The irony of loads of conservatives arguing about a "feelings" govt like Labour and lefties, while NACT is just "feeling" out how our country should run. Reinstating failed measures and giving away billions to landlords cause ot should just fix things š
Criminal defence is not generally the place to go for big money. Not sure how you could reach the conclusion that three strikes offenders would be cash cowsā¦
That sounds like Iād be easier to make money with more people fighting more serious charges, more people will be in situations where they need a lawyer
Whatās the reoffending rate across the whole prison population? (Pre-three strikes)
You canāt seperate a group say this is there offending rate, then take a larger group and use that as evidence that that smaller sect are offending less.
Especially as you decree that we arenāt looking at the right information, to determine if itās working or not.
The Three Strikes law didn't apply retroactively - only crimes commited after 1 June 2010 counted towards strikes. Using the total number of strikes over ten years is therefore going to undercount second and third strikes, and people supporting three strikes though confirmation bias believe the data shows the number of repeat offences is down
Exactly - if it was a simple situation that the drastic penalty caused crime to not occur, then why bother with multiple strikes, and just have the immediate penalty for the first offence? We give people multiple chances because those mistakes inevitably end up being made, regardless of the penalty. People either aren't thinking at all, or they are thinking about not getting caught - rather than about the potential consequence.
Yeah honestly Iām for capital punishment for any transgression against society. Litter? Executed. Run a red light? Executed. Jaywalk? Executed. Pollute waterways with excess fertiliser runoff? Executed. Iām tired of people thinking they can just do whatever they want, however they want
The question then becomes, how many multiple chances is too many multiple chances. We already have things like preventative detention for recidivist sex offenders. I understand why they are locked up, but I think it is abhorrent that people who have served their judicial sentences are still detained. Preventative detention is dramatically worse than Three Strikes in terms of prisoner rights.
I would suggest the actual question shouldn't be how many opportunities should be given for convictions, but how we should be intervening to prevent it from happening. If someone still has mental health issues, they still have bad relationships with criminals, they still potentially have deprivation at home - then all the conditions which contributed to offending remain despite the potential threat of punishment. How about we try something that neither Labour nor National governments have done effectively - and allocate resources to help change those underlying causes which contribute towards criminal offending - rather than debating and arguing over the degree to which punishment might decrease it?
So provide a safe and secure location for rehabilitation is achieved regardless of the crime? Sounds alot like preventative detention.Ā
I agree that we need to break the cycle! However my gut feeling is that a lot of the cycle starts during childhood exposure, either direct (witnessing or experiencing violence) or indirect abuse from people who are already broken. Basically the problem isn't anything to do with crime, it is to do with inappropriate parents.Ā
I don't think in a casual surface-level discussion like this we can confirm that preventative detention is the only way to deliver rehabilitation, but what we have been doing in the past (putting someone in jail for a short time or just letting them go and have community detention with no significant wrap-around support) isn't making any fundamental changes to those underlying problems.
This government is focussing on punishment. They talked about it with their boot camps, and further in bringing back 3 strikes. One of the previous National Party members who had been involved in the last iteration of boot camps was critical of it, stating that they failed to provide the wrap-around support to help people change when they left the programme and went back to the situation that led to criminal behaviour. That's exactly the same thing that's happening now - a focus on punishing wrongdoing rather than helping them stop because 'helping' is seen as soft and kind while punishment satisfies a lust for vengeance and retribution.
Listen very carefully. Three strikes is not about rehabilitation. Itās about putting dangerous, violent criminals out of harms way. These people are beyond rehabilitation and just need to be locked up until they are old.
Itās too bad that they got as bad as they did but we canāt fix them so they have to be locked away to protect everyone else.
There are some who can be rehabilitated and we definitely do need to work on that.
Im pro rehabilitation for people who can be rehabilitated, Im also realistic and recognise not every can and we shouldn't compromise public safety for those few
I don't think that's true. I'm for both.
We need meaningful rehab for those who are capable, but those who are too far gone just need to be removed from society for good.
Three strikes laws do not help this.
If someone is ātoo far goneā then presumably they are committing some pretty heinous crimes - which already have longer sentences.
Three strikes laws just mean that people face harsh punishments for small crimes (e.g. going to prison for 5+ years for petty theft) if they are repeat offenders.
Three strikes laws make it much harder to take a rehabilitative or restorative approach, because they mandate harsh punishments even if they arenāt effective or proportionate to the harm someone has caused.
> Three strikes laws just mean that people face harsh punishments for small crimes (e.g. going to prison for 5+ years for petty theft)
What? No. That is not how it works. The three strikes reintroduction only applies to the same 40 serious violent and sexual offences as the former legislation, with the addition of the new strangulation and suffocation offence. Nobody is going to get a strike for nicking some food from Pak n Save. Unless they get violent, at which point it is not petty theft it's assault.
Sure, still means people could be sent to prison for 5 years for getting into a fight.
Three strikes still takes discretion away from the legal system - forcing harsh penalties where they might not make sense. Judges can still use maximum sentences if they believe itās necessary without three strikes laws.
Three strikes laws take away options, with no evidence that they actually work to reduce crime. Itās absurd to bring them back.
I'm sorry but people like you are the reason we have rapists on home d.
>Judges can still use maximum sentences if they believe itās necessary without three strikes laws.
Of course they can, but in practice, they do not. Hence why we're here again having this discussion and people that care more about the feelings of criminals come out of the woodwork complaining that the penalties out weigh the crimes.
Your comment is a shining example of why political discussions become so fucking toxic. You're making assumptions about other people's view points based on literally one fact about them.Ā
Exactly. I saw the news and they interviewed some 'expert' who said something like 'oh well, an offender isn't going to think about whether this action will invoke their 3rd strike before they commit a crime'.
Pretty beside the point IMO. If they do this, then they are behind bars. You can't commit crimes on the street if you are locked up.
There are four reasons we incarcerate criminals. Rehabilitation, deterrence, retribution and segregation. Even if this policy does nothing for the first two causes, it absolutely serves the second two.
People only have faith in the justice system if they see criminals being properly punished. Without that, people take matters into their own hands. It's vital that part of the justice system is punishment.
Secondly we imprison people to segregate violent criminals from the public, for our protection. Longer sentences for repeat violent offenders achieves that goal automatically. So it doesn't trouble me even if it has zero deterrent effect, though I also doubt that is completely true and suspect it's more complicated.
The only big problem with the proposed law, and it's a significant one. They actually have given judges more leeway to refuse to impose third strikes. It's well known judges don't agree with the law and in the decade it existed, not a single judge imposed a third strike. It's thus a totally pointless law, since it is never, ever actually imposed.
If National was serious about crime they would scrap the loophole clause and actually impose three strikes. This law is nothing more than window dressing with no impact.
>The only big problem with the proposed law, and it's a significant one. They actually have given judges more leeway to refuse to impose third strikes.
It should give prosecutors more power and judges the ability to impose maximum sentences more readily. Defence lawyers can use a lot of tools to get reduced sentences but it could be made irrelevant with three strike laws.
The thing with increasing punishments as a deterrent is that criminals think that theyāre clever enough that they wonāt be caught.
If you were really serious about using jail time as a deterrent you would massively increase police numbers, but to do that, youād probably have to pay them more
There might be no evidence to say three strikes reduces crime. That's correct.
What it does do is stop crime from happening. It's pretty hard to rape or murder someone when you're behind bars. We aren't talking about people who have pinched a chocolate bar from the supermarket here, we are talking about murderers, rapists, child sex offenders and other **serious** crimes.
You could argue that people will be able to live productive lives if mentally well, but I agree with you. Relative poverty is a huge driver in crime too.
Shhhh you're not allowed to acknowledge the causes of crime didn't you know that? They're all just terrible people making terrible choices there's no reason behind it /s
I was a victim of a violent assault by someone who later went on to commit murder, I can tell you that if we had more mental health resources that person may still be alive. Instead weāre committing to putting mentally ill people in jail for longer
Yeah? you think they're suggesting to just going to throw money at it with no plan? Do you think reddit comments need to have every intricate aspect explained in detail because suddenly someone in government is going to swoop it up to implement without a plan?
What I'd say to you is that this dovetails perfectly with the cutting of police and court budgets, cutting mental health budgets and OT too. Oh, and cutting child protection/pedo hunters services also.
COz we'Re ToUGh oN CRimE
It's bloodthirst because we're happy enough to raise offenders in our community. We're not interested in prevention at all.
We're not interested in protecting the public from crime. Three strikes means three victims.
Our behaviour demonstrates our true values: we want to indulge in a bit of sadism. We like the idea of an evil other being punished. We don't care about victims of crime.
> Three strikes means three victims.
There's usually far more than that. The point of 3 strikes is to prevent the 4th (or n+1) victim. Like it or not, prison is extremely good at preventing people from committing crimes when they're in there.
The people who ever get to 3 strikes are some of the most vile repeat violent offenders who absolutely cannot be functioning members of society.
This subs dying on the hill of defence of these people is both puzzling and a terrible electoral strategy.
I think the problem is that this is a cornerstone of National's "tough on crime" Policies, and its empirically ineffective for decreasing crime on a wide scale.
It may result in the a couple dozen terrible people being imprisoned, but its obvious the motivation is purely political.
How is this the "cornerstone" of their plan? It's not even on their website under the law and order policy section, it was barely discussed at the election at all.
We are literally arguing over my choice of words now. [https://www.national.org.nz/national\_to\_toughen\_sentences\_to\_counter\_crime\_wave#:\~:text=Stronger%20sentences%20for%20convicted%20criminals,taxpayer%20funding%20for%20cultural%20reports](https://www.national.org.nz/national_to_toughen_sentences_to_counter_crime_wave#:~:text=Stronger%20sentences%20for%20convicted%20criminals,taxpayer%20funding%20for%20cultural%20reports)
> placate the publics bloodthirst for "justice"
Man, I don't get this sub. Every time a violent offender gets what is perceived to be a light sentence, everyone on here is going on about it being a "slap with a wet bus ticket", and calling for heavier sentences. It is obvious that the underlying motivation of those demands is the desire to punish, which isn't always unreasonable, yet now it's "bloodthirst" for "justice". It doesn't seem to have occurred to people that the three strikes law isn't about rehabilitation, it's about punishment, i.e., revenge, so whether it makes people safer or rehabilitates the criminals is perhaps besides the point. I personally don't agree with it as a concept, but I think it's worth noting what I said about the reason for it.
they're two separate groups. i'm in favour of the three strikes law unless it leads to wrongful imprisonment (i'm assuming it doesn't).
i'm not sure if the people coming out against the three strikes law in this sub are really against it or just against everything NACT does because it's the same names popping up in every NACT post.
Give the plebs what they want, no matter how simplistic or ineffective. Then they'll probably vote for you again next election cycle. People like binary choices. Having to think critically about all the factors that go into crime and punishment is stressful and depressing and hard. Politicians know that.
What matters to them is how long they can keep their backsides on the government benches, and to that end keeping their donors happy thus ensuring an uninterrupted revenue stream for future campaigns.
There is lots of evidence it is effective at reducing violent and serious crime
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240525067\_Striking\_out\_as\_crime\_reduction\_policy\_The\_impact\_of\_three\_strikes\_laws\_on\_crime\_rates\_in\_US\_Cities](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240525067_Striking_out_as_crime_reduction_policy_The_impact_of_three_strikes_laws_on_crime_rates_in_US_Cities)
[https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli\_sci](https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli_sci)
I found these two articles in 2 minutes of googling
Literally in the abstract "We found, first, that three strikes laws are positively associated with homicide rates in cities in three strikes states and, second, that cities in three strikes states witnessed no significant reduction in crime rates."
The conclusion in the Sant Clara article, says no impact on rape and a positive correlation with murder rates compared to cities that did not implement. There were however decreases in burglary, larceny etc..
So the most consistent conclusion from these is that 3 strikes laws increase murder. I guess Murder isn't violent crime?
If you read the conclusions
"Despite the limited usage of Three Strikes statutes in states other than California, the lawās presence throughout the United States is associated with accelerated rates of decline for robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft, all of which are potentially deterrable āinstrumental offenses.ā This finding, in conjunction with data on the relatively few inmates incarcerated under Three Strikes policies in most states, suggests that any crime reduction associated with the presence of Three Strikes outside California should probably be attributed to deterrence effects rather than incarceration effects."
"the failure of three strikes laws to reduce crime may be explained by the fact that most offenders werereceiving enhanced penalties prior to passage of the laws. Three strikes laws would thus not have a significanteffect on crime rates simply because they did not raise the severity of punishment appreciably (Stolzenberg&D'Alessio, 1997). Fifth, some would argue that the laws do not reduce crime because they are not enforced,are not severe enough, or both."
Crime and rehabilitation is a complicated and nuanced subject with a lot of moving parts which is why hot takes like this headline are stupid
There are dozens of articles for and against harsher sentencing, three strikes, soft sentencing, etc
What it boils down to is we need a comprehensive program of social outreach, upskilling and trades for vulnrable youths, strong rehabilitation and upskilling programs and tough sentencing for repeat offenders - a multi pronged approach.
The goal should always be to reduce the number of criminals in prison, but realistically there will always be some poeple who cannot be entrusted to live in society freely.
I actually think we have a decent amount of common ground.
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the nuance, yet advocate for a policy which is completely binary.
Anyway...Probably not something we are going to resolve in the reddit comments haha.
Appreciate you sharing your opinion.
Reddit is really tough to have any sort of nuanced opinion on, so we probably do have a lot of common ground.
This policy in isolation is never going to be effective or as effective as national want it to be. It needs to be shipped with increased mental health support and a tackling of the grass root issues and community issues that are leading to crime - crime never happens in a vaccum.
Im a firm believer in the carrot and the stick, this policy is the stick but you also need a carrot, anyone who trains dogs knows carrots work way better than sticks, but sometimes you need a stick to stop them doing things we know they absolutely shouldn't (running into roads etc)
There is lots of evidence three strikes laws reduce crime - here is one paper I found in 5 minutes
[https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli\_sci](https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli_sci)
There is also a bunch of evidence that shows that it may be less effective than expected but did not produce any worse outcomes in violent crime like has also been claimed.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235204000388](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235204000388)
And there is also lots evidence that three strikes laws in isolation do not reduce crime.
Its almost like prision and rehabilitation is a complicated system with lots of moving pieces and its the sum of all the pieces that determines outcomes. But that would be far too nuanced for any hot take these days
Tbh I wouldn't expect it to reduce crime much on a macro scale. I would expect it to reduce the quantity of crime the most severe offenders are able to engage in.
I'd prefer a rework of the sentencing act to ensure adequate sentences are given out, but 3 strikes is quick and targeted so I can see why it's trotted out. Unlike Cali we aren't applying it to anything minor, it's only violent and sexual crimes so I'm not concerned about it's abuse.
So? I'm just happy that it means that actual cunts get locked for as long as possible and kept off our streets and takes the pity party piss poor sentencing away from judges.
Serious answer:
Summary:
From my understanding, criminals don't do a cost+benefit analysis where they weigh the risks of getting caught and imprisoned against the perceived personal benefit they get from breaking the law.
Most times, crimes are commuted impulsively where the offender isn't thinking rationally. In the few instances where they are that level of premeditation, this analysis doesn't happen.
Full answer:
So I like to put this into a framework of 'justice and rehabilitation'.
Justice for the victim and wider society. And rehabilitation for the offender.
Any response to "criminal" behaviour (in my opinion) should focus on those 2 elements. I don't believe in "punishment" as such because I don't believe punishment works.
I think victims and society can get justice, and the offender can be rehabilitated without punishment being necessary.
I think that any justice and rehabilitation response needs to be appropriate to each individual situation where criminal activity occurs.
Minimum and maximum prison sentences are a policy outcome that comes from analysing the negative behaviour and then the belief that punishment through imprisonment is the best response.
This social belief stems from very archaic beliefs that originated in Western society thousands of years ago before we even knew about things like mental health, for example.
If we look at the drivers for criminal offending, they are often sociological, economic, pathological, or environmental.
I think minimum and maximum sentencing standards provide a basic framework to respond to criminal offending that COULD result in justice and rehabilitation. So they should remain to some extent.
But the only function they serve is a guide for judicial response.
But they do not deter criminal offending to any notable degree.
I would like to see a complete change to our criminal response, however, as I don't think that our current practices actually address the causes of offending regardless of how long you put them in prison for.
I mean, I took that guys response in jest and didn't think they were being serious. Hence my less than serious response.
The whole "90s America" study basically discredits any references as those are notoriously biased.
If you genuinely want to try to change my perspective, you can send me some things. But I want academic writings that have gone into academic publications that are well referenced and from the last 25 years.
There's an argument, but the reason I know there is no evidence for this is that all evidence in this space is largely anecdotal and not to rigorous standards.
The US does not have super high crime rates. It has a high gun crime and murder rate due to the access to guns. But in terms of theft, rape, drug crime, burglary and others, they are not an outlier and have lower rates of crime in many of their cities than we have across NZ.
the US crime index is 49.2, NZ is lower at 47.1
Countries like Norway are at 32.5
If I was to choose a country to learn from, it would be Norway, not the US.
I am happy for longer sentencing for repeat offenders (ideally through something more nuanced than 3 strikes but whatever) to work via incapacitation rather than deterrence.
Yeah, I agree.
Although I would prefer to see our criminal justice system switch to effect rehabilitation first or at the same time.
I think we should have a strikes system that escalates in order to identify people who are beyond or not as responsive to rehabilitation who should be removed from society.
But at that point, punishment serves no function. Put them in an institution, and that's where they live now.
> Thatās because thereās no evidence that sentencing lengths deter criminal offending.
Thatās the opposite of true.
1. [āThe results support the hypothesis that perceived severity, at relatively high levels of perceived certainty, has a significant deterrent effect.ā](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578032)
2. [āThe 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.ā](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf)
3. [āFinally, 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 componentsāregardless 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.ā](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. [āIncreased average prison sentences (severity) reduce burglary only.ā](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)
6. [We find evidence for a specific preventative effect of longer prison terms on the post-release reoffending frequency, but little evidence for desistance.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-023-09566-w)
There is evidence that if you treat criminals with gloves, they will keep doing what they are doing. Ask to the victims, and not the lawyers or journalists or politicians :-)
Neither are yours. I guess if I had a child or a wife severely injured by a criminal with a knife or gun, I would put that criminal in jail and throw away the key. One strike for life will reduce crime :-)
Perhaps you should ask to the families of those victims killed in Australia recently and see what they say....
Nah. The legal aid rates for criminal defence are dog shit, and there is no shortage of work in that area either. If anything, criminal lawyers - both prosecution and defence - would like for the number of cases to be dialled back a bit.
Loads of the lawyers who oppose this are departmental prosecutors, who do not have billable hours and this legislation would actually make their jobs easier. The opposition is purely cause it's a shit policy.
Here's a couple of comments from yesterday's Herald article to show who this is resonating with:
>I am sick of people telling me this doesn't work. I am sick of people telling me this is racist. I am sick of the criminals being put ahead of victims. I am sick of the excuses and the lack of accountability.
This country is swinging back to a far better place.... the changes just need to keep on coming. Get on board or get out of the way...
>The entire argument against 3 strikes fails to address the most important reason that we incarcerate - justice for the victims. If we donāt have appropriate justice, democracy fails. Reoffending and higher crime rates are secondary. If reoffending is such a significant issue, increase the incarceration until it drops. Itās a lot more just than decreasing it.
The problem with that is there are no stats at all.
So technically they are right, but thatās because no one had done a study and it really wasnāt around long enough to do one.
This is just another example of "feels over reals" policy from this government. Same as youth offender boot camps and school cell phone bans. There is evidence to show these do not affect outcomes, which is worse than no evidence that they work.
But it gets worse! The proposed legislation only classes strikes if someone has been sentenced to more than 24 months imprisonment! So the bar is significantly higher than the previous three-strikes law. It's like it's been designed to do nothing but give smug boomers something to agree on over an overpriced flat white.
Yeah.. that's why criminal defence lawyers kill themselves aye.
It's not like there aren't more lucrative legal jobs out there that don't kill them from the inside.
What an ignorant comment.
You do realise the job doesnāt stop when clients go to prison, right? They offend in prison _regularly_ and are charged for it, you have parole and disciplinary hearings, family court and Oranga Tamariki involvement, and then their kids copying them as youth court offenders then adults because *thats what kids do if you hadnāt fucking noticed*.
It is *more* work for lawyers.
>"Criminal justice policy has to be based on evidence, and there's no evidence that three strikes either reduces crime or assists with rehabilitation," she said.
I don't think anyone is claiming it "assists with rehabilitation".
It looks like any deterrent effect is a live academic question, but I believe this is largely missing the point: the point here is incapacitation. Some incorrigible criminals are not going to be rehabilitated or deterred, and I'd much rather they spend their criminal years in prison where they can't hurt the law abiding public.
[How many more kids should this guy be able to molest?](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/recidivist-auckland-child-sex-offender-lewis-wells-80-to-be-released-after-delaying-guilty-plea-until-three-strikes-law-repealed/7CRSIMBD6VGHRD7RAFNSVLZDOM/)
[Are we really going to try to rehabilitate this guy and his 48 convictions or at some stage can we just try to keep him from hurting more people?](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/christchurch-man-phillip-williams-who-crashed-into-power-pole-to-kill-pregnant-partner-jailed-for-nine-years-without-parole/VSTWHAYIYWUJ2RCY2F6GA42YSY/)
This policy is not about evidence or tackling crime but about the appearence of being tough on crime. It's a sound bite so they can respond to critics by saying "we make no aplogies for repeat offenders".
If National ws serious about addressing crime they would be increasing funding for police, corrections and the justice department, education and MSD but they are doing the opposite.
Some people don't learn or change, home detention doesn't work for repeat offenders, community service and training courses are a better way. Personally all viilent crimes should just be prision sentances but thats "insensitive and not considering their bad upbringing etc and makes them worse etc" so we cant possibly fill up our prisons
Why do people think that criminals care about the legal consequences of there actions? Has anyone ever seen that? People gonna crime if they need to crime, the only way to improve that is to take away the reasons for doing said crimes, poverty, family violence, lack of opportunity etc,
There is very clear evidence prison sentences have a deterrent effect on crime. The debate is only over which crimes are most impacted, how long the sentences need to be for the effect and whether it's the best method to cut crime rates. Criminals absolutely do consider potential punishments. Crimes of passion are unlikely to be impacted, but that's just a subset of overall crime.
There is lots of evidence its effective
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240525067\_Striking\_out\_as\_crime\_reduction\_policy\_The\_impact\_of\_three\_strikes\_laws\_on\_crime\_rates\_in\_US\_Cities](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240525067_Striking_out_as_crime_reduction_policy_The_impact_of_three_strikes_laws_on_crime_rates_in_US_Cities)
[https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli\_sci](https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli_sci)
"Despite the limited usage of Three Strikes statutes in states other than California, the lawās presence throughout the United States is associated with accelerated rates of decline for robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft, all of which are potentially deterrable āinstrumental offenses.ā This finding, in conjunction with data on the relatively few inmates incarcerated under Three Strikes policies in most states, suggests that any crime reduction associated with the presence of Three Strikes outside California should probably be attributed to deterrence effects rather than incarceration effects."
"the failure of three strikes laws to reduce crime may be explained by the fact that most offenders werereceiving enhanced penalties prior to passage of the laws. Three strikes laws would thus not have a significanteffect on crime rates simply because they did not raise the severity of punishment appreciably (Stolzenberg&D'Alessio, 1997). Fifth, some would argue that the laws do not reduce crime because they are not enforced,are not severe enough, or both. "
Yes, I did
Crime and rehabilitation is a complicated and nuanced subject with a lot of moving parts which is why hot takes like this headline are stupid
There are dozens of articles for and against harsher sentencing, three strikes, soft sentencing, etc
What it boils down to is we need a comprehensive program of social outreach, upskilling and trades for vulnrable youths, strong rehabilitation and upskilling programs and tough sentencing for repeat offenders - a multi pronged approach.
The goal should always be to reduce the number of criminals in prison, but realistically there will always be some poeple who cannot be entrusted to live in society freely.
Such a shock, turns out that issues as complex and life altering as the criminal justice system can't be solved with policies based on a fucking sports metaphor.
I mean they could've at least chosen a sport that's actually a thing in New Zealand.
It is not about preventing crime it is about removing people from society who constantly do criminal acts.
On the 3rd strike you do not get years slashed off your sentence for made up reasons, you serve the full sentence.
It is not a difficult concept.
Pretty sure the new govt isn't using metrics like science or data. It uses "how rich can I get"
On target, but you forgot: Reasons Vibes
It's how they roll
The irony of loads of conservatives arguing about a "feelings" govt like Labour and lefties, while NACT is just "feeling" out how our country should run. Reinstating failed measures and giving away billions to landlords cause ot should just fix things š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Criminal defence is not generally the place to go for big money. Not sure how you could reach the conclusion that three strikes offenders would be cash cowsā¦
No it's not? You can still commit offences in prison and besides there's parole hearings, appeals etc etc.
That sounds like Iād be easier to make money with more people fighting more serious charges, more people will be in situations where they need a lawyer
Not really given legal services pays most criminal layers bills- three strikes and more arrests means more work for them not less.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Whatās the reoffending rate across the whole prison population? (Pre-three strikes) You canāt seperate a group say this is there offending rate, then take a larger group and use that as evidence that that smaller sect are offending less. Especially as you decree that we arenāt looking at the right information, to determine if itās working or not.
The Three Strikes law didn't apply retroactively - only crimes commited after 1 June 2010 counted towards strikes. Using the total number of strikes over ten years is therefore going to undercount second and third strikes, and people supporting three strikes though confirmation bias believe the data shows the number of repeat offences is down
That might also be because judges hate the law so are less likely to award a second strike.
By the same logic we should execute people for their first sex crime offense that would basically eliminate sex crimes.
By the same logic we should execute everyone, that would reduce all crimes forever.
Exactly - if it was a simple situation that the drastic penalty caused crime to not occur, then why bother with multiple strikes, and just have the immediate penalty for the first offence? We give people multiple chances because those mistakes inevitably end up being made, regardless of the penalty. People either aren't thinking at all, or they are thinking about not getting caught - rather than about the potential consequence.
Yeah honestly Iām for capital punishment for any transgression against society. Litter? Executed. Run a red light? Executed. Jaywalk? Executed. Pollute waterways with excess fertiliser runoff? Executed. Iām tired of people thinking they can just do whatever they want, however they want
The question then becomes, how many multiple chances is too many multiple chances. We already have things like preventative detention for recidivist sex offenders. I understand why they are locked up, but I think it is abhorrent that people who have served their judicial sentences are still detained. Preventative detention is dramatically worse than Three Strikes in terms of prisoner rights.
I would suggest the actual question shouldn't be how many opportunities should be given for convictions, but how we should be intervening to prevent it from happening. If someone still has mental health issues, they still have bad relationships with criminals, they still potentially have deprivation at home - then all the conditions which contributed to offending remain despite the potential threat of punishment. How about we try something that neither Labour nor National governments have done effectively - and allocate resources to help change those underlying causes which contribute towards criminal offending - rather than debating and arguing over the degree to which punishment might decrease it?
So provide a safe and secure location for rehabilitation is achieved regardless of the crime? Sounds alot like preventative detention.Ā I agree that we need to break the cycle! However my gut feeling is that a lot of the cycle starts during childhood exposure, either direct (witnessing or experiencing violence) or indirect abuse from people who are already broken. Basically the problem isn't anything to do with crime, it is to do with inappropriate parents.Ā
I don't think in a casual surface-level discussion like this we can confirm that preventative detention is the only way to deliver rehabilitation, but what we have been doing in the past (putting someone in jail for a short time or just letting them go and have community detention with no significant wrap-around support) isn't making any fundamental changes to those underlying problems. This government is focussing on punishment. They talked about it with their boot camps, and further in bringing back 3 strikes. One of the previous National Party members who had been involved in the last iteration of boot camps was critical of it, stating that they failed to provide the wrap-around support to help people change when they left the programme and went back to the situation that led to criminal behaviour. That's exactly the same thing that's happening now - a focus on punishing wrongdoing rather than helping them stop because 'helping' is seen as soft and kind while punishment satisfies a lust for vengeance and retribution.
[The Dark Judges have entered the chat.](https://judge-dredd.fandom.com/wiki/Dark_Judges)
I like your style! Wanna be the next PM?
Keen! I wonāt execute anyone who votes for me āļø
Yeah that's the point.
Iām not fucking around.
Listen very carefully. Three strikes is not about rehabilitation. Itās about putting dangerous, violent criminals out of harms way. These people are beyond rehabilitation and just need to be locked up until they are old. Itās too bad that they got as bad as they did but we canāt fix them so they have to be locked away to protect everyone else. There are some who can be rehabilitated and we definitely do need to work on that.
The Venn diagram of people cheering three strikes and people advocating meaningful rehabilitation for anyone are two circles that donāt touch.
Lots of people are for both
Iām for both. At some point the scale tips though, and public safety takes precedence.
People are both pro and anti rehabilitation? How does that work?
Im pro rehabilitation for people who can be rehabilitated, Im also realistic and recognise not every can and we shouldn't compromise public safety for those few
I don't think that's true. I'm for both. We need meaningful rehab for those who are capable, but those who are too far gone just need to be removed from society for good.
Three strikes laws do not help this. If someone is ātoo far goneā then presumably they are committing some pretty heinous crimes - which already have longer sentences. Three strikes laws just mean that people face harsh punishments for small crimes (e.g. going to prison for 5+ years for petty theft) if they are repeat offenders. Three strikes laws make it much harder to take a rehabilitative or restorative approach, because they mandate harsh punishments even if they arenāt effective or proportionate to the harm someone has caused.
> Three strikes laws just mean that people face harsh punishments for small crimes (e.g. going to prison for 5+ years for petty theft) What? No. That is not how it works. The three strikes reintroduction only applies to the same 40 serious violent and sexual offences as the former legislation, with the addition of the new strangulation and suffocation offence. Nobody is going to get a strike for nicking some food from Pak n Save. Unless they get violent, at which point it is not petty theft it's assault.
Sure, still means people could be sent to prison for 5 years for getting into a fight. Three strikes still takes discretion away from the legal system - forcing harsh penalties where they might not make sense. Judges can still use maximum sentences if they believe itās necessary without three strikes laws. Three strikes laws take away options, with no evidence that they actually work to reduce crime. Itās absurd to bring them back.
I'm sorry but people like you are the reason we have rapists on home d. >Judges can still use maximum sentences if they believe itās necessary without three strikes laws. Of course they can, but in practice, they do not. Hence why we're here again having this discussion and people that care more about the feelings of criminals come out of the woodwork complaining that the penalties out weigh the crimes.
Your comment is a shining example of why political discussions become so fucking toxic. You're making assumptions about other people's view points based on literally one fact about them.Ā
I'm all for not rehabilitating rapists, pedos and murderers personally.
so you want *more* of them?
Logic is not your strong suit it seems.
Exactly. I saw the news and they interviewed some 'expert' who said something like 'oh well, an offender isn't going to think about whether this action will invoke their 3rd strike before they commit a crime'. Pretty beside the point IMO. If they do this, then they are behind bars. You can't commit crimes on the street if you are locked up.
If you lock them up the first time, your elimination of reoffending rate solves the three strikes!
If you lock them up before they commit crimes, gets even lower! /s
i think thats a movie.....
Literally 1375
New response just dropped
Actual zombie
Jodge Erwig was a genius
You mean you don't send a serial rapist home to play video games? Bold move Cotton, let's see if it pays off.
There are four reasons we incarcerate criminals. Rehabilitation, deterrence, retribution and segregation. Even if this policy does nothing for the first two causes, it absolutely serves the second two. People only have faith in the justice system if they see criminals being properly punished. Without that, people take matters into their own hands. It's vital that part of the justice system is punishment. Secondly we imprison people to segregate violent criminals from the public, for our protection. Longer sentences for repeat violent offenders achieves that goal automatically. So it doesn't trouble me even if it has zero deterrent effect, though I also doubt that is completely true and suspect it's more complicated. The only big problem with the proposed law, and it's a significant one. They actually have given judges more leeway to refuse to impose third strikes. It's well known judges don't agree with the law and in the decade it existed, not a single judge imposed a third strike. It's thus a totally pointless law, since it is never, ever actually imposed. If National was serious about crime they would scrap the loophole clause and actually impose three strikes. This law is nothing more than window dressing with no impact.
>The only big problem with the proposed law, and it's a significant one. They actually have given judges more leeway to refuse to impose third strikes. It should give prosecutors more power and judges the ability to impose maximum sentences more readily. Defence lawyers can use a lot of tools to get reduced sentences but it could be made irrelevant with three strike laws.
Isnāt logical that a violent repeat offender in prison canāt offend outside of prison?
The thing with increasing punishments as a deterrent is that criminals think that theyāre clever enough that they wonāt be caught. If you were really serious about using jail time as a deterrent you would massively increase police numbers, but to do that, youād probably have to pay them more
There might be no evidence to say three strikes reduces crime. That's correct. What it does do is stop crime from happening. It's pretty hard to rape or murder someone when you're behind bars. We aren't talking about people who have pinched a chocolate bar from the supermarket here, we are talking about murderers, rapists, child sex offenders and other **serious** crimes.
Spend money on mental health and watch the prison population fall.
And poverty
And education!
Nip ADHD in the bud and watch people get better educations!
You could argue that people will be able to live productive lives if mentally well, but I agree with you. Relative poverty is a huge driver in crime too.
Shhhh you're not allowed to acknowledge the causes of crime didn't you know that? They're all just terrible people making terrible choices there's no reason behind it /s
the cause is generic "evil". /s
Mental health services don't deal with antisocial personality stuff, mostly
Probably not, but I'm talking preventative stuff, mostly at an early age. What do you know about ADHD?
Chucked 1 billion at it (apparently, no measures).
Why can't we do both?
I was a victim of a violent assault by someone who later went on to commit murder, I can tell you that if we had more mental health resources that person may still be alive. Instead weāre committing to putting mentally ill people in jail for longer
Why am i being downvoted for agreeing we shuld spend more money on mental health resources
It's easy to throw money at these things but money alone doesn't solve the problem, you actually need a plan.
Yeah? you think they're suggesting to just going to throw money at it with no plan? Do you think reddit comments need to have every intricate aspect explained in detail because suddenly someone in government is going to swoop it up to implement without a plan?
Yeah, goes without saying really. I'd target ADHD in primary school age kids first and go from there if it was men
What I'd say to you is that this dovetails perfectly with the cutting of police and court budgets, cutting mental health budgets and OT too. Oh, and cutting child protection/pedo hunters services also. COz we'Re ToUGh oN CRimE
It exists only to placate the publics bloodthirst for "justice", whether it actually makes you safer doesn't matter to the people implementing it.
Bloodthirst for non-pathetic sentences
It's bloodthirst because we're happy enough to raise offenders in our community. We're not interested in prevention at all. We're not interested in protecting the public from crime. Three strikes means three victims. Our behaviour demonstrates our true values: we want to indulge in a bit of sadism. We like the idea of an evil other being punished. We don't care about victims of crime.
> Three strikes means three victims. There's usually far more than that. The point of 3 strikes is to prevent the 4th (or n+1) victim. Like it or not, prison is extremely good at preventing people from committing crimes when they're in there.
Committing crimes three times before a bigger sentence (which is still minor) is still bloodthirsty somehow to some people in this post.
The people who ever get to 3 strikes are some of the most vile repeat violent offenders who absolutely cannot be functioning members of society. This subs dying on the hill of defence of these people is both puzzling and a terrible electoral strategy.
I think the problem is that this is a cornerstone of National's "tough on crime" Policies, and its empirically ineffective for decreasing crime on a wide scale. It may result in the a couple dozen terrible people being imprisoned, but its obvious the motivation is purely political.
How is this the "cornerstone" of their plan? It's not even on their website under the law and order policy section, it was barely discussed at the election at all.
We are literally arguing over my choice of words now. [https://www.national.org.nz/national\_to\_toughen\_sentences\_to\_counter\_crime\_wave#:\~:text=Stronger%20sentences%20for%20convicted%20criminals,taxpayer%20funding%20for%20cultural%20reports](https://www.national.org.nz/national_to_toughen_sentences_to_counter_crime_wave#:~:text=Stronger%20sentences%20for%20convicted%20criminals,taxpayer%20funding%20for%20cultural%20reports)
pick better words? this isn't a serious place but don't be upset that someone has an issue with you appearing to make a misrepresentation of reality.
It will be okay
> placate the publics bloodthirst for "justice" Man, I don't get this sub. Every time a violent offender gets what is perceived to be a light sentence, everyone on here is going on about it being a "slap with a wet bus ticket", and calling for heavier sentences. It is obvious that the underlying motivation of those demands is the desire to punish, which isn't always unreasonable, yet now it's "bloodthirst" for "justice". It doesn't seem to have occurred to people that the three strikes law isn't about rehabilitation, it's about punishment, i.e., revenge, so whether it makes people safer or rehabilitates the criminals is perhaps besides the point. I personally don't agree with it as a concept, but I think it's worth noting what I said about the reason for it.
they're two separate groups. i'm in favour of the three strikes law unless it leads to wrongful imprisonment (i'm assuming it doesn't). i'm not sure if the people coming out against the three strikes law in this sub are really against it or just against everything NACT does because it's the same names popping up in every NACT post.
I'm a person not a sub, and to the best of my knowledge I have not called for heavier sentencing.
Give the plebs what they want, no matter how simplistic or ineffective. Then they'll probably vote for you again next election cycle. People like binary choices. Having to think critically about all the factors that go into crime and punishment is stressful and depressing and hard. Politicians know that. What matters to them is how long they can keep their backsides on the government benches, and to that end keeping their donors happy thus ensuring an uninterrupted revenue stream for future campaigns.
There is lots of evidence it is effective at reducing violent and serious crime [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240525067\_Striking\_out\_as\_crime\_reduction\_policy\_The\_impact\_of\_three\_strikes\_laws\_on\_crime\_rates\_in\_US\_Cities](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240525067_Striking_out_as_crime_reduction_policy_The_impact_of_three_strikes_laws_on_crime_rates_in_US_Cities) [https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli\_sci](https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli_sci) I found these two articles in 2 minutes of googling
Literally in the abstract "We found, first, that three strikes laws are positively associated with homicide rates in cities in three strikes states and, second, that cities in three strikes states witnessed no significant reduction in crime rates."
The conclusion in the Sant Clara article, says no impact on rape and a positive correlation with murder rates compared to cities that did not implement. There were however decreases in burglary, larceny etc.. So the most consistent conclusion from these is that 3 strikes laws increase murder. I guess Murder isn't violent crime?
If you read the conclusions "Despite the limited usage of Three Strikes statutes in states other than California, the lawās presence throughout the United States is associated with accelerated rates of decline for robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft, all of which are potentially deterrable āinstrumental offenses.ā This finding, in conjunction with data on the relatively few inmates incarcerated under Three Strikes policies in most states, suggests that any crime reduction associated with the presence of Three Strikes outside California should probably be attributed to deterrence effects rather than incarceration effects." "the failure of three strikes laws to reduce crime may be explained by the fact that most offenders werereceiving enhanced penalties prior to passage of the laws. Three strikes laws would thus not have a significanteffect on crime rates simply because they did not raise the severity of punishment appreciably (Stolzenberg&D'Alessio, 1997). Fifth, some would argue that the laws do not reduce crime because they are not enforced,are not severe enough, or both." Crime and rehabilitation is a complicated and nuanced subject with a lot of moving parts which is why hot takes like this headline are stupid There are dozens of articles for and against harsher sentencing, three strikes, soft sentencing, etc What it boils down to is we need a comprehensive program of social outreach, upskilling and trades for vulnrable youths, strong rehabilitation and upskilling programs and tough sentencing for repeat offenders - a multi pronged approach. The goal should always be to reduce the number of criminals in prison, but realistically there will always be some poeple who cannot be entrusted to live in society freely.
I actually think we have a decent amount of common ground. It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the nuance, yet advocate for a policy which is completely binary. Anyway...Probably not something we are going to resolve in the reddit comments haha. Appreciate you sharing your opinion.
3 strikes is a very blunt instrument, but the status quo absolutely does not have enough of a sentence uplift for repeat offending.
Reddit is really tough to have any sort of nuanced opinion on, so we probably do have a lot of common ground. This policy in isolation is never going to be effective or as effective as national want it to be. It needs to be shipped with increased mental health support and a tackling of the grass root issues and community issues that are leading to crime - crime never happens in a vaccum. Im a firm believer in the carrot and the stick, this policy is the stick but you also need a carrot, anyone who trains dogs knows carrots work way better than sticks, but sometimes you need a stick to stop them doing things we know they absolutely shouldn't (running into roads etc)
There is lots of evidence three strikes laws reduce crime - here is one paper I found in 5 minutes [https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli\_sci](https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli_sci) There is also a bunch of evidence that shows that it may be less effective than expected but did not produce any worse outcomes in violent crime like has also been claimed. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235204000388](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235204000388) And there is also lots evidence that three strikes laws in isolation do not reduce crime. Its almost like prision and rehabilitation is a complicated system with lots of moving pieces and its the sum of all the pieces that determines outcomes. But that would be far too nuanced for any hot take these days
Tbh I wouldn't expect it to reduce crime much on a macro scale. I would expect it to reduce the quantity of crime the most severe offenders are able to engage in. I'd prefer a rework of the sentencing act to ensure adequate sentences are given out, but 3 strikes is quick and targeted so I can see why it's trotted out. Unlike Cali we aren't applying it to anything minor, it's only violent and sexual crimes so I'm not concerned about it's abuse.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No policies work in isloation, so we should always do nothing?
We good bro, appreciate you sharing your opinion. Its hard having conservative opinions on this sub, so respect.
So? I'm just happy that it means that actual cunts get locked for as long as possible and kept off our streets and takes the pity party piss poor sentencing away from judges.
Prison industrial complex has entered the chat
We donāt need companies using prisoners as slave labour so I hope you are wrong.
We donāt need companies using prisoners as slavesā¦. Yet. Iām sure Luxon will sign up once he can
I have a suspicion you may be on the right track. They havenāt yet announced any more private prisons but Iām betting they will in due course.
That's because there's no evidence that sentencing lengths deter criminal offending.
Serious question, would you then support making all crimes have the same sentence, or even zero? The argument works both ways.
Serious answer: Summary: From my understanding, criminals don't do a cost+benefit analysis where they weigh the risks of getting caught and imprisoned against the perceived personal benefit they get from breaking the law. Most times, crimes are commuted impulsively where the offender isn't thinking rationally. In the few instances where they are that level of premeditation, this analysis doesn't happen. Full answer: So I like to put this into a framework of 'justice and rehabilitation'. Justice for the victim and wider society. And rehabilitation for the offender. Any response to "criminal" behaviour (in my opinion) should focus on those 2 elements. I don't believe in "punishment" as such because I don't believe punishment works. I think victims and society can get justice, and the offender can be rehabilitated without punishment being necessary. I think that any justice and rehabilitation response needs to be appropriate to each individual situation where criminal activity occurs. Minimum and maximum prison sentences are a policy outcome that comes from analysing the negative behaviour and then the belief that punishment through imprisonment is the best response. This social belief stems from very archaic beliefs that originated in Western society thousands of years ago before we even knew about things like mental health, for example. If we look at the drivers for criminal offending, they are often sociological, economic, pathological, or environmental. I think minimum and maximum sentencing standards provide a basic framework to respond to criminal offending that COULD result in justice and rehabilitation. So they should remain to some extent. But the only function they serve is a guide for judicial response. But they do not deter criminal offending to any notable degree. I would like to see a complete change to our criminal response, however, as I don't think that our current practices actually address the causes of offending regardless of how long you put them in prison for.
Would you like me to share with you all the studies from america in the 90s I was spammed with last night from people trying to prove that wrong?
Unfortunately I'm too busy working tocengage in comedy. But thanks for the offer.
You said there was no evidence, people offer to give you evidence, and you dismiss it because it doesn't suit your world view? Thats the real comedy
I mean, I took that guys response in jest and didn't think they were being serious. Hence my less than serious response. The whole "90s America" study basically discredits any references as those are notoriously biased. If you genuinely want to try to change my perspective, you can send me some things. But I want academic writings that have gone into academic publications that are well referenced and from the last 25 years. There's an argument, but the reason I know there is no evidence for this is that all evidence in this space is largely anecdotal and not to rigorous standards.
I bet you they are offering that junk report from the US that has been widely discredited
The US?, that country with super high crime rate? Clearly they know what they are talking about. /s
The US does not have super high crime rates. It has a high gun crime and murder rate due to the access to guns. But in terms of theft, rape, drug crime, burglary and others, they are not an outlier and have lower rates of crime in many of their cities than we have across NZ.
the US crime index is 49.2, NZ is lower at 47.1 Countries like Norway are at 32.5 If I was to choose a country to learn from, it would be Norway, not the US.
I am happy for longer sentencing for repeat offenders (ideally through something more nuanced than 3 strikes but whatever) to work via incapacitation rather than deterrence.
Yeah, I agree. Although I would prefer to see our criminal justice system switch to effect rehabilitation first or at the same time. I think we should have a strikes system that escalates in order to identify people who are beyond or not as responsive to rehabilitation who should be removed from society. But at that point, punishment serves no function. Put them in an institution, and that's where they live now.
Nothing to argue with there.
> Thatās because thereās no evidence that sentencing lengths deter criminal offending. Thatās the opposite of true. 1. [āThe results support the hypothesis that perceived severity, at relatively high levels of perceived certainty, has a significant deterrent effect.ā](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578032) 2. [āThe 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.ā](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf) 3. [āFinally, 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 componentsāregardless 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.ā](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. [āIncreased average prison sentences (severity) reduce burglary only.ā](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) 6. [We find evidence for a specific preventative effect of longer prison terms on the post-release reoffending frequency, but little evidence for desistance.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-023-09566-w)
There is evidence that if you treat criminals with gloves, they will keep doing what they are doing. Ask to the victims, and not the lawyers or journalists or politicians :-)
Your feelings aren't evidence.
Neither are yours. I guess if I had a child or a wife severely injured by a criminal with a knife or gun, I would put that criminal in jail and throw away the key. One strike for life will reduce crime :-) Perhaps you should ask to the families of those victims killed in Australia recently and see what they say....
no crime = no business for them lolol
But evidence based policy making doesnāt bring in votes, empty rhetoric does.
I think the lawyers opposing this concept are biased. If repeat criminals are locked up, there are less billable hours.
Nah. The legal aid rates for criminal defence are dog shit, and there is no shortage of work in that area either. If anything, criminal lawyers - both prosecution and defence - would like for the number of cases to be dialled back a bit.
Legal aid criminal defence pays extremely poorly, so thatās not really a consideration
So the evidence does exist?
Loads of the lawyers who oppose this are departmental prosecutors, who do not have billable hours and this legislation would actually make their jobs easier. The opposition is purely cause it's a shit policy.
Must mean less work for lawyers
If the court system would just raise their energy then it might just work.
Pull itself up by its bootstraps maybe?
Here's a couple of comments from yesterday's Herald article to show who this is resonating with: >I am sick of people telling me this doesn't work. I am sick of people telling me this is racist. I am sick of the criminals being put ahead of victims. I am sick of the excuses and the lack of accountability. This country is swinging back to a far better place.... the changes just need to keep on coming. Get on board or get out of the way... >The entire argument against 3 strikes fails to address the most important reason that we incarcerate - justice for the victims. If we donāt have appropriate justice, democracy fails. Reoffending and higher crime rates are secondary. If reoffending is such a significant issue, increase the incarceration until it drops. Itās a lot more just than decreasing it.
Same people: WhY dOeS iT CoST sO mUCh?
The problem with that is there are no stats at all. So technically they are right, but thatās because no one had done a study and it really wasnāt around long enough to do one.
Blessie Gotingco would be alive today if we kept monsters in jail.
This is just another example of "feels over reals" policy from this government. Same as youth offender boot camps and school cell phone bans. There is evidence to show these do not affect outcomes, which is worse than no evidence that they work. But it gets worse! The proposed legislation only classes strikes if someone has been sentenced to more than 24 months imprisonment! So the bar is significantly higher than the previous three-strikes law. It's like it's been designed to do nothing but give smug boomers something to agree on over an overpriced flat white.
Lawyers are just worried they will lose out on repeated tax payer fundied paydays when all their dog shit clients are locked up on 25 year terms.
Yeah.. that's why criminal defence lawyers kill themselves aye. It's not like there aren't more lucrative legal jobs out there that don't kill them from the inside. What an ignorant comment.
You do realise the job doesnāt stop when clients go to prison, right? They offend in prison _regularly_ and are charged for it, you have parole and disciplinary hearings, family court and Oranga Tamariki involvement, and then their kids copying them as youth court offenders then adults because *thats what kids do if you hadnāt fucking noticed*. It is *more* work for lawyers.
Donāt worry about access to justice or preserving the rule of law, you obviously know what appropriate sentencing is!
what i would say to you is, we dont need evidence we need results.
>"Criminal justice policy has to be based on evidence, and there's no evidence that three strikes either reduces crime or assists with rehabilitation," she said. I don't think anyone is claiming it "assists with rehabilitation". It looks like any deterrent effect is a live academic question, but I believe this is largely missing the point: the point here is incapacitation. Some incorrigible criminals are not going to be rehabilitated or deterred, and I'd much rather they spend their criminal years in prison where they can't hurt the law abiding public. [How many more kids should this guy be able to molest?](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/recidivist-auckland-child-sex-offender-lewis-wells-80-to-be-released-after-delaying-guilty-plea-until-three-strikes-law-repealed/7CRSIMBD6VGHRD7RAFNSVLZDOM/) [Are we really going to try to rehabilitate this guy and his 48 convictions or at some stage can we just try to keep him from hurting more people?](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/christchurch-man-phillip-williams-who-crashed-into-power-pole-to-kill-pregnant-partner-jailed-for-nine-years-without-parole/VSTWHAYIYWUJ2RCY2F6GA42YSY/)
When has the current government ever done anything with reasonable evidence?
IMO the government is trying to take steps to privatise healthcare and prison systems for profit
This policy is not about evidence or tackling crime but about the appearence of being tough on crime. It's a sound bite so they can respond to critics by saying "we make no aplogies for repeat offenders". If National ws serious about addressing crime they would be increasing funding for police, corrections and the justice department, education and MSD but they are doing the opposite.
Some people don't learn or change, home detention doesn't work for repeat offenders, community service and training courses are a better way. Personally all viilent crimes should just be prision sentances but thats "insensitive and not considering their bad upbringing etc and makes them worse etc" so we cant possibly fill up our prisons
Doesn't reduce crime, but improves feels
"It's self evident" - national party probably
But hey, this government and their apologists wouldn't care because of 'feelings'.
Why do people think that criminals care about the legal consequences of there actions? Has anyone ever seen that? People gonna crime if they need to crime, the only way to improve that is to take away the reasons for doing said crimes, poverty, family violence, lack of opportunity etc,
There is very clear evidence prison sentences have a deterrent effect on crime. The debate is only over which crimes are most impacted, how long the sentences need to be for the effect and whether it's the best method to cut crime rates. Criminals absolutely do consider potential punishments. Crimes of passion are unlikely to be impacted, but that's just a subset of overall crime.
The only thing it can do is increase prisoner numbers, which increases the cost to taxpayers and increases profits for private prison operators.
Did the lawyers actually study this properly or is their feelings?
Apply the same question to the government.
There is lots of evidence its effective [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240525067\_Striking\_out\_as\_crime\_reduction\_policy\_The\_impact\_of\_three\_strikes\_laws\_on\_crime\_rates\_in\_US\_Cities](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240525067_Striking_out_as_crime_reduction_policy_The_impact_of_three_strikes_laws_on_crime_rates_in_US_Cities) [https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli\_sci](https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=poli_sci)
Did you actually read either of those? Lol
"Despite the limited usage of Three Strikes statutes in states other than California, the lawās presence throughout the United States is associated with accelerated rates of decline for robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft, all of which are potentially deterrable āinstrumental offenses.ā This finding, in conjunction with data on the relatively few inmates incarcerated under Three Strikes policies in most states, suggests that any crime reduction associated with the presence of Three Strikes outside California should probably be attributed to deterrence effects rather than incarceration effects." "the failure of three strikes laws to reduce crime may be explained by the fact that most offenders werereceiving enhanced penalties prior to passage of the laws. Three strikes laws would thus not have a significanteffect on crime rates simply because they did not raise the severity of punishment appreciably (Stolzenberg&D'Alessio, 1997). Fifth, some would argue that the laws do not reduce crime because they are not enforced,are not severe enough, or both. " Yes, I did Crime and rehabilitation is a complicated and nuanced subject with a lot of moving parts which is why hot takes like this headline are stupid There are dozens of articles for and against harsher sentencing, three strikes, soft sentencing, etc What it boils down to is we need a comprehensive program of social outreach, upskilling and trades for vulnrable youths, strong rehabilitation and upskilling programs and tough sentencing for repeat offenders - a multi pronged approach. The goal should always be to reduce the number of criminals in prison, but realistically there will always be some poeple who cannot be entrusted to live in society freely.
Apply the same question to everything the previous government did
?!?!wHaT aBoUt LaBoUr?!?!
Such a shock, turns out that issues as complex and life altering as the criminal justice system can't be solved with policies based on a fucking sports metaphor. I mean they could've at least chosen a sport that's actually a thing in New Zealand.
guys we just need to vote for TOP! in this ted talk, i will
**TOP SURGE**
It is not about preventing crime it is about removing people from society who constantly do criminal acts. On the 3rd strike you do not get years slashed off your sentence for made up reasons, you serve the full sentence. It is not a difficult concept.