A lot about the message has to do with the messenger.
Printable View
And none of that has anything to do with the mans name and disproportionate effect for the individual.... how is the name of the man going to assist with any of that? I have a problem with the idea of making examples of people when their individual penalty exceeds the equitable outcome just to make a point. And so should you.
And you are relying on the media for accurate information.....? nothing they print is accurate... they don't get anything right... how and why is totally is totally unreliable from the media...
You are negligent every day.... occasionally you won't get away with that. But its not intentional. The way that some people on here go on about negligence and deterrent value of punative outcomes for negligence shows no knowledge of how the most basic function of our minds actually work. Saying that punative response to negligence creates deterrant is just bullshit. People think that its not going to happen to them.
In another area I was listening to the National Program this morning and the speaker was a researcher in education. He said that it comprehensively established that punishing teenagers for intentional crimes will only result in lifetime criminals... high percentage stuff. Taking those same kids, convicted but providing paid supervision and help with a focus on filling the gaps in their lives will result in a 75% non re-offending rate. The cost being say 50k in direct supervision and 30k in external support.... 80k for a few years vs 99k per year for ongoing jail time and the associated human trauma inflicted on society because of our desire to punish. But imagine that, paying people for criminal behaviour... far easier just to build youth prisons. How fricking intelligent are we by giving the stupid public its pound of flesh? You might as well just get us to shoot ourselves in the foot, it's that fricken stupid.
The public are stupid, the desire to punish is stupid and our politicians are gutless. And thats for intentional criminal behaviour.
You really don't want to be on the scale below even that, for unintentional negligence.
I want to like this again and again.
A lot of kiwis get quite emotive it when it comes to punishment and are a bit too narrow minded to understand the value of a corrections department actually CORRECTING and how that takes cash, but anyway....
Grab the pitch forks, surely that will teach 'em...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your back? I thought you got "banned"
Regardless, glad to see your back on the forum @Dougie
You can counsel and cuddle these teenage pricks all you want but while I continue to see ever increasing numbers of people being violently punched, kicked and having knives held to their throats on television news footage I choose not to subscribe to your line of thinking and in fact am waiting for the day that I see camera footage of a shop owner taking a well aimed baseball bat to the knees of a couple of these bloody scumbags so I can be the first to show that the stupid public support such action and can make contribution to the defence fund that the poor bugger would need when he is transitioned from victim to offender by our fucked up society.
what u said was "publicise and punish accordingly" without excluding naming. Perhaps u are a victim of your own lack of specificity...? Yes u are correct patterns are established very early in life... but the brain is also plastic and can be retrained at any stage... it would seem that the best bang for the buck might be at the start of adolescent criminality in terms of understanding cost and benefit if the figures I quoted above are even close. Harder to do that with plunket nurses.
Accurate reporting? From the media? When guns are involved....????? I'll have some of what you have been taking....it sounds like fun.
On a more serious note, I stayed out of this so far because I have more questions and very little else?
How can any of us evaluate a fair response / repercussion to the situation when clearly 90% of the information needed to make an informed decision has been withheld?
Since when do the media even try to understand the implications or truth in what they publish? ( A more realistic question is probably "when did they stop?")
As for punitive vs restorative vs vigilante justice; Each situation is different. I can trot out several recent examples and historic ones, that will support both sides of the argument. Each of the offenders and victims has their own situation, and it is up to the judges to decide what form of response is warranted. Like all humans, there is room for error, and in our system this error is compounded by the confusion by lawyers arguing a case. And it i s very confrontational / adversarial. Hence the word arguing is very accurate in its application here.
There must be a better way, but each of the systems has its down sides. Too harsh and leaning towards punish means if we get it wrong we make things worse, too soft and they learn to repeat the behaviour without fear of consequences. My own view is we have swung too far towards the softly softly in discipline and society is now reaping what it sowed with the lack of discipline and boundaries many of us learnt in "harder" times. I believe it starts before they offend, when they are children learning boundaries and consequences for exceeding them.
It used to be that when a youth got dragged home by the police, the youth were more worried about what their parents would say, now it seems the parents will be more concerned about what their child claims the police have done to them....
The guy made a mistake. He didn't need a stricter childhood, or hard line police response or a 'when I was a boy' speech. He was simply negligent.
He nearly dusted his wife, any married man knows he is going to pay for that daily for the rest of his life :D
"Do you remember that time you nearly-"
"Yes dear "
Now YOU cook ME some eggs :D
"Yes dear"
Wait a minute. Are you telling me that we are supposed to try and get the inlaws to like us? Jeez, I've fucked that from the get go both times. First MIL was a WOII from J Force who was so used to ordering people around she never quit the habit and first FIL was an introverted light house keeper that thought he was in a crowd when he saw his shadow. Second MIL is a POME dyke and second FIL is a retired headmaster that is further to the left than I am to the right. None of them cottoned on to this fellah at all despite my offers to take them hunting.