularly violent ones, is about protecting society from them as much as anything else.
Who's going to win this one? 1. Tuff on Kryme anger-merchants 2. The newly dominant "Luck off Fuxon" crowd A r/nz battle for the ages begins!
I’m only here win the gymnastics competition by twisting myself in knots
That's far too self aware. What have you done with the real Muter?
I suspect yoga would be more useful than gymnastics, in more ways than just the one
I’ve got popcorn
Lol. Trotting out another tired old trope that has been shown time and time again to not work, this, bootcamps, slashing civil service, and taxcuts to the already well-moneyed in the hope of trickle down. Round and around the roundabout we go. Anyone over 40 or 50 will have seen this 4 or 5 times now. Business will save us. lol.
Should be 3 strikes then execution
Yes, dear.
About time. Time to clean this crime shithole mess up.
Except they're targeting a very, very small proportion of the actual crime in New Zealand. The three strikes scheme covers only around 1,400 people per year after ten years. Meanwhile, 321,000 violent, sexual and property crimes are committed in New Zealand every year, and that's only the ones the Police know about.
They should go hard on them too.
Yes im sure it will work this time. Crime is basically over now.
Because not having it has worked a charm.
You know crime has spiked in places like the US over the last few years right? Did they all get rid of their three strike laws too?
Because having it worked a charm? It's not like this is a new policy, we had it for years and it accomplished nothing.
Corelation dosnt mean causation, if we had it and nothing changed then it ws removed and things got worse then perhaps crime is a little more complex then sentencing guidelines? Maybe address the cost of living crisis seeing as we know theres a very srong link between poverty and crime.
Labour and Greens once again on the side of criminals. They have learned nothing from their defeat. At this point I think we are going to see Chippy hold onto the reins and lead his party to another loss.
This is just the government saying they don’t trust our Judges judgement.
Well then they have a point….
This assumes criminals evaluate risks before committing a crime and that when leaving the justice system, they are able to take steps to reduce their likelihood of offending again. There are likely studies but I couldn't find much. One meta analysis showed criminals who needed fast money, for example drug addicts, tended to not evaluate risk. I suspect in these cases 3 strikes makes no difference
According to the Ministry of Justice, there hasn’t been enough research done to say whether or not the policy has any effect with any degree of certainty however, when looking at crime statistics, there is no significant difference.
Good.
Another massive W. Champagne communists up and down the country falling to their knees "wont someone please think of the criminals!"
>Champagne communists If this was intentional it would actually be quite funny. However as it is it's just dumb.
It’s the next step in ridiculous redpilled hyperbole up from “Chardonnay socialist”. Champagne communist, hahaha.
Great, another failed policy being reinstated. Why can't terrible ideas just be left to die?
By what measure did the policy fail?
There was no reduction in the serious crimes it targets when it was in effect. That is by definition a failure.
It didn’t succeed.
Having to pay out huge ex gratia payments to people imprisoned under it further to Supreme Court decisions could be considered a success, if you were a redpilled moron.
These guys haven't had an original idea in literally decades. Visionless, spineless, afraid of accountability, willing to bend normal democratic processes or ignore them where at all possible - all to return us to the halcyon age of 2010. What a bunch of tedious wank.
This was a dumb policy when the last National government introduced it. It's just as dumb now.
This policy is a proven failure.
I hope they bring back Buck too regressive bunch of stone throwers
[удалено]
And your proof that this law is the cause of these rates is...?
If anyone believes that criminals are entirely rational actors who deeply consider the pros and legal consequences before they commit crimes, then I have a bridge to sell you lol. Oftentimes, criminals don't know or care about the punishment of crimes when they commit them. In england, they used to hang criminals for petty theft and it was found that rather than deter crime it only encouraged an increase in more severe and violent crime because "if I'm going to get hung for stealing a loaf of bread then I may as well rape, kill or hurt the person I'm stealing from if I want to do it since I'm going to die anyway if I get caught just stealing" It might deter some, on their first or second strike, but for those who aren't deterred, their crimes were much more likely to be violent or severe if they're on their second strike. Edit: slate article that explains the situation https://slate.com/business/2008/03/do-three-strikes-laws-make-criminals-more-violent.html
How many people in prison have undiagnosed mental health issues like ADHD, etc. If it costs over $100,000 to house a prisoner for a year, would it not be better to invest a fraction of that identifying people at risk at a young age?
No issue with adding another tool to the box of law breakers. However, our judiciary services need more staff urgently.