Forms of government for New Zealand

Forums › Off topic › Forms of government for New Zealand

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

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1029230 22-Apr-2014 17:13

Sidestep:
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)

Yes and no. As long as we still have people that are different to one another then we're safe. It's only when people become the same, personality copies of each other, do we find ourselves in a bit of a pickle.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1029232 22-Apr-2014 17:17

Kyanar:
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".

I think unless you're in the NZDF or a diplomat..it's a New Zealand citizen who has been in New Zealand at any point in the past three years.

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1029247 22-Apr-2014 17:46

charsleysa:

Yes and no. As long as we still have people that are different to one another then we're safe. It's only when people become the same, personality copies of each other, do we find ourselves in a bit of a pickle.

It's when democracy starts to get undermined at the edges we need to worry. When arbitrary decisions are made about who's allowed to be part of the process.

to quote crazy old Abbie Hoffman

"You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1029267 22-Apr-2014 17:58

Sidestep:
charsleysa:

Yes and no. As long as we still have people that are different to one another then we're safe. It's only when people become the same, personality copies of each other, do we find ourselves in a bit of a pickle.

It's when democracy starts to get undermined at the edges we need to worry. When arbitrary decisions are made about who's allowed to be part of the process.

to quote crazy old Abbie Hoffman

"You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"

Are you trying to say a drug dealer, a murder, a rapist is a dissident?

The answer is they not.

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

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1029292 22-Apr-2014 18:54

sir1963:

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 ?

I don't quite believe that one.

Just out of interest, what is the source of those figures?

I suspect that even if they are genuine numbers, you may be comparing a detected number (ie detected welfare fraud) with an undetected number (ie rough back of the envelope guesstimates of unpaid tax based on estimates of the "black" economy etc). Undetected welfare fraud will definitionally be higher than the amount detected, and similarly detected tax fraud will be a lot lower than undetected tax fraud. If that is the basis of the estimates, the numbers aren't comparable and can't really be meaningfully compared at all.

Also, IRD does do a lot on tax fraud, and if they catch someone then the penalties and consequences can be truly harsh. I suspect, however, that other than the cases of really criminal fraud, they are charged with maximising the tax take and their main interest is in extracting money (tax owed, plus huge penalties, plus hefty interest) rather than sending someone to Jail. Based on what I have seen, if IRD even suspects you have cheated on your taxes, you don't have a very pleasant time of it.

Also, I doubt many people go to jail for "hundreds of dollars" on welfare fraud. It's more likely that they just have to pay it back at $x per week and/or do community service for more serious cases. I suspect it would have to be substantial and deliberate (and/or a repeat offence) for jail time to result?

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1029302 22-Apr-2014 19:08

KiwiNZ:
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

Ahh I see, so what keeps them out of prison is
Reducing benefit payments
Not being able to get a job
Not able to get housing

See the thing is when they get out of prison society keep believing they have to be punished more, they should not be entitled to start again, and then we act all outraged and surprised that they return to crime.

Rehabilitation is NOT just what happens in prison, it what happens afterwards, and its at this point Society has to help.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1029305 22-Apr-2014 19:13

JimmyH:
sir1963:

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 ?

I don't quite believe that one.

Just out of interest, what is the source of those figures?

I suspect that even if they are genuine numbers, you may be comparing a detected number (ie detected welfare fraud) with an undetected number (ie rough back of the envelope guesstimates of unpaid tax based on estimates of the "black" economy etc). Undetected welfare fraud will definitionally be higher than the amount detected, and similarly detected tax fraud will be a lot lower than undetected tax fraud. If that is the basis of the estimates, the numbers aren't comparable and can't really be meaningfully compared at all.

Also, IRD does do a lot on tax fraud, and if they catch someone then the penalties and consequences can be truly harsh. I suspect, however, that other than the cases of really criminal fraud, they are charged with maximising the tax take and their main interest is in extracting money (tax owed, plus huge penalties, plus hefty interest) rather than sending someone to Jail. Based on what I have seen, if IRD even suspects you have cheated on your taxes, you don't have a very pleasant time of it.

Also, I doubt many people go to jail for "hundreds of dollars" on welfare fraud. It's more likely that they just have to pay it back at $x per week and/or do community service for more serious cases. I suspect it would have to be substantial and deliberate (and/or a repeat offence) for jail time to result?

http://www.3news.co.nz/Courts-tougher-on-benefit-fraud-than-tax-dodging--study/tabid/1607/articleID/273541/Default.aspx
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/opinion/editorials/9242658/Editorial-Welfare-fraud-vs-tax-fraud
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/research/expertise/business-commerce/fraud-sentencing

Google "nz benefit fraud vs tax evasion"

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1029324 22-Apr-2014 19:21

sir1963:
KiwiNZ:
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

Ahh I see, so what keeps them out of prison is
Reducing benefit payments
Not being able to get a job
Not able to get housing

See the thing is when they get out of prison society keep believing they have to be punished more, they should not be entitled to start again, and then we act all outraged and surprised that they return to crime.

Rehabilitation is NOT just what happens in prison, it what happens afterwards, and its at this point Society has to help.

Did you not read "we would find work......"

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

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1029328 22-Apr-2014 19:24

sir1963:
JimmyH:
sir1963:

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 ?

I don't quite believe that one.

Just out of interest, what is the source of those figures?

I suspect that even if they are genuine numbers, you may be comparing a detected number (ie detected welfare fraud) with an undetected number (ie rough back of the envelope guesstimates of unpaid tax based on estimates of the "black" economy etc). Undetected welfare fraud will definitionally be higher than the amount detected, and similarly detected tax fraud will be a lot lower than undetected tax fraud. If that is the basis of the estimates, the numbers aren't comparable and can't really be meaningfully compared at all.

Also, IRD does do a lot on tax fraud, and if they catch someone then the penalties and consequences can be truly harsh. I suspect, however, that other than the cases of really criminal fraud, they are charged with maximising the tax take and their main interest is in extracting money (tax owed, plus huge penalties, plus hefty interest) rather than sending someone to Jail. Based on what I have seen, if IRD even suspects you have cheated on your taxes, you don't have a very pleasant time of it.

Also, I doubt many people go to jail for "hundreds of dollars" on welfare fraud. It's more likely that they just have to pay it back at $x per week and/or do community service for more serious cases. I suspect it would have to be substantial and deliberate (and/or a repeat offence) for jail time to result?

http://www.3news.co.nz/Courts-tougher-on-benefit-fraud-than-tax-dodging--study/tabid/1607/articleID/273541/Default.aspx
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/opinion/editorials/9242658/Editorial-Welfare-fraud-vs-tax-fraud
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/research/expertise/business-commerce/fraud-sentencing

Google "nz benefit fraud vs tax evasion"

Opinion not proven
Also where is the $15billion ??

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

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#1029330 22-Apr-2014 19:25

Sidestep:
Kyanar:
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".

I think unless you're in the NZDF or a diplomat..it's a New Zealand citizen who has been in New Zealand at any point in the past three years.

Sorry, yes that's right. The last time I looked, the wording was a little ambiguous. It's now clear that it's if you've been here at any point in the last three years (technically, even for a day would count. An annual trip to Queenstown would qualify you to vote).

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1029447 22-Apr-2014 22:34

sir1963:
JimmyH:
sir1963:

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 ?

I don't quite believe that one.

Just out of interest, what is the source of those figures?

I suspect that even if they are genuine numbers, you may be comparing a detected number (ie detected welfare fraud) with an undetected number (ie rough back of the envelope guesstimates of unpaid tax based on estimates of the "black" economy etc). Undetected welfare fraud will definitionally be higher than the amount detected, and similarly detected tax fraud will be a lot lower than undetected tax fraud. If that is the basis of the estimates, the numbers aren't comparable and can't really be meaningfully compared at all.

Also, IRD does do a lot on tax fraud, and if they catch someone then the penalties and consequences can be truly harsh. I suspect, however, that other than the cases of really criminal fraud, they are charged with maximising the tax take and their main interest is in extracting money (tax owed, plus huge penalties, plus hefty interest) rather than sending someone to Jail. Based on what I have seen, if IRD even suspects you have cheated on your taxes, you don't have a very pleasant time of it.

Also, I doubt many people go to jail for "hundreds of dollars" on welfare fraud. It's more likely that they just have to pay it back at $x per week and/or do community service for more serious cases. I suspect it would have to be substantial and deliberate (and/or a repeat offence) for jail time to result?

http://www.3news.co.nz/Courts-tougher-on-benefit-fraud-than-tax-dodging--study/tabid/1607/articleID/273541/Default.aspx
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/opinion/editorials/9242658/Editorial-Welfare-fraud-vs-tax-fraud
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/research/expertise/business-commerce/fraud-sentencing

Google "nz benefit fraud vs tax evasion"

Ummm..... I don't actually think those links make your case.

Firstly, the only reference there is to tax fraud as between $1 billion and $6 billion - I don't see $15 billion anywhere?

The articles also say that the IRD spends a lot of money chasing tax evaders, and recovers a lot in fines. Which doesn't exactly sound soft on tax evasion?

It's also pretty clear from reading the first article that the welfare number is a hard number (it's a point estimate) which implies it's detected fraud, while the tax number is a wide-range, which implies a guesstimate of undetected fraud. So the numbers aren't directly comparable.

My reading of what you link to also reads as a comparison of prosecution outcomes. In many cases IRD settles for whopping back taxes, penalties and interest rather than seeking a custodial sentence. And when they prosecute, unless it's egregious fraud, they are after a ruling on whether what was done was legal (often it isn't clear and the person in question actually believes that the way they tax calculated tax liability is legal) and fines. This is actually the appropriate outcome for the taxpayer. Having dealt with tax in the past, it has lots of grey areas. A lot of disputes aren't t flat-out fraud, they are boundary issues and interpretation. In those cases fines and penalties are the most appropriate outcome.

For welfare, when they prosecute, it's mostly flat out deliberate fraud. If it isn't (eg error) they tend to just establish a debt, and make you repay it at $X a week - and it doesn't go near the courts.

So the basis on which cases are selected for prosecution, and often the objectives of the prosecution, are fundamentally different between the two. It isn't exactly surprising that the outcomes are different as well.

So on my reading you are still using a comparison of non-comparable numbers, and differential outcome rates for fundamentally different prosecution types, to draw conclusions of unfairness. I remain unconvinced.

Edit: Spelling. D'oh.

Geekzone support

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

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8469

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1029452 22-Apr-2014 22:47

Fred99:
Geektastic:
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.

It doesn't work very well because

(a) we don't use it much - only 2% of burglary charges resulted in a prison sentence last year
(b) we don't put the perps in there long enough and we make it far too pleasant when we do.

Put me in charge and you'd have a minimum 5 year sentence for any offence rising to life with no parole fairly quickly and they'd be working in orange jumpsuits clearing rubbish in chain gangs, mending roads, working as unpaid builder's labour, breaking rocks to road metal by hammer and so on and so forth. With armed guards, who have orders to shoot to kill after a single warning if they try to escape.

I doubt all but the insane would want to suffer that twice.

Before getting into such knee-jerk reaction - no doubt brought to the fore in NZ by the comments by Jamie Whyte from the ACT Party, please take a look at some statistics:

There are two things which are very apparent:

"Resolution rate" is extremely poor at <14%.
The rate of recorded burglary has been falling significantly over the past 20 years - it's almost halved!

Of course it's still too much - but hardly cause for hand-wringing despair. The solution will not be found by implementing more harsh penalties. The thing that would reduce petty crime is to instill the belief that in carrying out such crime, there's a high probability of being caught, and (of course) that the penalty will be unpleasant (but that doesn't mean public floggings etc). Of the 14% "resolved", no doubt many or most are cases of stupid burglars, and no doubt some better organised burglars can get away with repeat offending knowing from "career experience" that the chance that they'll be caught is close to nil.
Chucking people in prison for property offences is pretty dumb - prisons as we run them are "criminal schools" - not by design perhaps, but definitely by statistics. It should be the last resort, reserved for violent offenders from whom society needs to be protected, and for people convicted of lesser offences who refuse to comply with other - more appropriate and hopefully rehabilitative - punishments imposed by the courts.

Thanks to talkback radio, disingenuous electioneering, and bad journalism, it always seems to get back to harsher penalties being "the answer". Where do you stop - with public de-limbing in city squares?
It's politically unpalatable to suggest the obvious answer which will work - more funding to the police to enable them to investigate and prosecute property crime.

I disagree. People in prison cannot commit crimes. Just keep them there longer each time until they are never allowed to leave. Sooner or later you should end up with those of us who do not commit crime left on the outside.

gzt

18690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7829

Lifetime subscriber

#1029478 22-Apr-2014 23:34

These minor increases followed by massive falls in the burglary rate coincide almost exactly with Playstation 1,2,3 and Xbox release dates and the drop in price and market penetration of large screen televisions!

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1029605 23-Apr-2014 09:25

KiwiNZ:
sir1963:
KiwiNZ:
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

Ahh I see, so what keeps them out of prison is
Reducing benefit payments
Not being able to get a job
Not able to get housing

See the thing is when they get out of prison society keep believing they have to be punished more, they should not be entitled to start again, and then we act all outraged and surprised that they return to crime.

Rehabilitation is NOT just what happens in prison, it what happens afterwards, and its at this point Society has to help.

Did you not read "we would find work......"

That has been "promised" by every government for decades, its right up there with Miss World contestants wanting "World Peace"

Economics demands there be unemployment, without a pool of employed wages get pushed up, the unemployed are there to keep wages down.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1029611 23-Apr-2014 09:35

Geektastic:
Fred99:
Geektastic:
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.

It doesn't work very well because

(a) we don't use it much - only 2% of burglary charges resulted in a prison sentence last year
(b) we don't put the perps in there long enough and we make it far too pleasant when we do.

Put me in charge and you'd have a minimum 5 year sentence for any offence rising to life with no parole fairly quickly and they'd be working in orange jumpsuits clearing rubbish in chain gangs, mending roads, working as unpaid builder's labour, breaking rocks to road metal by hammer and so on and so forth. With armed guards, who have orders to shoot to kill after a single warning if they try to escape.

I doubt all but the insane would want to suffer that twice.

Before getting into such knee-jerk reaction - no doubt brought to the fore in NZ by the comments by Jamie Whyte from the ACT Party, please take a look at some statistics:

There are two things which are very apparent:

"Resolution rate" is extremely poor at <14%.
The rate of recorded burglary has been falling significantly over the past 20 years - it's almost halved!

Of course it's still too much - but hardly cause for hand-wringing despair. The solution will not be found by implementing more harsh penalties. The thing that would reduce petty crime is to instill the belief that in carrying out such crime, there's a high probability of being caught, and (of course) that the penalty will be unpleasant (but that doesn't mean public floggings etc). Of the 14% "resolved", no doubt many or most are cases of stupid burglars, and no doubt some better organised burglars can get away with repeat offending knowing from "career experience" that the chance that they'll be caught is close to nil.
Chucking people in prison for property offences is pretty dumb - prisons as we run them are "criminal schools" - not by design perhaps, but definitely by statistics. It should be the last resort, reserved for violent offenders from whom society needs to be protected, and for people convicted of lesser offences who refuse to comply with other - more appropriate and hopefully rehabilitative - punishments imposed by the courts.

Thanks to talkback radio, disingenuous electioneering, and bad journalism, it always seems to get back to harsher penalties being "the answer". Where do you stop - with public de-limbing in city squares?
It's politically unpalatable to suggest the obvious answer which will work - more funding to the police to enable them to investigate and prosecute property crime.

I disagree. People in prison cannot commit crimes. Just keep them there longer each time until they are never allowed to leave. Sooner or later you should end up with those of us who do not commit crime left on the outside.

Well lets be fair about it.
We have a vote. Those for longer sentences, those against.
We then baseline the cost of the prison service.

ANYTHING above that baseline (inflation adjusted) gets paid by those who vote for longer sentences through higher taxes.

If YOU are right there will be fewer criminals because of the deterrent so there should be no cost increase.

Me, I vote no, I understand that history shows that more punitive sentences increases resentment, does not reduce crime. The US has significantly more punitive sentences tha NZ and has a MUCH bigger crime issue. Guns there have not solved crime, you are still more likely to suffer crime, suffer rape, be murdered in the USA than here (per 100,000 people)

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