Forms of government for New Zealand

Forums › Off topic › Forms of government for New Zealand

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1029042 22-Apr-2014 11:28

sir1963:
Fred99:
KiwiNZ:
Fred99: The system (prison) doesn't seem to work very well in NZ (deterrent to crime, and rehabilitation).
NZ has a relatively high rate of incarceration - and a poor performance with recidivism.

Restorative justice will always have varying levels of success, it is still better than retributive justice. But again the choice to reoffend is a conscientious choice. Loss voting an outcome of that choice.

You are talking about "ideology" not reality - as despite apparent efforts made, the high recidivism rates (>70% in NZ?) seem to show that "rehabilitation" is mainly a myth.
So not only do we have high prison rates, but the apparent "willingness" of ex-prisoners to re-offend seems to show that it's not acting as a deterrent (nor serving the function of keeping the public safe). It is a retributive system - many people are happy with that, and in fact want it more retributive.

But we don't rehabilitate in NZ, our prisons are punitive. Ww don't have any rights to complaint then when "rehabilitation" fails.

We also live in a society that seems to be more than happy to spend $80,000 plus a year per prisoner but begrudge them benefits which costs a lot less.

Society is keen to punish "Benefit abusers", last year benefit fraud cost about $100 Million

Corporate tax fraud and high income tax fraud however cost about $15 BILLION , yet little is done about this.

We put poor people in prison for theft of hundreds of dollars, yet fraud by accountants, lawyers, business executives who steal thousands of times that are not punished more harshly , why not ?

Surely the idea of prison is a deterrent , the educated, the wealthy have less reason to commit crime, yet they are not deterred.

So many times we would find work for a released prisoner and for them not to turn up for that work. They would then reoffend wind up in the courts and it is of course everyone else's fault bar theirs

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

gzt

18752 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7882

Lifetime subscriber

#1029049 22-Apr-2014 11:42

Removing the ability to vote is ineffective as a punishment or deterrent.

Also I expect voting itself is just as ineffective for those who see it as a rehabilitation tool.

This is not the point. The largest injury caused by removing the ability to vote is an injury to democracy itself.

Now please continue with the off topic discussion y'all lol. ; ).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1029054 22-Apr-2014 11:49

gzt: Removing the ability to vote is ineffective as a punishment or deterrent.

Also I expect voting itself is just as ineffective for those who see it as a rehabilitation tool.

This is not the point. The largest injury caused by removing the ability to vote is an injury to democracy itself and further wounds are likely to follow.

Now please continue with the off topic discussion y'all lol. ; ).

To be a part of democracy and to be able to participate in it then one should abide by the rules of the society in which you live. When one choses and it is a choice to act outside those rules then they have chosen not to participate in that society, then that society has the right to refuse their partial participation.
On release they have the opportunity to participate if they again chose not to then it is correct to remove that right.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

gzt

18752 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7882

Lifetime subscriber

#1029064 22-Apr-2014 12:08

This is far too simple. Among other things your argument completely ignores the fact that depriving one person of the right to vote for any reason weakens our entire democracy.

Before 2010 the rule was a sentence of three years or longer removed the ability to vote - at that time your argument would have made a bit more sense, but now it cannot be defended at all.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1029069 22-Apr-2014 12:18

gzt: This is far too simple. Among other things your argument completely ignores the fact that depriving one person of the right to vote for any reason weakens our entire democracy.

Before 2010 the rule was a sentence of three years or longer removed the ability to vote - at that time your argument would have made a bit more sense, but now it cannot be defended at all.

No, allowing people that don't care about society participate in its direction damages democracy

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

gzt

18752 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7882

Lifetime subscriber

#1029072 22-Apr-2014 12:22

Well you are going to have to disenfranchise a whole lot more people to reach that lofty goal lol.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1029102 22-Apr-2014 13:07

gzt: This is far too simple. Among other things your argument completely ignores the fact that depriving one person of the right to vote for any reason weakens our entire democracy.

Before 2010 the rule was a sentence of three years or longer removed the ability to vote - at that time your argument would have made a bit more sense, but now it cannot be defended at all.

Yes, for any New Zealand Citizen of age, the right to vote should be inviolable - including: Insane persons. Jailed persons. Persons on the Corrupt Practices List.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1029105 22-Apr-2014 13:18

Sidestep:
gzt: This is far too simple. Among other things your argument completely ignores the fact that depriving one person of the right to vote for any reason weakens our entire democracy.

Before 2010 the rule was a sentence of three years or longer removed the ability to vote - at that time your argument would have made a bit more sense, but now it cannot be defended at all.

Yes, for any New Zealand Citizen of age, the right to vote should be inviolable - including: Insane persons. Jailed persons. Persons on the Corrupt Practices List.

Why?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

gzt

18752 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7882

Lifetime subscriber

#1029117 22-Apr-2014 13:52

Sidestep:
gzt: This is far too simple. Among other things your argument completely ignores the fact that depriving one person of the right to vote for any reason weakens our entire democracy.

Before 2010 the rule was a sentence of three years or longer removed the ability to vote - at that time your argument would have made a bit more sense, but now it cannot be defended at all.

Yes, for any New Zealand Citizen of age, the right to vote should be inviolable - including: Insane persons. Jailed persons. Persons on the Corrupt Practices List.

Your formulation excludes permanent residents. Australia excludes some 640,000 kiwi's from voting for exactly the same reason. There is a similar policy in effect to Saudia Arabia / UAE with it's more or less permanent 'guest worker' population.

Similar to yourself I would not regard a 2 y/o as having the ability to vote, therefore I expect some severely intellectually disabled people will fall into that category also. How that is decided in practice I don't know but it is probably in the act.

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1029165 22-Apr-2014 15:14

gzt:
Your formulation excludes permanent residents. Australia excludes some 640,000 kiwi's from voting for exactly the same reason. There is a similar policy in effect to Saudia Arabia / UAE with it's more or less permanent 'guest worker' population.

Similar to yourself I would not regard a 2 y/o as having the ability to vote, therefore I expect some severely intellectually disabled people will fall into that category also. How that is decided in practice I don't know but it is probably in the act.

Permanent residents should be able to vote, I don't believe their right to vote should be inalienable - as it should be for Citizens..

If the percentage of Insane, Jailed or Corrupt people becomes high enough to affect the outcome of an election there are deeper problems, (that may be fixed by the electoral outcome:)

I believe blind, physically disabled, or illiterate voters, and those mentally unable to complete an enrolment form, can nominate others to vote on their behalf.

Those Kiwis in Australia – and other countries - have the right to a special vote in NZ elections, subject to the length of time they've been away from NZ.
I've always voted wherever I've lived. The opportunity to have a say in the governance of my country is too good to be passed up..

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1029176 22-Apr-2014 15:23

KiwiNZ:
Why?

When we allow those we've elected to then decide who can vote, we're on a slippery slope.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1029182 22-Apr-2014 15:35

Sidestep:
KiwiNZ:
Why?

When we allow those we've elected to then decide who can vote, we're on a slippery slope.

We made that decision, that is what democracy is

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1029221 22-Apr-2014 16:57

KiwiNZ:
Sidestep:
KiwiNZ:
Why?

When we allow those we've elected to then decide who can vote, we're on a slippery slope.

We made that decision, that is what democracy is

And a democracy can easily become a dictatorship.

I agree with you in that re-offending prisoners should have their rights to vote revoked as they have continually shown that they do not wish to live by the rules of this society.

In saying that we must be careful with such decisions as they can get out of control very quickly.

Democracy is highly dependent on variety. It is dependent on people having different view points from one another and aligning their viewpoints in a way that will be beneficial for society.

If there were to be a situation in which a large portion of the population starts to think in a certain way which is potentially harmful to society, we may get into a situation where they could vote to change to a dictatorship (extreme example).

Though the likeliness of that ever happening is really really really small. No system is bulletproof.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#1029226 22-Apr-2014 17:06

Sidestep: Those Kiwis in Australia – and other countries - have the right to a special vote in NZ elections, subject to the length of time they've been away from NZ.
I've always voted wherever I've lived. The opportunity to have a say in the governance of my country is too good to be passed up..

My understanding is that so long as you're a natural Citizen of New Zealand, no matter where you live in the world you may vote (subject to it being a giant pain in the rear to mail your vote to the electoral commission prior to election day) with the only time based thing being that your electorate is defined as "where in New Zealand you last lived for 3 or more years".

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1029229 22-Apr-2014 17:11

charsleysa:

And a democracy can easily become a dictatorship.

I agree with you in that re-offending prisoners should have their rights to vote revoked as they have continually shown that they do not wish to live by the rules of this society.

In saying that we must be careful with such decisions as they can get out of control very quickly.

Democracy is highly dependent on variety. It is dependent on people having different view points from one another and aligning their viewpoints in a way that will be beneficial for society.

If there were to be a situation in which a large portion of the population starts to think in a certain way which is potentially harmful to society, we may get into a situation where they could vote to change to a dictatorship (extreme example).

Though the likeliness of that ever happening is really really really small. No system is bulletproof.

..so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty? (Plato: The Republic)

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13