ACT banging their drum yet again

[Lilith7]

Anything to get votes. "They'll be held accountable " has such a lovely ring to it & sounds like they really mean business & have every intention of ending, or at the very least drastically reducing crime. 

They haven't. They won't & know they can't, end crime because human nature means it will in some way always be with us. 

They could of course, manage to reduce it but that's of no use to them since their followers want ever harsher penalties & either don't know or (possibly more likely) don't care whether or it it works as long as someone is punished, preferably harshly.


Crime is far too useful to ACT & also National, it garners them votes whenever there's even a slight rise in crime & an election not too far away. They gain votes from the ignorant & or vindictive which they can then claim they'll reduce, punish those responsible etc. etc.

Not a chance in hell they'd actually do anything which could stand a chance of working; they need crime. And obviously don't mind the risk of creating lifelong criminals by using methods they know to be virtually useless.


https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/...426fb&ei=7

"If young people under the age of 18 are sent to prison, they will be within a youth unit (or a segregated adult unit if a youth unit is not available), rather than housed within the general prison population."

Seymour said 17-year-olds were old enough to face adult justice.

"It’s an age when young people should understand that consequences come from breaking the law and that they will be held accountable for doing so."

"By placing these young men into the adult justice system where they belong, ACT will remove a burden from Oranga Tamariki which will help them focus on their core role. It will also ensure that 17-year-old youth offenders can be kept somewhere secure, where they can no longer harm others, and where they can get the appropriate rehabilitation."



Willful ignorance - even David Seymour surely knows that the human brain isn't fully functioning until the mid 20s. so very clearly a 17 year old is incapable of fully comprehending the consequences of their actions & should NOT be seen as 'old enough to face adult justice.'

And I'm reasonably sure that putting young teens in the same prison as adult, even within a segregated unit, has failed when tried in the past. 

Unscrupulous, cynical politicians will grasp at anything at all if they think its going to gain votes for their party; the consequences of their actions appear not to worry them. 
Much like some of those who commit crimes...

[Wainuiguy]

Anything to get votes. "They'll be held accountable " has such a lovely ring to it & sounds like they really mean business & have every intention of ending, or at the very least drastically reducing crime. 

They haven't. They won't & know they can't, end crime because human nature means it will in some way always be with us. 

They could of course, manage to reduce it but that's of no use to them since their followers want ever harsher penalties & either don't know or (possibly more likely) don't care whether or it it works as long as someone is punished, preferably harshly.


Crime is far too useful to ACT & also National, it garners them votes whenever there's even a slight rise in crime & an election not too far away. They gain votes from the ignorant & or vindictive which they can then claim they'll reduce, punish those responsible etc. etc.

Not a chance in hell they'd actually do anything which could stand a chance of working; they need crime. And obviously don't mind the risk of creating lifelong criminals by using methods they know to be virtually useless.


https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/...426fb&ei=7

"If young people under the age of 18 are sent to prison, they will be within a youth unit (or a segregated adult unit if a youth unit is not available), rather than housed within the general prison population."

Seymour said 17-year-olds were old enough to face adult justice.

"It’s an age when young people should understand that consequences come from breaking the law and that they will be held accountable for doing so."

"By placing these young men into the adult justice system where they belong, ACT will remove a burden from Oranga Tamariki which will help them focus on their core role. It will also ensure that 17-year-old youth offenders can be kept somewhere secure, where they can no longer harm others, and where they can get the appropriate rehabilitation."



Willful ignorance - even David Seymour surely knows that the human brain isn't fully functioning until the mid 20s. so very clearly a 17 year old is incapable of fully comprehending the consequences of their actions & should NOT be seen as 'old enough to face adult justice.'

And I'm reasonably sure that putting young teens in the same prison as adult, even within a segregated unit, has failed when tried in the past. 

Unscrupulous, cynical politicians will grasp at anything at all if they think its going to gain votes for their party; the consequences of their actions appear not to worry them. 
Much like some of those who commit crimes...

So at 17 shouldn't be considered developed enough to be an adult- but presently being considered to allow 16 year olds to vote.....

[Kenj]

Anything to get votes. "They'll be held accountable " has such a lovely ring to it & sounds like they really mean business & have every intention of ending, or at the very least drastically reducing crime. 

They haven't. They won't & know they can't, end crime because human nature means it will in some way always be with us. 

They could of course, manage to reduce it but that's of no use to them since their followers want ever harsher penalties & either don't know or (possibly more likely) don't care whether or it it works as long as someone is punished, preferably harshly.


Crime is far too useful to ACT & also National, it garners them votes whenever there's even a slight rise in crime & an election not too far away. They gain votes from the ignorant & or vindictive which they can then claim they'll reduce, punish those responsible etc. etc.

Not a chance in hell they'd actually do anything which could stand a chance of working; they need crime. And obviously don't mind the risk of creating lifelong criminals by using methods they know to be virtually useless.


https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/...426fb&ei=7

"If young people under the age of 18 are sent to prison, they will be within a youth unit (or a segregated adult unit if a youth unit is not available), rather than housed within the general prison population."

Seymour said 17-year-olds were old enough to face adult justice.

"It’s an age when young people should understand that consequences come from breaking the law and that they will be held accountable for doing so."

"By placing these young men into the adult justice system where they belong, ACT will remove a burden from Oranga Tamariki which will help them focus on their core role. It will also ensure that 17-year-old youth offenders can be kept somewhere secure, where they can no longer harm others, and where they can get the appropriate rehabilitation."



Willful ignorance - even David Seymour surely knows that the human brain isn't fully functioning until the mid 20s. so very clearly a 17 year old is incapable of fully comprehending the consequences of their actions & should NOT be seen as 'old enough to face adult justice.'

And I'm reasonably sure that putting young teens in the same prison as adult, even within a segregated unit, has failed when tried in the past. 

Unscrupulous, cynical politicians will grasp at anything at all if they think its going to gain votes for their party; the consequences of their actions appear not to worry them. 
Much like some of those who commit crimes...

So at 17 shouldn't be considered developed enough to be an adult- but presently being considered to allow 16 year olds to vote.....

 Very good point!

[Lilith7]

Anything to get votes. "They'll be held accountable " has such a lovely ring to it & sounds like they really mean business & have every intention of ending, or at the very least drastically reducing crime. 

They haven't. They won't & know they can't, end crime because human nature means it will in some way always be with us. 

They could of course, manage to reduce it but that's of no use to them since their followers want ever harsher penalties & either don't know or (possibly more likely) don't care whether or it it works as long as someone is punished, preferably harshly.


Crime is far too useful to ACT & also National, it garners them votes whenever there's even a slight rise in crime & an election not too far away. They gain votes from the ignorant & or vindictive which they can then claim they'll reduce, punish those responsible etc. etc.

Not a chance in hell they'd actually do anything which could stand a chance of working; they need crime. And obviously don't mind the risk of creating lifelong criminals by using methods they know to be virtually useless.


https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/...426fb&ei=7

"If young people under the age of 18 are sent to prison, they will be within a youth unit (or a segregated adult unit if a youth unit is not available), rather than housed within the general prison population."

Seymour said 17-year-olds were old enough to face adult justice.

"It’s an age when young people should understand that consequences come from breaking the law and that they will be held accountable for doing so."

"By placing these young men into the adult justice system where they belong, ACT will remove a burden from Oranga Tamariki which will help them focus on their core role. It will also ensure that 17-year-old youth offenders can be kept somewhere secure, where they can no longer harm others, and where they can get the appropriate rehabilitation."



Willful ignorance - even David Seymour surely knows that the human brain isn't fully functioning until the mid 20s. so very clearly a 17 year old is incapable of fully comprehending the consequences of their actions & should NOT be seen as 'old enough to face adult justice.'

And I'm reasonably sure that putting young teens in the same prison as adult, even within a segregated unit, has failed when tried in the past. 

Unscrupulous, cynical politicians will grasp at anything at all if they think its going to gain votes for their party; the consequences of their actions appear not to worry them. 
Much like some of those who commit crimes...

So at 17 shouldn't be considered developed enough to be an adult- but presently being considered to allow 16 year olds to vote.....

Which imo is utterly daft; & I doubt it will happen.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Old enough to get married... But not to vote.

[Lilith7]

Old enough to get married... But not to vote.

Indeed - & taking into consideration that laws allowing marriage, car driving etc. etc. were put in place before we were aware of the brain development not being complete till mid 20s, perhaps we may need to change some of those.

Which would no doubt prove extremely interesting...

[king1]

to me it seems like the youth court is a bit too broad to deal with all youth offending - it's almost like we need a two tier system for youth crime, say one that deals with 0-13 year olds and another that deals with 14-18 year olds, before they hit the adult system

[nzoomed]

Those 16 and 17 year olds definitely know what they are doing is wrong, something needs to change because the current system isint working.
A two tier system may be a good idea too.
One other issue that is apparently happening in some instances of these robberies is that the parents are getting their kids to commit the crime for them because they know they can largely get away with it.
If thats the case, there seriously needs to be some way to address this.

[Lilith7]

to me it seems like the youth court is a bit too broad to deal with all youth offending - it's almost like we need a two tier system for youth crime, say one that deals with 0-13 year olds and another that deals with 14-18 year olds, before they hit the adult system

That would make good sense. Keeping kids out of the adult system & using methods not likely to see them continue going down the same path seems to be just common sense, especially in the long term.

---

Those 16 and 17 year olds definitely know what they are doing is wrong, something needs to change because the current system isint working.
A two tier system may be a good idea too.
One other issue that is apparently happening in some instances of these robberies is that the parents are getting their kids to commit the crime for them because they know they can largely get away with it.
If thats the case, there seriously needs to be some way to address this.

They have to know what they're doing is wrong but can't fully appreciate the consequences at that age. The two tier system makes a lot of sense.

[Foal30]

Did anyone see ACT come out swinging about the 2 Ex-CERA pricks only getting Home Detention?

You mean they didn’t??

I wonder why if they are so hot on Law and Order?

[R2x1]

So at 17 shouldn't be considered developed enough to be an adult- but presently being considered to allow 16 year olds to vote.....

Which imo is utterly daft; & I doubt it will happen.

No youth prisons - they are just training courses.  For violent crimes the toss of a coin should decide between guillotine or scaffold, with walking the plank for second offenders...
A serious wake up for the parents of these little pieces of ..##*.. might be if parents are banned from TAB access?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

There is a gap berween knowing wrong, and understanding the consequences. And even adults have difficulties with that. We delude ourselves, come up with persuasive arguments to let us do what we want to do inspite of our deep knowledge. And we expect our kids - of whatever age - to do better?

I wonder if putting ourselves first, as the current mantra goes, is not part of that problem. Some social changes are just plain dangerous, if we look at them under a bright light.

[Lilith7]

Did anyone see ACT come out swinging about the 2 Ex-CERA pricks only getting Home Detention?

You mean they didn’t??

I wonder why if they are so hot on Law and Order?

Oh dear! No, of course not -   these are only 'honest  fraudsters' just looking to 'help people', not actual criminal types.

Or something.



I came across this earlier, I think it says it all.


“I am convinced that imprisonment is a way of pretending to solve the problem of crime. It does nothing for the victims of crime, but perpetuates the idea of retribution, thus maintaining the endless cycle of violence in our culture. It is a cruel and useless substitute for the elimination of those conditions--poverty, unemployment, homelessness, desperation, racism, greed--which are at the root of most punished crime. The crimes of the rich and powerful go mostly unpunished.”
Howard Zinn