NZ a soft touch

Forums › Off topic › NZ a soft touch

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

firewire

107 posts

Master Geek

#2678074 21-Mar-2021 20:30

Well it seemed like it to me. I've ignored the other triggered ones. If mental illness is being abused then why? What is the explanation? Perhaps even that is a form of lawlessness?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2678124 22-Mar-2021 07:17

@firewire what evidence do you have that mental health is being abused or are your pontifications being pulled out of the air or from what is evident an obvious prejudice?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2678202 22-Mar-2021 09:44

firewire:

Well it seemed like it to me. I've ignored the other triggered ones. If mental illness is being abused then why? What is the explanation? Perhaps even that is a form of lawlessness?

"If mental illness is being abused then why?" seems like word salad.

"Not guilty by reason of insanity" really isn't some kind of free pass, the bar is set so high it's rarely used, recidivism rates are low compared to "sane" people sent to prison. The very few cases where it goes go awry makes a great subject for TV shows and movies, attention-grabbing news articles, subsequent moral panic, and huge unjustified prejudice against all people who are mentally ill. The kinds of impairments that might result in such a acquittal, severe mental retardation, psychotic illnesses etc don't correlate strongly with violent criminal behaviour.

The result of the media frenzy when it does go wrong, combined with Hollywood portrayals, has the result that many people seem to really think the world is full of psychotic/psychopathic cannibalistic serial killers who grew up torturing kittens, now lurking in the shadows waiting to slaughter them and their families when the moon is full. You're far far more likely to be murdered by a "sane" person you know quite well, a family member, friend, romantic rival, possibly in revenge for something you did.

If you could take booze (and methamphetamine) out of the equation, the violent crime/murder rate in NZ would be much lower (the road toll, and child neglect/abuse would be as well).

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2678257 22-Mar-2021 10:40

firewire:

Sure no problem with that. People who suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts. I don't understand how making a wrong moral choice actually relates to mental health. A man was shot dead the other week by police because he wouldn't give up his firearm.

a) Mental ill-health impairs rational decision making. If the voices in your head say that you must do something, then you may not consider the consequences.

b) Mental ill-health may mean that you don't connect action with consequence. So there's no moral aspect to making a decision that results in (say) someone else's death.

c) If you're suicidal (and not religious), then there is *no* downside to any action. There have been many cases of suicide-by-cop... threatening a cop with a weapon so that they kill you.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2678262 22-Mar-2021 10:48

firewire:

When did science become so influential over law? That's rather frightening. No punishment for an obvious violation of law so it's not being applied equally to everybody.

Que'???? We shouldn't let the facts, as determined in a rigorous and disciplined way, get in the way of the verdict????

One of the principles of law is that it (somewhat like science) is rational and logical. As such, it applies to rational people. If someone is irrational, then they need treatment, not punishment. Punishing an irrational person won't teach them anything, and won't deter other irrational people. Why do you want to punish irrational people?

(Having said that, all people are irrational at some level or other.)

firewire

107 posts

Master Geek

#2678841 22-Mar-2021 21:59

Fred99:

firewire:

Well it seemed like it to me. I've ignored the other triggered ones. If mental illness is being abused then why? What is the explanation? Perhaps even that is a form of lawlessness?

"If mental illness is being abused then why?" seems like word salad.

"Not guilty by reason of insanity" really isn't some kind of free pass, the bar is set so high it's rarely used, recidivism rates are low compared to "sane" people sent to prison. The very few cases where it goes go awry makes a great subject for TV shows and movies, attention-grabbing news articles, subsequent moral panic, and huge unjustified prejudice against all people who are mentally ill. The kinds of impairments that might result in such a acquittal, severe mental retardation, psychotic illnesses etc don't correlate strongly with violent criminal behaviour.

The result of the media frenzy when it does go wrong, combined with Hollywood portrayals, has the result that many people seem to really think the world is full of psychotic/psychopathic cannibalistic serial killers who grew up torturing kittens, now lurking in the shadows waiting to slaughter them and their families when the moon is full. You're far far more likely to be murdered by a "sane" person you know quite well, a family member, friend, romantic rival, possibly in revenge for something you did.

If you could take booze (and methamphetamine) out of the equation, the violent crime/murder rate in NZ would be much lower (the road toll, and child neglect/abuse would be as well).

So a "sane" person can take somebody else's life. Couldn't believe it when I read that this morning. The last comment is anecdotal at best. What I meant by mental illness being abused is what was already said by somebody else that defence lawyers are using this far too often as an excuse. It could become a precedent then it could be used in the future. Seems to be a trend. I'm looking at the big picture. I've been misunderstood. So that for reason and a few others, I'm out.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2678928 23-Mar-2021 08:30

firewire:

What I meant by mental illness being abused is what was already said by somebody else that defence lawyers are using this far too often as an excuse. It could become a precedent then it could be used in the future. Seems to be a trend. I'm looking at the big picture. I've been misunderstood. So that for reason and a few others, I'm out.

"Far too often" for who? Someone who wants more convictions, obviously. What is an acceptable number of times to use an insanity defence? An "excuse" or a reason? The law allows an insanity defence, so it is being used, not "abused". The insanity defence is available because in the past it has been found that insane people commit criminal acts through no fault of their own.

As someone in this thread has already said, the bar for an insanity defence is set very high. Think back to Antonie Dixon. Think back to Clayton Weatherston who tried to use narcissistic personality disorder as part of his defence.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2679112 23-Mar-2021 11:22

Seems to be confusion by @firewire over the different definitions of sanity/insanity by the courts and medical experts and the general public.

It doesn't just apply to criminal cases. If someone's clearly mentally unwell and refuses to accept treatment that will help treat the disorder, there's a very high bar (and different bar to the insanity acquittal process) to pass in order to have them treated against their will. In that case they have to be deemed (by experts) to be a risk to the safety of others - or to themselves. Mistakes get made.

You can't just lock people up and medicate them against their will because they're a bit nutty. Half the contributors to this thread might disappear.

Anyway prisons are full of people who have mental health issues, intellectual disabilities etc. ~60% of the prison population are also functionally illiterate.

When the victim-killer relationship is "friend", alcohol is a factor 64 per cent of the time. 87% of homicide offenders are male. 10 times more homicide occurs in the most deprived social decile areas than the least deprived decile. Half of all homicides are committed by men under the age of 30.
Half of all homicides where the victims are adult women are killed by their partner or an ex-partner.
Most homicides where the victims are children are killed by a parent or caregiver.

Recidivism rates from prison are high, prison officers I've spoken to tell me that they think many of the people who are in prison shouldn't really be there as they weren't violent when they went in, but probably will be when they come out. Most murderers however do have prior convictions for violent offences.

As an anecdote, I do know someone acquitted for murder because of insanity. The person killed a child they dearly loved. No change to criminal laws or sentencing could have prevented that from happening. Better access to mental health care may have done so.
I also knew one victim of a killing where the offender was acquitted because of insanity. Again no change to criminal law or sentencing would have prevented it. Tighter controls on access to firearms may have done so, but again better access to mental health care may have done so.

floydbloke

3523 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2679581 24-Mar-2021 07:35

What I struggle with is how tangible a mental health condition diagnosis is?

( I must confess to being a little sceptical in this case but the 'experts' have called it.)

Say, someone has a really bad day at work, got 'bullied' by their boss, had to deal with unreasonable customers, etc. Goes home in a foul mood and strikes out at his/her partner or child. Is 'I wasn't thinking straight' an excuse?

Take this case of a courier stealing parcels .

Stuff:

In explanation for the theft, Arora told police he had been going through some difficult times both personally and with his employment situation.

Do difficult times consitute a (acute perhaps) mental health condition?

Did Eric Clapton really think she looked wonderful...or was it after the 15th outfit she tried on and he just wanted to get to the party and get a drink?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2679599 24-Mar-2021 08:21

What should be a second crime there is that NZ Couriers took six months to notice that one courier had "mislaid" 89 packages.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2679610 24-Mar-2021 08:50

Fred99: What should be a second crime there is that NZ Couriers took six months to notice that one courier had "mislaid" 89 packages.

I'd imagine a bunch of it comes down to "signature required" packages. The courier signs for the package and leaves it somewhere (or, in this particular case, keeps it) and the company mindset is "the package has been delivered - we can't control subsequent theft." There needs to be a change somewhere so that packages with signature required status actually need the receiving party to sign for it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18662 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2679616 24-Mar-2021 09:18

Dratsab:

I'd imagine a bunch of it comes down to "signature required" packages. The courier signs for the package and leaves it somewhere (or, in this particular case, keeps it) and the company mindset is "the package has been delivered - we can't control subsequent theft." There needs to be a change somewhere so that packages with signature required status actually need the receiving party to sign for it.

That would be a big problem where we live. Most likely result would be a requirement to drive into town to pick up at depot. Thank you, no.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2679646 24-Mar-2021 10:29

Rikkitic:

Dratsab:

I'd imagine a bunch of it comes down to "signature required" packages. The courier signs for the package and leaves it somewhere (or, in this particular case, keeps it) and the company mindset is "the package has been delivered - we can't control subsequent theft." There needs to be a change somewhere so that packages with signature required status actually need the receiving party to sign for it.

That would be a big problem where we live. Most likely result would be a requirement to drive into town to pick up at depot. Thank you, no.

Whilst it would be an annoyance, I agree with Dratsab. I'm fed up with couriers signing my name and leaving valuable parcels on my doorstep. If someone sends me a parcel that's not valuable, then the sender can use a no-signature-required service, or I can give the company an authority to leave. And obviously a signature-required service requires the signature of the *addressee*, because the whole point is assurance of delivery. There's no point in requiring a signature of some random person. The courier driver has no right to sign anything on my behalf, just because he can't be bothered returning the parcel to the depot.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18662 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2679653 24-Mar-2021 10:46

I agree that courier services seem to be run by monkeys. But couriers don't come to where we live. Instead everything is passed to the rural postie. He has signing authority and I wouldn't want it any other way. We know and trust our rural posties.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5