Police not issuing tickets to unlicensed Maori drivers

Forums › Off topic › Police not issuing tickets to unlicensed Maori drivers

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Networkn
32365 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1326872 17-Jun-2015 22:46

Geektastic:
Rather than a free pass, I would have a mandatory 12 month jail term with no parole for the first offence.

Sure, then we would have 10 more prisons filled with people spending 90 days there getting criminal records which make them harder to employ, meaning more people on benefits and secondly, a 10% increase in taxes to cover the cost of the prisons and the cost of housing these low end criminals. Not to mention more courts, longer waits
for trials..

Batman

Mad Scientist
29771 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1326882 17-Jun-2015 23:00

Just watched the late news, apparently this racist policy is secret from the big boss and will now be axed

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1326907 18-Jun-2015 01:32

Geektastic: And in case anyone thinks I am being unduly harsh, here are the typical US penalties for the same offence:

1st Offense

● Up to 90 days in prison

● $150 to $200 fine

● License suspended at least one year

Subsequent Offenses

● Up to one year in prison

● $200 to $600 fine

● License suspended at least two years

● If previously violated these provisions or operated without obtaining a license: additional fine of up to $500 or up to 100 community service hours

● If two previous violations of those provisions: additional mandatory 90 days in prison

Yep.

But, American 'justice' is crazy.

It seems to be driven by profits in the prison industry.

It is not something we want to emulate here.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1326908 18-Jun-2015 01:52

joker97: Just watched the late news, apparently this racist policy is secret from the big boss and will now be axed

Technically, it is a race-based policy (or seems to be).

It is the race-based aspect that is the problem.

If it wasn't for that, I would applaud the Police for encouraging compliance, rather than just issuing tickets.

I strongly disagreed with their silly 'zero tolerance' of speed limits during holidays.

So, I am not inclined to be too critical of them now.

I would give them credit for thinking beyond fines.

Fines are a terribly unjust method of dealing justice. The effect is inversely related to how much money you have/earn.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1327004 18-Jun-2015 08:33

Rappelle:
Geektastic:

I'm not terribly interested in "positively affecting" any part of the population. The law is the law. It is clear and well publicised. Obey it or face the consequences.

Perhaps that simple message is no longer taught by parents?

Geektastic: And in case anyone thinks I am being unduly harsh, here are the typical US penalties for the same offence:

1st Offense

<snip>

It sounds like you are genuinely more interested in punishing people than creating a society which is equal and pleasant to live in?
You can easily see the differences between USA and countries like Norway who treat the weakest in their society in completely opposite ways.

One of those countries is fraught with corruption, poverty, overloaded prisons and terrible rehabilitation rates - the other is not. We should be aiming to steer clear of the "USA way", because all that's going to do is destroy this country.

While the law needs to be followed, it's better to educate and give a second chance than simply lock them away, further ruining their lives and future prospects of becoming a better citizen. The aim of that education is to reduce repeat offending - where penalties should become higher.

The USA model of punishment you're describing is simply ineffective.

It seems pretty simple.

You have laws to "make society equal and pleasant to live in".

The onus on those living in the society is to OBEY those laws or face penalties as proscribed therein.

It is widely known that a licence is required to drive, ergo driving without one is wilfully disobeying the law.

I fail entirely to see why prosecuting people for deliberately disobeying the law makes society unequal or unpleasant to live in.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1327008 18-Jun-2015 08:45

Geektastic:
Rappelle:
Geektastic:

I'm not terribly interested in "positively affecting" any part of the population. The law is the law. It is clear and well publicised. Obey it or face the consequences.

Perhaps that simple message is no longer taught by parents?

Geektastic: And in case anyone thinks I am being unduly harsh, here are the typical US penalties for the same offence:

1st Offense

<snip>

It sounds like you are genuinely more interested in punishing people than creating a society which is equal and pleasant to live in?
You can easily see the differences between USA and countries like Norway who treat the weakest in their society in completely opposite ways.

One of those countries is fraught with corruption, poverty, overloaded prisons and terrible rehabilitation rates - the other is not. We should be aiming to steer clear of the "USA way", because all that's going to do is destroy this country.

While the law needs to be followed, it's better to educate and give a second chance than simply lock them away, further ruining their lives and future prospects of becoming a better citizen. The aim of that education is to reduce repeat offending - where penalties should become higher.

The USA model of punishment you're describing is simply ineffective.

It seems pretty simple.

You have laws to "make society equal and pleasant to live in".

The onus on those living in the society is to OBEY those laws or face penalties as proscribed therein.

It is widely known that a licence is required to drive, ergo driving without one is wilfully disobeying the law.

I fail entirely to see why prosecuting people for deliberately disobeying the law makes society unequal or unpleasant to live in.

I am not sure if you know what compliance is, they will be fined but the fine is on hold if they do set conditions, they fail to do the conditions the fine is enforced. If they get their license they comply with the law, the cost to
The tax payer is considerably less and we have a trained licensed driver on the road. I would call that a win win scenario.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#1327052 18-Jun-2015 09:27

Geektastic: You have laws to "make society equal and pleasant to live in".

We have regulation to provide structure and order.

Society is not equal nore does everyone want it to be pleasant to live in. Also what some people consider pleasant, others do not.

For example, in my area there are many people who consider having a good toke of weed twice a day would make their lives very pleasant, I suspect you're a person who couldn't think of anything worse.

Geektastic: The onus on those living in the society is to OBEY those laws or face penalties as proscribed therein.

...or to gain agreement to change the regulation.

In this case that's exactly what the Auckland Police have been doing. They've just been using the flexibility in the regulation to find what they consider to be the best outcomes.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#1327054 18-Jun-2015 09:30

JWR:
But, American 'justice' is crazy.

It seems to be driven by profits in the prison industry.

It is not something we want to emulate here.

I have to agree.

They seem to be 'in the business of locking people up'.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

frankv

5681 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1327055 18-Jun-2015 09:31

Geektastic:

I'm not terribly interested in "positively affecting" any part of the population. The law is the law. It is clear and well publicised. Obey it or face the consequences.

It's disturbing that someone could have such total belief in the absolute rightness of the law, and the absolute need to enforce it. It's as if compliance with some arbitrary law is a goal unto itself.

The purpose of the law is (or should be) to protect people from harm. Whilst it does that adequately 99% (or more) of the time, there are always clear failures where, despite everyone obeying the law, someone gets hurt or killed. Conversely, there are times when complying with the law costs people (in time, money, opportunity, or whatever), without providing *any* benefit at all. So, any kind of absolutism around the law is foolish. In the words of Douglas Bader... "Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools".

For the foolish... The law in this case is that the Police *can* waive fines in favour of compliance. The law is the law. It is clear and well publicised. Stop moaning about it.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1327060 18-Jun-2015 09:42

DonGould:
Geektastic: You have laws to "make society equal and pleasant to live in".

We have regulation to provide structure and order.

Society is not equal nore does everyone want it to be pleasant to live in. Also what some people consider pleasant, others do not.

For example, in my area there are many people who consider having a good toke of weed twice a day would make their lives very pleasant, I suspect you're a person who couldn't think of anything worse.

Geektastic: The onus on those living in the society is to OBEY those laws or face penalties as proscribed therein.

...or to gain agreement to change the regulation.

In this case that's exactly what the Auckland Police have been doing. They've just been using the flexibility in the regulation to find what they consider to be the best outcomes.

In fact I can see no logic in being able to buy and consume, say, 5 bottles of vodka legally and not being able to buy and consume an eighth of pot legally. That is slightly beside the point, however.

We are talking about a very simple document here - a driving licence. Pretty much everywhere in the world requires people to have one in order to drive. It is not a massive infringement of civil liberties to expect people to get one if they wish to take advantage of the privilege of driving on the public roads.

The documents are cheap as chips - barely $100. However, it seems to me a logical solution is this:

Make the licence free.

Then double the punishment for not having one, because there is no longer ANY excuse other than wilful intent.

It would probably work out cost neutral once you account for all the police and court time wasted chasing offenders now which would (logically) be significantly reduced.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1327064 18-Jun-2015 09:46

frankv:
Geektastic:

I'm not terribly interested in "positively affecting" any part of the population. The law is the law. It is clear and well publicised. Obey it or face the consequences.

It's disturbing that someone could have such total belief in the absolute rightness of the law, and the absolute need to enforce it. It's as if compliance with some arbitrary law is a goal unto itself.

The purpose of the law is (or should be) to protect people from harm. Whilst it does that adequately 99% (or more) of the time, there are always clear failures where, despite everyone obeying the law, someone gets hurt or killed. Conversely, there are times when complying with the law costs people (in time, money, opportunity, or whatever), without providing *any* benefit at all. So, any kind of absolutism around the law is foolish. In the words of Douglas Bader... "Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools".

For the foolish... The law in this case is that the Police *can* waive fines in favour of compliance. The law is the law. It is clear and well publicised. Stop moaning about it.

Of course compliance with laws is a goal in itself. They exist to be complied with. It's the point of them.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1327068 18-Jun-2015 09:49

MikeB4:
Geektastic:
Rappelle:
Geektastic:

I'm not terribly interested in "positively affecting" any part of the population. The law is the law. It is clear and well publicised. Obey it or face the consequences.

Perhaps that simple message is no longer taught by parents?

Geektastic: And in case anyone thinks I am being unduly harsh, here are the typical US penalties for the same offence:

1st Offense

<snip>

It sounds like you are genuinely more interested in punishing people than creating a society which is equal and pleasant to live in?
You can easily see the differences between USA and countries like Norway who treat the weakest in their society in completely opposite ways.

One of those countries is fraught with corruption, poverty, overloaded prisons and terrible rehabilitation rates - the other is not. We should be aiming to steer clear of the "USA way", because all that's going to do is destroy this country.

While the law needs to be followed, it's better to educate and give a second chance than simply lock them away, further ruining their lives and future prospects of becoming a better citizen. The aim of that education is to reduce repeat offending - where penalties should become higher.

The USA model of punishment you're describing is simply ineffective.

It seems pretty simple.

You have laws to "make society equal and pleasant to live in".

The onus on those living in the society is to OBEY those laws or face penalties as proscribed therein.

It is widely known that a licence is required to drive, ergo driving without one is wilfully disobeying the law.

I fail entirely to see why prosecuting people for deliberately disobeying the law makes society unequal or unpleasant to live in.

I am not sure if you know what compliance is, they will be fined but the fine is on hold if they do set conditions, they fail to do the conditions the fine is enforced. If they get their license they comply with the law, the cost to
The tax payer is considerably less and we have a trained licensed driver on the road. I would call that a win win scenario.

But they knew full well they should have had the licence already. That simple point seems to be missed here. They KNOWINGLY committed the offence in almost every case, since the number of people who do not genuinely know that a licence is required in advance of driving is infinitesimally small I would think.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1327070 18-Jun-2015 09:51

I wonder if so many people would be supportive if the licence laws being ignored were those relating to piloting aircraft....

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1327085 18-Jun-2015 10:04

Geektastic:
But they knew full well they should have had the licence already. That simple point seems to be missed here. They KNOWINGLY committed the offence in almost every case, since the number of people who do not genuinely know that a licence is required in advance of driving is infinitesimally small I would think.

Of course those on income support earning around $160 per week can pay the very expensive costs of obtaining a license after all food, clothing and a roof over the head are luxuries they can do with out whilst they do this. Yes it is wrong that they are unemployed, yes it is wrong
that they were driving with out a license but why add to the wrongs to feed your desire for judicial revenge.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1327090 18-Jun-2015 10:09

Geektastic: I wonder if so many people would be supportive if the licence laws being ignored were those relating to piloting aircraft....

Reductio ad absurdum

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12