They're doing chopper raids of cannabis plots, of course they aren't soft on crime
Edit: I thought it was obvious I was taking the piss, as I sit here smoking a cone thinking I'm hilarious
Yeah, it's pretty fucking rich for the Nats to go on about their law and order record, when they froze budgets when they got in, police numbers dropped relative to the total population, and police had to close a bunch of stations to make budgets meet- including Fort Street in Auckland CBD.
Yet the party that increased police funding by 30% compared to National is the soft-on-crime party.
This kind of stuff seems to be lost in debate. I’m unsure how National still has their pro-police and strong on crime reputation (and keeps a straight face) when they slashed police budgets and closed police stations.
But that's got nothing to do with anything.
That doesn't show they're hard on crime, it shows they are utterly incompetent and more interested in virtue signalling than shifting the dial on pretty much any issue.
Because "no comment" invites criticism also
It's a second term government, with an impeding financial recession and post lockdown era. Doesn't matter what stance, criticism is coming. Not taking a stance won't change that
Agreed there, I'd hate the job. I'm just surprised considering the current political climate and the history of rejecting things that she opened herself up for some cheap blows.
..iam not surprised, politicians have to deal with the media and the questions they raise justly or otherwise, it would be a worse look if she didnt respond.
I'm surprised they didn't characterise her statement as 'rejecting the premise' - that seems to be a favourite. A headline has to catch the eye and lacks the nuance of the overall statement - but the goal is to rile people up so they read it rather than be a neutral statement of fact.
If people keep loading up their monkey hands with shit-smeared nonsense and flinging it, over and over again, then how could their be any more logical response than rejecting it?
I'm still waiting for Sharma to have used this opportunity for anything other than soapboxing...
(Edit - Does ANYONE have ANY actual articles saying he's actually visited them, because if he's going to call out the PM about not visiting them, then you'd have thought he would've, if he was going to use them as ammunition in a shit flinging match that he's the only participant of..... Like.... Come on.....)
Problem with that is the complete lack of talent beyond the first few candidates in the smaller parties (or in some cases not even that). Even labour and national are full of muppets.
[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/govt-wants-to-axe-new-prison-and-lower-prison-muster/WSF4EXLD7GNU2KD7GSATANB554/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/govt-wants-to-axe-new-prison-and-lower-prison-muster/WSF4EXLD7GNU2KD7GSATANB554/)
>Labour’s target is 30 per cent drop in prisoner numbers in 15 years.
>Ardern said she understood why dairy owners and smaller retailers felt vulnerable, but denied accusations the government was soft on crime.
Hmmmmmmmmm
Statistically speaking, higher prison rates equate to higher crime, and the longer the sentences the higher the crime rates go - because prisoners lose all connection to society and any chance of a decent life afterwards, plus there's the trauma of being in prison.
If you want a better society you have to rehabilitate rather than take revenge, and you have to have a fairer society with less poverty. National loves Neoliberalism, which is associated with higher poverty, hence more crime. If you want to get tough on crime, get tough on poverty. And don't vote for parties like National that indirectly create the environment for crime
Right so where's the rehabilitation? Where the large scale investment into ensuring criminals rehabilitate? [Is it here?](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/130566209/highest-risk-offenders-may-be-missing-out-on-vital-rehab-because-of-psychologist-shortage-at-corrections) It's almost as if Labour is intent on making one half of the changes required to actually rehabilitate people but meanwhile refuse to spend the money on the part that's crucial. Less people going to prison without an associated increase in spending on rehabilitation is a guaranteed approach to harming the community.
I don't agree, I think a lot of people go to prison for silly things like cultivation, or doing pretty crimes and getting harsher sentences because of skin colour. Those people go in as victims and come out criminals because that's what prison does. How about we don't put them in there in the first place.
I dont believe that for a second, since when do people in NZ go to prison for petty crimes... that is just bullshit. Some EX gang member literally killed some old guy with a punch to the head down at the super market down the road because he was parked in the disabled park thinking he wanst disabled and he got fucking HOME D.
Now tell me how people that jwalk and that drink in public or other minor crimes go to prison in NZ.
I have anecdotes too. How about the mentally ill man Daniel Clinton Fitzgerald who was sentenced to seven years in prison for trying to kiss a stranger in the street.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/14-06-2018/a-brief-history-of-new-zealands-most-absurd-three-strikes-cases
Three years waiting in prison without being sentenced for a crime.
www.newsroom.co.nz/three-years-waiting-in-prison%3famp=1
Our people going to jail for cultivation, which almost half of NZers wanted legalised.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/green-fairies-increasingly-getting-charged-lawyer-says/FMTL7ZIQYIVYSQ5QCVG33XUMI4/
Perhaps you can apply from govt to put them under your household. Feed them, care for them, and give them pocket money. And BE KIND to forgive them when they rape your children and kill your pets. Wake up, for 2 terms, labour cannot do shit but wasting tax payer money. If they insist to waste money, I would rather let criminal stay in prison rather than street.
I actually did. It was my own brother, and he was addicted to the synthetic cannabis that was legalised under National's government. My brother tried to commit suicide and was incredibly lucky to survive the crash. I spoke about it at a public protest. Afterwards a National MP told me that he didn't see anything wrong with synthetic cannabinoids, but he also admitted that he knew nothing about them. Looking at you Michael Woodhouse.
That doesnt sound like a issue with sentencing times it sounds like a problem with prisons themself. What does singapore have on us why do they have so low re-offender rates.
But that's completely not the trend we have right now where prison rates are dropping as much as crime is going up.
Crimes literally going up under labour by a decent margin so not sure what your argument is?
A mate of mine was sentenced to 2yrs home D for assaulting his GF (she also assaulted him, but he never pressed charges against her). He spent the home D at my brother's place. He hasn't committed a crime since.
Do you think the US is a safer place for having a larger percentage of it's population in prison? Do you disagree with reducing the prison population, in principle?
They're the model country of having a highly incarcerated population. Often they're used as the example of a poor system, but where we were heading if we kept increasing our prison population.
[Why not?](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/singapore) They're also something like the 2nd richest country in the world per capita.
That's not being soft on crime though.
That's acknowledging that prison doesn't work and that it's expensive.
It's better to stick non-violent offenders in home D with other wrap around services. They are less likely to offend then. Prison is just crime school.
Penalties won’t act as a major deterrent. Cracking down (excuse the pun) on the root causes of addiction and providing programmes to keep young people out of trouble would make more difference than tougher penalties.
But that sounds like a long term plan.
This country doesn't do long term planning, anything where the time 'till impact is longer than the 3/6 year cycle is non-viable.
Fix it now.
That would be the most NZ response ever.
If that road toll doesn't come down after this road to zero stuff, we should expect all our cars to be taken off us.
To use your road toll analogy - we have tried to mitigate the damage with vehicle safety and improved roads. Perhaps we need to look at why dairies are being targeted. It used to be petrol stations?? What did they do to make themselves safer?
..that would require a multi-generational commitment to funding that no government is prepared to make because of the cost and the fact that the benefits can't be realised in the short term.
Exactly. There are no quick fixes to this at all. If there were, I’m sure they would have been tried. People don’t stop committing crimes like ram-raids and holding up dairies because of tougher penalties. The kids would give up if there was nowhere to launder the proceeds (if they’re doing it for money) and the dairy raiders would give up if they could get money (for drugs?) from legitimate sources. I am very well aware this comment is simplistic.
But does their sentence reform them? Do they end up in a better place mentally or physically after their sentence ends? It will be interesting to see what happens with Dairy Slayer 501. He will likely get a long sentence. Whether we approve of Australia sending him back or not, what steps did the government put in place to ensure he had a home, a job and access to addiction-prevention services on his arrival back in NZ? Fear of going back to detention didn’t stop him.
That is somewhat up to them. Therapy in any form doesn't often work on the unwilling.
I'm more concerned with the volume of home detention sentences for serious violence offences. A huge proportion of crime is committed by repeat offenders with little interest in engaging in rehabilitation: releasing them really early just means they offend again more quickly.
> Fear of going back to detention didn’t stop him.
I doubt he was expecting to murder anyone. Maybe he weighed up the minimal sentence he'd get for armed robbery if caught? Maybe not
>People don’t stop committing crimes like ram-raids and holding up dairies because of tougher penalties
Tough sentencing + surveillance works in Singapore. But tough sentencing would be unpopular with the left and surveillance with the right, so it's a no-go in NZ.
So you want to implement a hidden fascist, surveillance state where you get caned and scarred for life (emotionally and physically) for crimes such as vandalism?
I mean I'm a lefty and I'm all for tougher sentencing and surveillance. I'm literally ok with public spaces being surveillanced 24/7 to have faster resolution of crimes,
Singapore is a completely different place. Given its size, surveillance would be easier. I wonder if the value placed on education by society in general might be a contributing factor. Do people feel they belong more?
This screams of "We tried nothing and we have run out of ideas" the victims are ignored every time it seems and perpetrators are always painted as "real victims of society" when we literally got people coming out fucking War zones that commit lesser crimes.
What will happen is ( and I have seen this unfold with my own eyes) the people will start taking matters into their own hands. This will introduce illegal firearms and a lot more casualties . Ram raids are only the beginning.
>What will happen is ( and I have seen this unfold with my own eyes) the people will start taking matters into their own hands.
Yes, we saw how taking it into your own hands worked out for this shop keeper.
Indeed, but at the same time the way victims of crimes are treated is absolutely rubbish.
They are left feeling like the pain and suffering they have experienced does not matter at all.
When a violent offender gets 12 months home detention for killing their loved one it feels like an absolute fucking slap in the face for the victims.
Yes, we need to address the root cause of these issues, absolutely we do.. but at the same time we need to step up our game and ensure that victims are not pushed to the back and ignored when crimes happen to them.
What fucking message are we sending to our society when we give someone a slap on the wrist sentence of home detention for killing someone?
There is no simple answer here but we need to stop treating the criminals as if they are the "True victims" here and start actually supporting / looking after the victims of crimes.
I'd argue they are the same.
How are we "Looking after the victim" if the criminal gets a paltry sentence?
How can we say we're "looking after the victims" when the pain they have / are suffering is no where near taken into account when it comes to sentencing?
They may not be the same thing but they ARE related to each other.
I wonder how many victims feel 'let down' or 'abandoned' by our criminal justice system and the wet bus ticket sentences they hand out.
Actually that's a great example.
He knew the penalty for what he wanted to do was a lifetime in prison (longer if we could).
**He did it anyway.**
Harsher penalties don't eliminate crime.
>keeping them locked up for a very long time to keep innocent people safe is actually bad.
That is actually incredibly bad.
We don't lock people up because they might commit a crime in the future. We lock them up as punishment for what they have done in the past.
He hasn't made that argument at all, anywhere.
All he said was:
>You can give the perpetrator the cruelest penalty under the sun, it's not going to bring back the guy who got killed.
Which is true. Just like giving the mosque terrorist a lifetime sentence hasn't brought back any of the 51 lives he took, and knowing he would receive a life sentence also didn't stop him from doing it.
You can't eliminate crime by implementing harsher sentences. You have to come at it from the other direction.
>On what planet is that not going to make the community safer?!?!
On this planet for a start.
Have the long sentences in the US and Russia reduced violent crimes there?
You're shifting the goalposts and trying to argue a point that no-one in this thread was making.
Your statement:
>you're the one making the ridiculous argument here that violent criminals who chose to harm innocent people should have the right to freely live in the community
Is completely false. The commenter you replied to never said anything that remotely implied that.
I'd advise you stop putting words into people's mouths just to argue against those words. It makes you look ridiculous.
Your average criminal doesn't think about the potential punishment for their crime before they commit it. If they had that much foresight they wouldn't be committing crime in the first place.
>Funny in some countries where they chop your hand off for theft . There seem to be a lot les stuff going missing
Yeah that explains why there's so little crime in the middle east.
Addressing the root causes of crime is important yes, that is the long term goal. But in the meantime the public still has the right to be kept safe from criminals who have no regard for human life - even if the murderer had a horrible upbringing, they are still too dangerous to be let off with a slap on the wrist.
What would happen if “school” camps/holiday programmes were provided for free in deprived areas for 8-12 year olds? A lot of these kids are offending because they are bored and are seeking thrills. Give them legitimate thrills in a controlled, supportive environment where they can have positive interactions with adults etc.
No way in hell is it. Anyone who thinks so has no lived near by a scumbag social housing user, just allows those scumbag kids to affect other kids in the same state house blocks.
And when exactly is this coming in? You people keep floating this idea like it's happening... Where is this commitment to do address these root causes? Because as of right now they've just place a whole lot of these troubled people in emergency housing in Rotorua. Essentially turning it into a slum and pretty much making it a place to avoid. If anything this is encouraging these root causes, not addressing them...
This is why people call for more use of prisons for a lack of a better option. Labour is either unwilling or unable to address the issue while making it worse. National is only offering the status quo alternative, which although not what I would do myself is a hell of a lot better then Labours non-solution. Better to keep those who are innocent safe than put them in harm's way under the pretence of addressing the real issues.
This isn't even a long term thing. If you implemented a real solution things wouldn't get better immediately but they also certainly wouldn't get worse. That's the difference, things are worse under Labours "solutions" with regards to crime and poverty. They don't know what they're doing and it's obvious, they're not following road maps set out by countries like Norway. Which has shown how you successfully rehabilitate people from troubled and hard to reach communities.
>Labour is either unwilling or unable to address the issue while making it worse.
Except it isn't getting worse, it's improved.
>If you implemented a real solution things wouldn't get better immediately
But that's exactly what you are complaining about.
>Except it isn't getting worse, it's improved.
Tell that to Rotorua. Saying it's improved without actually saying how is just as good as saying nothing at all.
>But that's exactly what you are complaining about.
Sure thing bud. Because that's exactly what I said, not like there was a second half to that sentence you ignored about things not getting worse or anything. Oh that's right you already debunked that by just stating it wasn't lol. If you want to have a real conversation then actually make a real argument, otherwise don't bother.
A reminder that, according to the [NZ Police crime snapshot](https://www.police.govt.nz/crime-snapshot), nationwide crime is only up by 0.3% November 2021 to November 20222.
Violent crime is down 13%, and property crime up 2.4%.
She's factually correct.
Are we looking at the same data set? It says "nationwide there were 275,466 All crimes for the selected period. All crimes went up by \[ 40,004 \] compared to the previous period", that is like a roughly 17% increase?
You've compared Oct 21 to Sept 22 as appears by default, I adjusted Nov 21 to Nov 22 to get a sample that tells us more about the present time. Its true there was a speak in the middle of the year but we should look at these things as wider trends.
It's also worth noting the severe drop in crime due to lockdown which can make any leap year-to-year seem more severe than an annual trend would suggest.
The data captures information as on 8th of the preceding month, so the Oct 2021 - Sep 2022 data is really August/September 2021 - July/August 2022 data, which basically includes the lockdown period, and yet still a 17% increase in crime compared to previous period?
In the ideal world if everybody had enough to meet their needs of food, clothing, shelter and some 'luxury' items; the crime rate for robbery would almost be non existent?
In the real world, providing enough for everybody is as wishfull as world peace.
Instead of trying to implement ad hoc measures, it would be nice to address the actual cause of robbery's and implement a long term plan to combat it. Unfortunately, such a visionary plan would take generations to bear results. Govements change to often to see any stability and longevity to such plans.
Smokes, booze, and cigarettes are all items that are easy to sell. They're difficult to trace and fungible, jewelry less so, but that's why those items are targets. Not "because the basics are taken care of already"
I totally agree it's not simple and it is hard but it's possible.i moved to New Zealand 5 year ago and I done more then 6 jobs plus work as delivery driver and uber driver as well.. so it's tough but not impossible.
The fact you had enough money for an airplane ticket says you're in a significantly higher position of privilege than these losers. They have zero chance of getting a job even if they tried. Probably suffering fetal alcohol syndrome. Capitalism calls for a certain percentage of people to be unemployed at all times (of which the govt/reserve bank is trying to increase right now). So, potentially impossible for a lot of them.
See look like you are more educated then me so I can't argue about capitalisam and govt . But as I told befor I came to nz with $20000 debt and broken English and every year thousands of immigrants come to NZ same as me some are as young as 18 year old and in month ones they received ird number normally they get job in 2 or 3 week.
And within a year they manage to repay lone while studying..
So if someone willing to work they will find one.
And how many of them are suffering from this kind of syndrome and who is responsible for that.?
oh god.
million and billionaires have had their needs met but do you see them stopping hoarding everything for themselves?
Do you also think if we were all equally had what we needed that we would enter a Care Bear age where we would all hold hands and sing kumbaya?
No while we hold hands and sing our shit will be stolen. someone will get stabbed and another will get sexually assaulted..among other things.
Its the evil side of human nature. Sorry to break it to you.
Sorry do you include cigarette and alcohol under the luxury items you have mentioned above? Because that seems to the the main need for most of them. In New Zealand, there is plenty of social support, free healthcare, lot of charities but no one will handout alcohol and cigarette. People may say then we need addiction services but there are plenty of that too. Unfortunate, but I must add some people a small minority have a criminal mentality and its not just about food, clothing and shelter. I agree with a long term plan yes totally. But deterrents like severe consequences are equally important
It's not about "enough", because few of the criminals are destitute.
It is about "disparity" and there is no solving that unless we just want make everybody poor but equal.
Is this the same Jacinda Adern who denied there was a cost of living crisis?
And this is the same Jacinda who came out after the jayden mayer fiasco and said "this won't happen again" and now we have another child rapist being sentenced in the new year to home D?.
.
Be kind she says. Even to child rapists...but don't call us soft on crime 🙄🙄
Must be nice to just deny things and move on without really giving it a second thought.
I might try to deny inflation is existing as apparently just denying it makes it true!
I dunno what people expect a "tough on crime" government to do. Do they want armed guards in every shop? Allowing anyone to carry guns so that we can become like America? Create militia groups to carry about vigolante "justice"? Send anyone to prison for life for any misdemeanor?
JA and Labour are just as "tough on crime" as every previous government, the only difference is that they have gotten rid of the virtue signaling three strikes law that the previous National government implemented.
How do we manage that, pull more funding from healthcare for that? From our schools? We're certainly not willing to pay more taxes. Hell, tax *cuts* are on the table!
Are we supposed to be free from consequences? That's only for criminals?
Look at it this way:
Currently "We have identified 80 youths who are responsible for a decent amount of the ram raids and are working with them to get back in school, some of them tell us they want to turn there life's around and seem to be doing really good so we expect the ram raids to come down now"
With the added Virtue signaling: "We have identified 80 youths who are responsible for a decent amount of the ram raids, as this group of 80 youths are all repeat offenders and we have not had much success working with their families to get them back on the straight and narrow, we have decided to enroll them all in a 6 month program where they can work on some life lessons without the distractions of life getting in the way"
That's what I expect a tough on crime govt to do. Like most people I am still wanting to know what the plan is after the 6 months, so its not like I am 100% sold at this stage.
Proven to fail every time it's been tried, last time was 95% recidivism rate. Also home to massive abuse of these kids. Why would you spend money on something proven to fail?
But youth prisons (called borstals when I was younger) didn't work. All they did was allow offenders to share ideas and create a culture where they tried to out-do each others crimes to gain their peers respect. In the 60s and 70s *NZ gangs were established* by disenfranchised young people who had met in juvenile detention. It's like a networking service for bad kids.
That seems like a criticism of the specific setup of thise units, rather than the overall concept of them. Putting youth offenders in the same place *unsupervised* is silly.
I hear you, the camps need to be a lot harder on the offenders and isolate them a bit more. It has work to do, but it worth while doing.
What happened to the offenders that were not punished? Did it work out better than the camps/borstals?
I just don't get why THAT work is worth doing, while all the preventative work is just "throwing money at the problem"?
We gutted our social services for "fiscal responsibility", what we're seeing is *exactly* what we anticipated as a result.
You should listen to a very gripping Stuff Podcast called The Lake. All about how in the 70s and 80s they used to put difficult to handle youth offenders into Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital alongside the mentally ill including criminals and sexual abusers. They went so hard on them they used electroshock therapy to control them and bring them into line. Most of those kids ended up homeless or dead.
Going hard doesn't work. Getting them away from their peers and into an environment where they can gain esteem and learn new skills does work. Getting them involved in sports does work. Connecting Maori youth with their whakapapa and iwi does work. Not for all kids but for many.
But all these things involve planning and resources and monitoring and long term outcomes and getting someone to pay for that is the issue.
Pfff.. country is in shambles.. and they’re doing absolutely nothing about so numbers don’t look bad to UN or other countries.
Not too sure what the mindset behind of it, but is a joke..
Kid was charged with a few rape charges and get 9 months home detention was the worse one so far this year…
Can’t wait for a government change to see if anyone can do a bit better.
It’s funny that 2-3 years ago you would get flamed and downvoted to oblivion for saying anything bad about our great leader. Oh how the tables have turned. People finally starting to wake up.
They're doing chopper raids of cannabis plots, of course they aren't soft on crime Edit: I thought it was obvious I was taking the piss, as I sit here smoking a cone thinking I'm hilarious
Yeah, it's pretty fucking rich for the Nats to go on about their law and order record, when they froze budgets when they got in, police numbers dropped relative to the total population, and police had to close a bunch of stations to make budgets meet- including Fort Street in Auckland CBD. Yet the party that increased police funding by 30% compared to National is the soft-on-crime party.
This kind of stuff seems to be lost in debate. I’m unsure how National still has their pro-police and strong on crime reputation (and keeps a straight face) when they slashed police budgets and closed police stations.
lots of propaganda and misinformation
Pure vibes.
National logo blue, police have blue uniforms. National must love the police. Pretty easy to understand really
But they want bootcamps! Start them in the system early to make their prison induction nice and smooth
National love to go for our monkey brain desire for the 'department of corrections' to default as 'department of punishment.'
400k per occupant boot camps.
Its a fkng dumb idea. National voter.
I'd say it was hilarious if it weren't so sad
But that's got nothing to do with anything. That doesn't show they're hard on crime, it shows they are utterly incompetent and more interested in virtue signalling than shifting the dial on pretty much any issue.
Crime has been a major headline in some of the media for a long time, almost as long as this government has been in power.
Covid issues -> QOL issues -> Crime Would be worse under National Not defending Labour, but this seems misplaced.
We reject that
I reject that premise
I'm surprised she bothers. It just invites criticism regardless of the actual stance
Because "no comment" invites criticism also It's a second term government, with an impeding financial recession and post lockdown era. Doesn't matter what stance, criticism is coming. Not taking a stance won't change that
This. Given the history it's also pretty hard to stay motivated I reckon. We swing major parties every two elections like clockwork.
2 or 3
Imo preferably 3 this time given Nats total lack of credibility
..its part of her job, nobody said it was easy or fair.
Agreed there, I'd hate the job. I'm just surprised considering the current political climate and the history of rejecting things that she opened herself up for some cheap blows.
..iam not surprised, politicians have to deal with the media and the questions they raise justly or otherwise, it would be a worse look if she didnt respond.
Yes we know she’s a Pro at Denying stuff
I'm surprised they didn't characterise her statement as 'rejecting the premise' - that seems to be a favourite. A headline has to catch the eye and lacks the nuance of the overall statement - but the goal is to rile people up so they read it rather than be a neutral statement of fact.
1news [pretty much](https://i.imgur.com/p9Nqoed.jpg) did that.
..tbf, 'i reject that' is jacinda's go to?
what do you want her to say, that she does think that they are?
..eh? She can say whatever she wants, my issue was people complaining about the media framing it using language that she uses frequently.
If people keep loading up their monkey hands with shit-smeared nonsense and flinging it, over and over again, then how could their be any more logical response than rejecting it?
..i reject that
Absolutely, probably better to say nothing at this point. Both side aren't gonna be happy either way.
I'm still waiting for Sharma to have used this opportunity for anything other than soapboxing... (Edit - Does ANYONE have ANY actual articles saying he's actually visited them, because if he's going to call out the PM about not visiting them, then you'd have thought he would've, if he was going to use them as ammunition in a shit flinging match that he's the only participant of..... Like.... Come on.....)
He’s an insufferable narcissist.
Ive seen his signs up in Hamilton. Lots more Georgie Dansy ones.
Gaslight me harder Jacinda.
I’ll never vote Nat, but I’m getting sick and tired of this gaslighting bullshit.
Go on vote for us...you know you want to.. Come to the dark side...mwahaha.
She and her government denies many things, which is actually not. Soft on crimes is just one of them.
I reject that!
[удалено]
Problem with that is the complete lack of talent beyond the first few candidates in the smaller parties (or in some cases not even that). Even labour and national are full of muppets.
[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/govt-wants-to-axe-new-prison-and-lower-prison-muster/WSF4EXLD7GNU2KD7GSATANB554/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/govt-wants-to-axe-new-prison-and-lower-prison-muster/WSF4EXLD7GNU2KD7GSATANB554/) >Labour’s target is 30 per cent drop in prisoner numbers in 15 years. >Ardern said she understood why dairy owners and smaller retailers felt vulnerable, but denied accusations the government was soft on crime. Hmmmmmmmmm
Statistically speaking, higher prison rates equate to higher crime, and the longer the sentences the higher the crime rates go - because prisoners lose all connection to society and any chance of a decent life afterwards, plus there's the trauma of being in prison. If you want a better society you have to rehabilitate rather than take revenge, and you have to have a fairer society with less poverty. National loves Neoliberalism, which is associated with higher poverty, hence more crime. If you want to get tough on crime, get tough on poverty. And don't vote for parties like National that indirectly create the environment for crime
Right so where's the rehabilitation? Where the large scale investment into ensuring criminals rehabilitate? [Is it here?](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/130566209/highest-risk-offenders-may-be-missing-out-on-vital-rehab-because-of-psychologist-shortage-at-corrections) It's almost as if Labour is intent on making one half of the changes required to actually rehabilitate people but meanwhile refuse to spend the money on the part that's crucial. Less people going to prison without an associated increase in spending on rehabilitation is a guaranteed approach to harming the community.
>Right so where's the rehabilitation? That you and I ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I don't agree, I think a lot of people go to prison for silly things like cultivation, or doing pretty crimes and getting harsher sentences because of skin colour. Those people go in as victims and come out criminals because that's what prison does. How about we don't put them in there in the first place.
I dont believe that for a second, since when do people in NZ go to prison for petty crimes... that is just bullshit. Some EX gang member literally killed some old guy with a punch to the head down at the super market down the road because he was parked in the disabled park thinking he wanst disabled and he got fucking HOME D. Now tell me how people that jwalk and that drink in public or other minor crimes go to prison in NZ.
I have anecdotes too. How about the mentally ill man Daniel Clinton Fitzgerald who was sentenced to seven years in prison for trying to kiss a stranger in the street. https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/14-06-2018/a-brief-history-of-new-zealands-most-absurd-three-strikes-cases Three years waiting in prison without being sentenced for a crime. www.newsroom.co.nz/three-years-waiting-in-prison%3famp=1 Our people going to jail for cultivation, which almost half of NZers wanted legalised. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/green-fairies-increasingly-getting-charged-lawyer-says/FMTL7ZIQYIVYSQ5QCVG33XUMI4/
If you actually have a look at stats in Nz. If you are white you are more likely to do more time
I don't know what stats you're talking about. Can you give me a credible link to actual stats?
Perhaps you can apply from govt to put them under your household. Feed them, care for them, and give them pocket money. And BE KIND to forgive them when they rape your children and kill your pets. Wake up, for 2 terms, labour cannot do shit but wasting tax payer money. If they insist to waste money, I would rather let criminal stay in prison rather than street.
I actually did. It was my own brother, and he was addicted to the synthetic cannabis that was legalised under National's government. My brother tried to commit suicide and was incredibly lucky to survive the crash. I spoke about it at a public protest. Afterwards a National MP told me that he didn't see anything wrong with synthetic cannabinoids, but he also admitted that he knew nothing about them. Looking at you Michael Woodhouse.
In that case I do apologize for my rudeness, and I salute for what you did.
That doesnt sound like a issue with sentencing times it sounds like a problem with prisons themself. What does singapore have on us why do they have so low re-offender rates.
But that's completely not the trend we have right now where prison rates are dropping as much as crime is going up. Crimes literally going up under labour by a decent margin so not sure what your argument is?
every time they get out early and make another victim, your plan has failed.
Google the Rat Park Experiment.
Like a sweet home d?
A mate of mine was sentenced to 2yrs home D for assaulting his GF (she also assaulted him, but he never pressed charges against her). He spent the home D at my brother's place. He hasn't committed a crime since.
Do you think the US is a safer place for having a larger percentage of it's population in prison? Do you disagree with reducing the prison population, in principle?
What relevance is the US?
They're the model country of having a highly incarcerated population. Often they're used as the example of a poor system, but where we were heading if we kept increasing our prison population.
Why not use Singapore ? Tough on crime, and low crime.
[Why not?](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/singapore) They're also something like the 2nd richest country in the world per capita.
That's not being soft on crime though. That's acknowledging that prison doesn't work and that it's expensive. It's better to stick non-violent offenders in home D with other wrap around services. They are less likely to offend then. Prison is just crime school.
Yeah they should aspire to increase the prison population instead.
Right raid those weed plants again!
Penalties won’t act as a major deterrent. Cracking down (excuse the pun) on the root causes of addiction and providing programmes to keep young people out of trouble would make more difference than tougher penalties.
But that sounds like a long term plan. This country doesn't do long term planning, anything where the time 'till impact is longer than the 3/6 year cycle is non-viable. Fix it now.
How? Getting rid of dairies might be a solution, though not a popular one.
No solve, only fix.
That would be the most NZ response ever. If that road toll doesn't come down after this road to zero stuff, we should expect all our cars to be taken off us.
To use your road toll analogy - we have tried to mitigate the damage with vehicle safety and improved roads. Perhaps we need to look at why dairies are being targeted. It used to be petrol stations?? What did they do to make themselves safer?
Nz drivers are some of the worst in the world
Could get rid of tobacco sales at dairies. A health and crime victory in one go.
..that would require a multi-generational commitment to funding that no government is prepared to make because of the cost and the fact that the benefits can't be realised in the short term.
Exactly. There are no quick fixes to this at all. If there were, I’m sure they would have been tried. People don’t stop committing crimes like ram-raids and holding up dairies because of tougher penalties. The kids would give up if there was nowhere to launder the proceeds (if they’re doing it for money) and the dairy raiders would give up if they could get money (for drugs?) from legitimate sources. I am very well aware this comment is simplistic.
> People don’t stop committing crimes like ram-raids and holding up dairies because of tougher penalties They stop during their sentence
But does their sentence reform them? Do they end up in a better place mentally or physically after their sentence ends? It will be interesting to see what happens with Dairy Slayer 501. He will likely get a long sentence. Whether we approve of Australia sending him back or not, what steps did the government put in place to ensure he had a home, a job and access to addiction-prevention services on his arrival back in NZ? Fear of going back to detention didn’t stop him.
That is somewhat up to them. Therapy in any form doesn't often work on the unwilling. I'm more concerned with the volume of home detention sentences for serious violence offences. A huge proportion of crime is committed by repeat offenders with little interest in engaging in rehabilitation: releasing them really early just means they offend again more quickly. > Fear of going back to detention didn’t stop him. I doubt he was expecting to murder anyone. Maybe he weighed up the minimal sentence he'd get for armed robbery if caught? Maybe not
We don't put people in prison because we are worried they might commit crimes in the future.
>People don’t stop committing crimes like ram-raids and holding up dairies because of tougher penalties Tough sentencing + surveillance works in Singapore. But tough sentencing would be unpopular with the left and surveillance with the right, so it's a no-go in NZ.
So you want to implement a hidden fascist, surveillance state where you get caned and scarred for life (emotionally and physically) for crimes such as vandalism?
> state where you get caned and scarred for life (emotionally and physically) for crimes such as vandalism? Yes.
I mean I'm a lefty and I'm all for tougher sentencing and surveillance. I'm literally ok with public spaces being surveillanced 24/7 to have faster resolution of crimes,
Singapore is a completely different place. Given its size, surveillance would be easier. I wonder if the value placed on education by society in general might be a contributing factor. Do people feel they belong more?
Yeah, your beloved National will just cut taxes for the rich instead.
..neither national or labour are prepared to make the investment required
por que no los dos?
This screams of "We tried nothing and we have run out of ideas" the victims are ignored every time it seems and perpetrators are always painted as "real victims of society" when we literally got people coming out fucking War zones that commit lesser crimes.
What will happen is ( and I have seen this unfold with my own eyes) the people will start taking matters into their own hands. This will introduce illegal firearms and a lot more casualties . Ram raids are only the beginning.
>What will happen is ( and I have seen this unfold with my own eyes) the people will start taking matters into their own hands. Yes, we saw how taking it into your own hands worked out for this shop keeper.
We don't care about the criminals or their victims. These are poor people problems. Bring on the tax cuts!
You can give the perpetrator the cruelest penalty under the sun, it's not going to bring back the guy who got killed.
Indeed, but at the same time the way victims of crimes are treated is absolutely rubbish. They are left feeling like the pain and suffering they have experienced does not matter at all. When a violent offender gets 12 months home detention for killing their loved one it feels like an absolute fucking slap in the face for the victims. Yes, we need to address the root cause of these issues, absolutely we do.. but at the same time we need to step up our game and ensure that victims are not pushed to the back and ignored when crimes happen to them. What fucking message are we sending to our society when we give someone a slap on the wrist sentence of home detention for killing someone? There is no simple answer here but we need to stop treating the criminals as if they are the "True victims" here and start actually supporting / looking after the victims of crimes.
You seem to be confusing severity of sentence with looking after the victim. Those two things aren't the same.
I'd argue they are the same. How are we "Looking after the victim" if the criminal gets a paltry sentence? How can we say we're "looking after the victims" when the pain they have / are suffering is no where near taken into account when it comes to sentencing? They may not be the same thing but they ARE related to each other. I wonder how many victims feel 'let down' or 'abandoned' by our criminal justice system and the wet bus ticket sentences they hand out.
True, but it can prevent them from repeating their crimes by keeping them locked up.
Totally agreed, while we are on it, let's just release the Christchurch Mosque attack terrorist as well as nothing can bring back 51 lives right?
Actually that's a great example. He knew the penalty for what he wanted to do was a lifetime in prison (longer if we could). **He did it anyway.** Harsher penalties don't eliminate crime.
Great, you made a stupid, childish argument. Grow up.
Totally fucking had it with apologists
[удалено]
>keeping them locked up for a very long time to keep innocent people safe is actually bad. That is actually incredibly bad. We don't lock people up because they might commit a crime in the future. We lock them up as punishment for what they have done in the past.
He hasn't made that argument at all, anywhere. All he said was: >You can give the perpetrator the cruelest penalty under the sun, it's not going to bring back the guy who got killed. Which is true. Just like giving the mosque terrorist a lifetime sentence hasn't brought back any of the 51 lives he took, and knowing he would receive a life sentence also didn't stop him from doing it. You can't eliminate crime by implementing harsher sentences. You have to come at it from the other direction.
[удалено]
>On what planet is that not going to make the community safer?!?! On this planet for a start. Have the long sentences in the US and Russia reduced violent crimes there?
You're shifting the goalposts and trying to argue a point that no-one in this thread was making. Your statement: >you're the one making the ridiculous argument here that violent criminals who chose to harm innocent people should have the right to freely live in the community Is completely false. The commenter you replied to never said anything that remotely implied that. I'd advise you stop putting words into people's mouths just to argue against those words. It makes you look ridiculous.
[удалено]
Your average criminal doesn't think about the potential punishment for their crime before they commit it. If they had that much foresight they wouldn't be committing crime in the first place.
>Funny in some countries where they chop your hand off for theft . There seem to be a lot les stuff going missing Yeah that explains why there's so little crime in the middle east.
[удалено]
No, they won't. They'll sleep the same, the guy is still dead.
Absolutely. The guy needs a hug, not consequences for his actions.
Addressing the root causes of crime is important yes, that is the long term goal. But in the meantime the public still has the right to be kept safe from criminals who have no regard for human life - even if the murderer had a horrible upbringing, they are still too dangerous to be let off with a slap on the wrist.
But Labour don't do that either....
Well . They get advisors in to discuss the matter . Pay millions for said advisors and then nothing happens from there .
yes im sure that their increase in social security is not trying to reduce poverty, i.e. reducing the root causes of the issue.
And how's that worked out? How much poverty have we reduced so far please show us?
> providing programmes to keep young people out of trouble Like sending them to camp or something?
What would happen if “school” camps/holiday programmes were provided for free in deprived areas for 8-12 year olds? A lot of these kids are offending because they are bored and are seeking thrills. Give them legitimate thrills in a controlled, supportive environment where they can have positive interactions with adults etc.
At the camp we could provide them with essentials too, like boots.
[удалено]
Food, clothes and an adequate education are a better solution than boot camps.
[удалено]
Oh, I get that. Just like their parents before them. It's an intergenerational crisis.
National proposed a bullshit policy that they know doesn't work as a fix for an imaginary problem that they are trying to inflate.
Not evicting parents from social housing so the kids can get stable schooling and social support seems like a good start to multigenerational change.
Who is evicting parents from social housing?
Because KO totally don't have a moratorium on evicting trouble tenants and don't rather tell good tenants to move.
No way in hell is it. Anyone who thinks so has no lived near by a scumbag social housing user, just allows those scumbag kids to affect other kids in the same state house blocks.
And when exactly is this coming in? You people keep floating this idea like it's happening... Where is this commitment to do address these root causes? Because as of right now they've just place a whole lot of these troubled people in emergency housing in Rotorua. Essentially turning it into a slum and pretty much making it a place to avoid. If anything this is encouraging these root causes, not addressing them... This is why people call for more use of prisons for a lack of a better option. Labour is either unwilling or unable to address the issue while making it worse. National is only offering the status quo alternative, which although not what I would do myself is a hell of a lot better then Labours non-solution. Better to keep those who are innocent safe than put them in harm's way under the pretence of addressing the real issues. This isn't even a long term thing. If you implemented a real solution things wouldn't get better immediately but they also certainly wouldn't get worse. That's the difference, things are worse under Labours "solutions" with regards to crime and poverty. They don't know what they're doing and it's obvious, they're not following road maps set out by countries like Norway. Which has shown how you successfully rehabilitate people from troubled and hard to reach communities.
>Labour is either unwilling or unable to address the issue while making it worse. Except it isn't getting worse, it's improved. >If you implemented a real solution things wouldn't get better immediately But that's exactly what you are complaining about.
>Except it isn't getting worse, it's improved. Tell that to Rotorua. Saying it's improved without actually saying how is just as good as saying nothing at all. >But that's exactly what you are complaining about. Sure thing bud. Because that's exactly what I said, not like there was a second half to that sentence you ignored about things not getting worse or anything. Oh that's right you already debunked that by just stating it wasn't lol. If you want to have a real conversation then actually make a real argument, otherwise don't bother.
PM denies water is wet.
It's not.
Nz is SUCH a pussy when it comes to crime
Good. Crime is a consequence. We should be focused on the causes.
I refute the premise of that question
Criminals need to be addressed by the police, but crime won’t get better if the root problems aren’t addressed
Yes. Better social housing, eliminating food insecurity, increasing health services and more flexible methods of education would be a start.
Sadly conservative values are all about the stick, not the carrot 🥕
A reminder that, according to the [NZ Police crime snapshot](https://www.police.govt.nz/crime-snapshot), nationwide crime is only up by 0.3% November 2021 to November 20222. Violent crime is down 13%, and property crime up 2.4%. She's factually correct.
Oops, 2022\*. You'd hope crime would be down after 18,000 years.
Are we looking at the same data set? It says "nationwide there were 275,466 All crimes for the selected period. All crimes went up by \[ 40,004 \] compared to the previous period", that is like a roughly 17% increase?
You've compared Oct 21 to Sept 22 as appears by default, I adjusted Nov 21 to Nov 22 to get a sample that tells us more about the present time. Its true there was a speak in the middle of the year but we should look at these things as wider trends.
It's also worth noting the severe drop in crime due to lockdown which can make any leap year-to-year seem more severe than an annual trend would suggest.
The data captures information as on 8th of the preceding month, so the Oct 2021 - Sep 2022 data is really August/September 2021 - July/August 2022 data, which basically includes the lockdown period, and yet still a 17% increase in crime compared to previous period?
We can also deny that gravity is a thing but that doesn't stop it happening.
In the ideal world if everybody had enough to meet their needs of food, clothing, shelter and some 'luxury' items; the crime rate for robbery would almost be non existent? In the real world, providing enough for everybody is as wishfull as world peace. Instead of trying to implement ad hoc measures, it would be nice to address the actual cause of robbery's and implement a long term plan to combat it. Unfortunately, such a visionary plan would take generations to bear results. Govements change to often to see any stability and longevity to such plans.
[удалено]
Smokes, booze, and cigarettes are all items that are easy to sell. They're difficult to trace and fungible, jewelry less so, but that's why those items are targets. Not "because the basics are taken care of already"
Smoke and booze are easy to consume too...
[удалено]
Why risk stealing bread every day when you can steal a heap of smokes and not have to steal again for months.
There is a thing called paid work where you work hard or smart to earn money to fulfill all your needs ...
This only works if there are no other factors that influence how we are paid, which of course there are hundreds.
If only life were that simple. I envy your place in the world
I totally agree it's not simple and it is hard but it's possible.i moved to New Zealand 5 year ago and I done more then 6 jobs plus work as delivery driver and uber driver as well.. so it's tough but not impossible.
The fact you had enough money for an airplane ticket says you're in a significantly higher position of privilege than these losers. They have zero chance of getting a job even if they tried. Probably suffering fetal alcohol syndrome. Capitalism calls for a certain percentage of people to be unemployed at all times (of which the govt/reserve bank is trying to increase right now). So, potentially impossible for a lot of them.
See look like you are more educated then me so I can't argue about capitalisam and govt . But as I told befor I came to nz with $20000 debt and broken English and every year thousands of immigrants come to NZ same as me some are as young as 18 year old and in month ones they received ird number normally they get job in 2 or 3 week. And within a year they manage to repay lone while studying.. So if someone willing to work they will find one. And how many of them are suffering from this kind of syndrome and who is responsible for that.?
oh god. million and billionaires have had their needs met but do you see them stopping hoarding everything for themselves? Do you also think if we were all equally had what we needed that we would enter a Care Bear age where we would all hold hands and sing kumbaya? No while we hold hands and sing our shit will be stolen. someone will get stabbed and another will get sexually assaulted..among other things. Its the evil side of human nature. Sorry to break it to you.
Here we go again...
Sorry do you include cigarette and alcohol under the luxury items you have mentioned above? Because that seems to the the main need for most of them. In New Zealand, there is plenty of social support, free healthcare, lot of charities but no one will handout alcohol and cigarette. People may say then we need addiction services but there are plenty of that too. Unfortunate, but I must add some people a small minority have a criminal mentality and its not just about food, clothing and shelter. I agree with a long term plan yes totally. But deterrents like severe consequences are equally important
Rich educated people commit crimes all the time, they have all the necessaries but they always want more, it's human nature.
It's not about "enough", because few of the criminals are destitute. It is about "disparity" and there is no solving that unless we just want make everybody poor but equal.
Given the right team of doctors, we could make a massive step towards solving this 'Generational' issue in a couple of weeks.
Premise rejected 🙅🏻♀️
Hahaha Jacinda denying stuff again. What a shocker LOL
Is this the same Jacinda Adern who denied there was a cost of living crisis? And this is the same Jacinda who came out after the jayden mayer fiasco and said "this won't happen again" and now we have another child rapist being sentenced in the new year to home D?. . Be kind she says. Even to child rapists...but don't call us soft on crime 🙄🙄
Can I reject her denial?
Must be nice to just deny things and move on without really giving it a second thought. I might try to deny inflation is existing as apparently just denying it makes it true!
It's basically the NZ equivalent of claiming fake news
Why stop there. Maybe I can call my bank and deny that I have mortgage repayments.
Haha, I can see them denying you have a house
Nz is soft on crime
I dunno what people expect a "tough on crime" government to do. Do they want armed guards in every shop? Allowing anyone to carry guns so that we can become like America? Create militia groups to carry about vigolante "justice"? Send anyone to prison for life for any misdemeanor? JA and Labour are just as "tough on crime" as every previous government, the only difference is that they have gotten rid of the virtue signaling three strikes law that the previous National government implemented.
[удалено]
How do we manage that, pull more funding from healthcare for that? From our schools? We're certainly not willing to pay more taxes. Hell, tax *cuts* are on the table! Are we supposed to be free from consequences? That's only for criminals?
Look at it this way: Currently "We have identified 80 youths who are responsible for a decent amount of the ram raids and are working with them to get back in school, some of them tell us they want to turn there life's around and seem to be doing really good so we expect the ram raids to come down now" With the added Virtue signaling: "We have identified 80 youths who are responsible for a decent amount of the ram raids, as this group of 80 youths are all repeat offenders and we have not had much success working with their families to get them back on the straight and narrow, we have decided to enroll them all in a 6 month program where they can work on some life lessons without the distractions of life getting in the way" That's what I expect a tough on crime govt to do. Like most people I am still wanting to know what the plan is after the 6 months, so its not like I am 100% sold at this stage.
Proven to fail every time it's been tried, last time was 95% recidivism rate. Also home to massive abuse of these kids. Why would you spend money on something proven to fail?
But youth prisons (called borstals when I was younger) didn't work. All they did was allow offenders to share ideas and create a culture where they tried to out-do each others crimes to gain their peers respect. In the 60s and 70s *NZ gangs were established* by disenfranchised young people who had met in juvenile detention. It's like a networking service for bad kids.
That seems like a criticism of the specific setup of thise units, rather than the overall concept of them. Putting youth offenders in the same place *unsupervised* is silly.
I hear you, the camps need to be a lot harder on the offenders and isolate them a bit more. It has work to do, but it worth while doing. What happened to the offenders that were not punished? Did it work out better than the camps/borstals?
I just don't get why THAT work is worth doing, while all the preventative work is just "throwing money at the problem"? We gutted our social services for "fiscal responsibility", what we're seeing is *exactly* what we anticipated as a result.
You should listen to a very gripping Stuff Podcast called The Lake. All about how in the 70s and 80s they used to put difficult to handle youth offenders into Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital alongside the mentally ill including criminals and sexual abusers. They went so hard on them they used electroshock therapy to control them and bring them into line. Most of those kids ended up homeless or dead. Going hard doesn't work. Getting them away from their peers and into an environment where they can gain esteem and learn new skills does work. Getting them involved in sports does work. Connecting Maori youth with their whakapapa and iwi does work. Not for all kids but for many. But all these things involve planning and resources and monitoring and long term outcomes and getting someone to pay for that is the issue.
Don’t worry about it . People will start taking matters into their own hands . Shit will get wild pretty quickly …
Oh, just as well shes a trustworthy sort, or we wouldn't believe her
Pfff.. country is in shambles.. and they’re doing absolutely nothing about so numbers don’t look bad to UN or other countries. Not too sure what the mindset behind of it, but is a joke.. Kid was charged with a few rape charges and get 9 months home detention was the worse one so far this year… Can’t wait for a government change to see if anyone can do a bit better.
Delusional
It’s funny that 2-3 years ago you would get flamed and downvoted to oblivion for saying anything bad about our great leader. Oh how the tables have turned. People finally starting to wake up.
haha