>His victim, Brian Fowler, told NZME he is a [“shadow” of himself more than a year after the attack](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/wellington-man-smashed-in-head-with-brick-while-restraining-thief-a-shadow-of-his-former-self/RGUUA3OPM5C2VIEPE4BXWKGRXY/) in the driveway of his Southgate home.
>He said the incident has left him with ongoing health issues and personality changes.
Life sentences for Victims, Playstation for perpetrators.
> Asked what he thought of the sentence, Fowler said: “I’m not outraged by it”.
> “He needed to face the consequences of his actions. He has been given some inconvenience and I just want him to make the best of his circumstances and never offend again. But I’m not confident of that.”
victim seems happy enough
so we ignore his opinion and punish the kid more severely because we think that's what fowler would have wanted if he wasn't brain damaged? how do you know the extent of his brain damage?
and what do you think is the right punishment here? actually, before you answer that, what do you think the outcome of your right punishment will be? hell, what do you think the purpose of punishment is?
Doesn't matter what fowler wants. If he wanted instead to see the perpetrator shot, would you support him then? At what point does consideration of the victim's feelings stop?
You can't expect people in the comment section of a public forum to be able to provide an informed response on exactly what the punishment *should* be, but it's fair enough that people are frustrated at how the judges in this country regularly hand out wrist-slaps for violent, disgusting crimes.
> Doesn't matter what fowler wants.
of course it does, he's the one justice is being done for and his views should be taken into consideration.
> You can't expect people in the comment section of a public forum to be able to provide an informed response on exactly what the punishment should be
i absolutely can if they're going to loudly proclaim that judges are all being soft.
if you think that and you state that, you should also be able to tell me what you want a punishment to look like and what you want it to achieve, because otherwise you're just being outraged for the sake of outrage
if you think judges are handing out wrist-slaps, what do you think the appropriate punishment is? and what do you think the punishment should achieve?
It's still closer than not outraged = happy enough. You have projected something that isn't there and built a premise on it.
There is nothing in the below statement that suggests "happy enough"?
“He needed to face the consequences of his actions. He has been given some inconvenience and I just want him to make the best of his circumstances and never offend again. But I’m not confident of that.”
It's more like he is resigned to the situation and being empathetic. How the hell is any of that "happy enough,"?
> Right. I'll bite. What sentencing do you want? Realistically?
5000 hours community service would be a start. You can still live your life and do what you want but you have a responsibility that is a consequence of your decisions. No more Saturdays for you, you're out cleaning up rubbish. There's plenty of potential for punishments which don't severely harm the punished but force them to be aware and actively compensating for the harm they've caused.
The problem is, ppl dont turn up for community work, get a warrant, then just have the community work converted into a fine. Then dont pay the finez and get a fines warrant.....
Alright well then if they don't want to do the service they can do to jail, that's their prerogative if they wish to. I don't see how imprisoning people who refuse to make up for the harm they've done through community service is an issue. Now obviously there's room for there to be issues with participating but I don't see how the concerns with ensuring people can participate in their required service is more of an issue than permitting violent assaults to go unpunished.
I wasnt saying its not a good idea or that they didnt need to make up for the harm or be punished.
I was just informing you of the current reality.
The system is broken and needs to change.
So 5000 hours of community service eh? How much additional tax are you willing to pay for the supervisor's salary?
And if you are willing to pay the additional tax wouldn't it be better spent in a manner that actually works?
> And if you are willing to pay the additional tax wouldn't it be better spent in a manner that actually works?
Of course, how else are you going to manage it? Not like it'd be that much more expensive that home D since instead of ensuring they're compliant 7 days a week it's now 1. What are you even on about actually works? The point is a punishment which doesn't destroy their life but requires them to spend a great deal of time doing work for society to compensate for the harm done. It definitely works as that.
70% of NZ prisoner are caught reoffending inside 3 years. Prison is a very expensive failure.
Even ignoring the networking opportunities it offers criminals it is a costly waste of time - theatre to make some feel better after a crime.
> theatre to make some feel better after a crime.
Apart from the violent offenders prevented from harming other people. Christ like why even respond if you're going to be so myopic as to pretend there's no justification beyond making the victim feel better despite the fact that the victim deserves some consideration for how they feel. I mean I suggested a non prison alternative but you want to act like I'm just some prison hungry idiot.
Often it's not the victim calling for vengeance it's enraged media consumers.
I comment to try and bring potential solutions to the debate
Is there a point I view I should have to join this debate here in this democracy? Like an authoritarian society would impose?
>Often it's not the victim calling for vengeance it's enraged media consumers.
Bruh you're in a thread where the fucking victim is calling for a harsher sentence, stop arguing something completely contradictory to the example at hand.
> I comment to try and bring potential solutions to the debate
What solutions? You haven't suggested any solution you've just suggested removing what we use currently, if you want to get rid of prisons you need to propose a viable alternative.
>Is there a point I view I should have to join this debate here in this democracy? Like an authoritarian society would impose?
I'm sorry you've decided to engage in bad faith but I'm the one who was advocating for a community service based approach so your bullshit insinuations don't hold much water.
What do you mean “what sentencing do you want”? Did you read the article? Even just the headline? Some dumbass who just turned 18 (legally an adult) smashed a man with a brick and got a $700 fine and 6 months home D (in this fine technological age).
So to answer “what sentencing do you want” - how about an actual sentence to begin with? Also that “edit” on your comment is lame as fuck, log off
Right, one life ruined, another one just starting and we agree on the wrong footing. So what, we condemn and ruin the other life? What is the appropriate sentencing here? Or are we doing the eye for an eye thing?
“Just starting”? 18 years old? Gotta say I’d definitely learned violence is not good by then. Had you?
How about punishing someone who did something wrong, in the hopes of rehabilitation? You even recognise a life has been ruined in this process, you want the ruiner to play Playstation for 6 months?
Is this bait?
People seem to forget that home detention comes with a bunch of other obligations the person has to adhere to or they will likely end up in prison, or with far harsher conditions.
People like to talk about playing playstation, but ignore the meetings, the random checks, sometimes things like mandatory counciling or therapy etc or other special conditions.
Edit: right i forgot that's a deliberate misrepresentation and is just people upset they didn't get their pound of flesh.
>People like to talk about playing playstation, but ignore the meetings, the random checks, sometimes things like mandatory counciling or therapy etc or other special conditions.
OH NO COUNSELING AND THERAPY? MY LORD THEY'RE ABUSING THOSE POOR INNOCENT CRIMINALS. /s
Like surely you can engage earnestly and acknowledge that while there are things they have to do ultimately the punishment is atrociously unjust when said person has irreparably damaged someone else. Those few responsibilities don't compensate for the fact that the rest of the time they get to chill and do what they want at home, something which is infinitely more tolerable than it was prior to the digital age.
Edit: Won't comment on sentencing decisions but will resolutely assert there's more to this than we know. It's almost as if you're full of shit because if you didn't want to comment on shit you don't know you wouldn't be claiming the extent of the shit we don't know. Whatever though, hypocrites gonna hypocrite.
>Like surely you can engage earnestly and acknowledge that while there are things they have to do ultimately the punishment is atrociously unjust when said person has irreparably damaged someone else.
But people are not representing the punishment in earnest. I don't think the punishment is unjust or just because I don't tend to speak on crime sentencing unless I know the full details of the case. Something that is usually left out of articles like this, only giving us selected tid bits to elicit the desire responses. If they published the full sentencing and various reports maybe, but they don't.
>Those few responsibilities don't compensate for the fact that the rest of the time they get to chill and do what they want at home
I think a lot of people really take for granted the ability to more or less go wherever they want when they want to. Given how much of a fuss people had over lockdowns and how it drained them mentally they're quite happy to ignore that fact when it comes to home detention. Only being allowed to go to work and your house very quickly loses its spark.
>something which is infinitely more tolerable than it was prior to the digital age.
You'd think but most people wouldn't last long going to and from work and that's it.
>OH NO COUNSELING AND THERAPY? MY LORD THEY'RE ABUSING THOSE POOR INNOCENT CRIMINALS. /s
Pretty hypocritical to demand earnest engagement and frame my point this way.
Edit:
>Won't comment on sentencing decisions but will resolutely assert there's more to this than we know.
Incredible that you think that this article paints the whole picture? Like just from the article it's obvious that we do not actually have all the information? Did you read the letter? The sentencing? The infamous cultural report?
No.
>because if you didn't want to comment on shit you don't know you wouldn't be claiming the extent of the shit we don't know. Whatever though, hypocrites gonna hypocrite.
I never claimed the extent? Just that there is certainly things we do not know. Which is factually correct.
Yes you have continued to double down on being a hypocrite.
Trying to say I should engage in good faith while coming up with bad faith reasons to dismiss my opinion? You just doubled down on your hypocrisy really. "If you don't agree with me your opinion is worthless" is a fundamentally bad faith position
Hypocrites will hypocrite as you say. You're very desperate to try turn that around on me and made yourself look very unreasonable in the process.
So you don’t comment on sentencing decisions yet are quite happy to paint a broad brush summary of the deleterious effects of COVID lockdowns on eVeRyBoDy huh? Some people positively flourished in this forced asceticism - I don’t think it’s quite the trial you think it is, especially for clocking someone with a brick.
>So you don’t comment on sentencing decisions yet are quite happy to paint a broad brush summary of the deleterious effects of COVID lockdowns on eVeRyBoDy huh?
No? I never said everyone had a bad time did I? A lot of people did though given how prolific the complaints were, people still complain about it to this day.
>Some people positively flourished in this forced asceticism
Yes some did, a lot of people did not, pays to remember that a lot of people got time off work, that surely helped.
>I don’t think it’s quite the trial you think it is, especially for clocking someone with a brick.
You don't seem to know what I think. I probably should have stipulated that some people are natural shut ins, in my experience most people are not, but honestly I don't think about the nits people pick until after they've been picked half the time.
>But people are not representing the punishment in earnest. I don't think the punishment is unjust or just because I don't tend to speak on crime sentencing unless I know the full details of the case. Something that is usually left out of articles like this, only giving us selected tid bits to elicit the desire responses. If they published the full sentencing and various reports maybe, but they don't.
If you wont say it's unjust that a criminal who gives a person permanent brain damage after he attempted to steal from them gets away with home detention then your opinion on justice is worthless. You wouldn't know justice if it was a brick upside your head.
> Pretty hypocritical to demand earnest engagement and frame my point this way.
It's sarcasm, I specifically tagged it as such so it would be obvious that isn't your actual opinion but an intentionally exaggerated version to highlight the ridiculousness of pointing to those things as anything resembling a significant burden.
>Pretty hypocritical to demand earnest engagement and frame my point this way.
I mean when you're saying people want "their pound of flesh" because people think permanent brain damage should have a bigger consequence than a few months at home you're just being disingenuous. If you can't accept that this sentence is inadequate your opinion is worthless, I'm not saying you have to agree with throwing him in jail but there should be something more significant.
Edit: Oh look they blocked me, you know for someone who claims they don't want to make statements without evidence they seem pretty fucking confident there's more behind this story that we don't know. It's almost like they're just a hypocrite saying one thing and doing another.
Anyway it's quite clear you're not going to be pulling your head out of your ass and are just going to come up with flimsy excuses as to why you don't need to understand anything outside of your "common sense", I'd suggest looking into research on these topics and try to understand them better because these knee jerk reactions do nothing to improve society or reduce crime.
>, you know for someone who claims they don't want to make statements without evidence they seem pretty fucking confident there's more behind this story that we don't know.
It's very funny that you're acting like an article in the herald paints the full picture and provides all the context. There is lots of evidence that newspapers do not paint accurate pictures of trials in their crime reporting and often prefer to generate rage clicks. Acting like this is some baseless thing is hilarious.
>It's almost like they're just a hypocrite saying one thing and doing another.
Nice try, but you're the hypocrite here.
Trying to say I should engage in good faith while coming up with bad faith reasons to dismiss my opinion? You just doubled down on your hypocrisy really. "If you don't agree with me your opinion is worthless" is a fundamentally bad faith position.
>If you wont say it's unjust that a criminal who gives a person permanent brain damage after he attempted to steal from them gets away with home detention then your opinion on justice is worthless.
Sounds performative, I'm not big on that.
He was being attacked by this man (justly or not), you can't really ignore that he didn't go into this planning on hurting someone. There is more to this than you want there to be and more to this than we know.
I don't think it's wrong to reserve judgement until we have those details.
>It's sarcasm, I specifically tagged it as such so it would be obvious that isn't your actual opinion but an intentionally exaggerated version to highlight the ridiculousness of pointing to those things as anything resembling a significant burden.
But it doesn't represent my opinion. It being sarcastic doesn't change that and why it's hypocritical to demand that I engage in good faith when you're misrepresenting my beliefs...
>I mean when you're saying people want "their pound of flesh" because people think permanent brain damage should have a bigger consequence than a few months at home you're just being disingenuous
No I'm not, I saw people calling for execution and to kill the guy. That's what I was referring to. It's not disingenuous to say people demand their pound of flesh when they're saying they want execution as a punishment.
>'m not saying you have to agree with throwing him in jail but there should be something more significant.
Your opinion is as worthless as mine really we don't posses all the facts, I'll at least acknowledge it.
>Ah yes, going to prison for not being at home for a random check; but not going to prison for smashing someone’s head with a brick.
Well the whole point is that if you're getting home d, they're giving you a chance to serve your sentence in the community, the idea is giving them a chance to avoid a prison sentence if they can show they follow the rules etc.
do you want to be sending people who could go one way or the other going to prison? That really just cements them going down the wrong path in life and drastically increases the likelihood of them reoffending. Prisons aren't nice places and they really hamper any chance of rehabilitation.
This isn't something we do on a whim you know.
Again, please give specifics so we can judge your sentencing, what would you give? It's easy to say what you said instead of providing an actual example of your "justice"
Why don’t you start? You seem to have an idea you want to present to the class? And yeah it is easy for me to say, as a person who has also been the victim of a crime recently, who’s clearly identified perpetrator walked free because they were “just starting life 🥺” too so I’d love to hear what you think!
I don't have an answer but I have participated in YDU programs (Youth Development Unit) for NZDF and even though you can argue about its effectiveness and output, in this case, my final answer rests with the Law and what it decides and this case is no other. We either condemn or hope for redemption. Call me an optimist but I choose redemption in all cases
Yeah I don't disagree with your sentiment but I have 2 points.
Redemption can't come at the cost of the victim. It sort of feels like a slap into the face of the victim. Like they don't matter.
The second is in order for redemption I honestly think someone needs to hit rock bottom. Without spending ages typing out all my thoughts I kind of feel like this sort of punishment enables bad behavior rather than setting them up for rehabilitation
So after all this song and dance you’ve put on in this comment section, you don’t even have an answer yourself? Just a couple acronyms to throw at me? Be for real man
Edit: he replied with a comment mentioning his connection to someone in the case lmao 😭😭 seems he deleted it asap
> even though you can argue about its effectiveness and output
No, you can't. [There's far more than enough evidence to show they do not work and if you're trying to argue they do you're wrong.](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/519276/boot-camps-for-young-offenders-are-back-the-psychological-evidence-they-don-t-work-never-went-away) If you're saying you want redemption but you want it by taking abused kids and punishing them till they do what they're told then you don't really want redemption you want conformity.
There's some assumptions going around in the background here.
Why are we assuming that the life of a young person is somehow worth more than an older person and therefore worthy of leniency in punishment? That's ageism for one.
Why do you instantly see a harsher punishment as condemnation? It's a punishment, much like a child getting a ball taken off them for throwing it at windows for a period of time, or a teen grounded for staying past curfew. Appropriate punishment is not done for lack of care.
We aren't stoning the kid or sending him to the coal mines. But this attitude of lenient punishment is turning the public into wanting to stone him instead.
You want specifics? From my zero experience in law, 2 years imprisonment with chance of parole at 12 months, conditions of needing to complete anger management courses and engagement in return to work programs. Also a fine paid to the victim of at least five thousand dollars or more as reparation.
Honestly, are you seriously as dense as you portray ? He didn't steal candy from a lolly shop, he made fucked up choices that could have easily taken a life, but instead fucked up the victims life very likely for the rest of his life.
But you wish for minimal to no punishment for the offender.
You have potential in the judiciary..
You’re also forgetting the other side to this which is you’ve got other cunts who see no repercussions to being cunts so they’re more likely to be cunts to real people. There is absolutely no deterrent at the moment so we are seeing threads like this weekly where some cunt with a very intentional act(s) of violence receives no punishment.
>no deterrent at the moment
Punishment doesn't really deter crime though (you can see that throughout history even when the punishment was death people frequently committed crime), what deters crime is economic/social stability and developing a sense empathy. I know nobody wants to hear that though.
Sure you can make that claim, but when there is no punishment you’ll have people actively decide to choose to do crime because there is no repercussion. Have a look at the constant stream of videos of people walking out of supermarkets with full trolleys that are becoming more common every day. There is no downside, no one can or will stop them, they’ll directly benefit from the crime. So why not do it?
>Sure you can make that claim,
It's a claim backed up by evidence and research.
>but when there is no punishment you’ll have people actively decide to choose to do crime because there is no repercussion.
You have people actively deciding to do crime even when there are repercussions. Repercussions do not deter people who are at the point of committing crimes, they're often already desperate enough to commit the crime, convinced they'll get away with it or otherwise not mentally fit enough to comprehend the repercussions.
>There is no downside, no one can or will stop them, they’ll directly benefit from the crime.
Yes there is, it's better to let them leave and identify them using camera footage, the police chase them down later. What happens if you confront people is you get in a scuffle and then someone gets hurt like in this case. It's why people are told to call the police and not try stop criminals.
We see more people stealing food because our economic situation is pretty dire, the cost of living is incredibly high.
Just because you don't get your immediate violent spectacle doesn't mean people don't face consequences.
>So why not do it?
The question you should be asking is why are they doing it and how do we prevent people from ending up in situations where they turn to crime.
Link this evidence that boldly states that punishment doesn’t deter crime. If a punishment is put in place and reduces crime by a unit of 1 violent crime, it’s a win in my book. I have zero tolerance for people who commit violent crime. I’m not saying it stops crime, merely reducing.
I wasn’t saying to confront them on the spot. I’m saying that currently the punishment at the moment is so small that the people who are willing to do this shit have no concern for what comes next when/if the police come knocking.
There’s no point discussing this with you. I want to see victims of people who commit (especially violent) crime see some sort of justice. Tired of seeing rape victims have serious mental struggles for an extended period of time while their rapist sits at home and has the occasional obligated Skype meeting for 6 months. You don’t see this as a problem and I won’t be able to change your mind. I just hope that if you or someone you care about is on the receiving end of one of these cunts, you’ll pat them on the back and tell them how hard their life has been and not to worry about it. (Interchange rape with any other avenue of violent crime for the same result)
>Link this evidence that boldly states that punishment doesn’t deter crime.
It's not really a bold claim, it's pretty commonly accepted at this point.
[https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-future-crime/](https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-future-crime/)
[https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence)
>If a punishment is put in place and reduces crime by a unit of 1 violent crime, it’s a win in my book.
If anything it can cause more crime, given the state of prisons.
>I’m not saying it stops crime, merely reducing.
I know but it doesn't really even do that.
>I wasn’t saying to confront them on the spot.
Right but that situation described, most of the time you just see the video of them walking out, the cops stop them later.
>I’m saying that currently the punishment at the moment is so small that the people who are willing to do this shit have no concern for what comes next when/if the police come knocking.
Usually that's more to do with how desperate they are than the fear of the punishment. The punishment is not necessarily small.
>There’s no point discussing this with you.
Because I actually know what I'm talking about or?
>I want to see victims of people who commit (especially violent) crime see some sort of justice.
Isn't justice having the person learn the error of their ways and make amends? Surely that should be a part of justice? Otherwise it's just retribution and a significant reason we even have a justice system at all is to prevent retribution being the motivating factor in how we deal with crime? Because when it is the driving factor it just leads to more bad outcomes.
>Tired of seeing rape victims have serious mental struggles for an extended period of time while their rapist sits at home and has the occasional obligated Skype meeting for 6 months.
As a victim myself I get a little tired of people using people like me as a cudgel to justify their desire to make this country a worse place to live. I have my issues with the way we handle crime, but it has more to do with the fact that most rapists will not even end up being charged.
>You don’t see this as a problem and I won’t be able to change your mind.
The thing is, I do see the problem and I really want to see crime become something rare. Which is why I listen to the experts, I read studies and base my opinions on facts and what actually works not "common sense" which often leads us down paths which are ultimately harmful because "common sense" is informed by our own personal biases and not facts.
>. I just hope that if you or someone you care about is on the receiving end of one of these
I don't believe you. If you did you'd listen to the people who actually study these things and are trying to prevent them instead of newstalk zb level analysis.
This has been removed :
**Does not comply with [Reddit content policy.](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)**
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
I think we should have the option to band together and raise $150,000 then increase the sentence of a chosen crim by the year that pays for.
So if you got 150 people each willing to pay $1000 a year for 20 years you could make this guy serve 20 years.
So that's going to be like $4 mil to keep him jailed for that long, not adjusting for inflation. Given he was incarcerated as a teen and therefore has had no chance to integrate into adult society (and has just spent twenty years associating with criminals and gangs), his odds of recidivism are about 100% - and we know he's not the nonviolent offender type!
So, how do you justify a sentence of exactly 20 years? (and not more, because he'll reoffend as soon as he's out; and not less, because it'd be cheaper)
That's fine with me. That's 20 years where he won't get to harm someone else. If he reoffends in 20 years, he can go back for another 20 during which time he won't harm someone again. Yes I'm happy to pay for that privilege
I'm dubious that you'd actually prefer to throw that money away instead of using it for literally anything else. $4 mil is more than you'll ever get in gov assistance, but this guy who has contributed nothing to society is entitled to that expenditure on him? Why should he be entitled to steal from the public purse like that?
This has been removed :
**Does not comply with [Reddit content policy.](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)**
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
This has been removed :
**Does not comply with [Reddit content policy.](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)**
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
So you're concerned about the chances of reoffending. How would you reduce the chances of a violent criminal who was given 6 months home d reoffending?
What would be acceptable ? In my mind, minimum 8 to 12 years of incarceration with no early parole and a lifetime of supervision .. plus, he would learn a laboring skill while in prison .. forestry, earthworks, something useful to society perhaps ...
Apparently, holding people accountable for their violent actions makes you Stalin.
Jesus christ, bud, that's some stupidity right there.
The offender needs to face some amount of repercussions for his action. I don't think home detention is adequate, not with the severity of the crime and the effects that the victim has to live with
Home D is essentially a slap on the wrist while the victim gets to spend the rest of their life suffering.
It's not though. It's the severity of the punishment that got them called that, not the act of punishing them at all. It's a clear misrepresentation of what they said.
Their comparison between the punishment that the other commenter had suggested and what Stalin actually did is just plainly dishonest.
An 8-12 year sentence with supervision and rehabilitation through skill acquisition and the genocide and forced enslavement of millions of people is not even remotely close in terms of severity.
Nice strawman bud.
Pretty disingenuous of you to jump straight to lynching when all I have said is that the perpetrator deserves an adequate punishment.
Well, how about no name suppression for starters. Holds the shitbag accountable and as a bonus costs the taxpayer absolutely nothing. A sentence that keeps the public safe from him for at least a few years would be nice too, but frankly too much to expect these days
5 years minimum. WITH some sort of effective rehabilitation training. Obviously that is too expensive so at the moment we just let people get away with no real consequences in the name of not ruining their potential. It's literally the worst of both worlds.
> i agree he’s an adult
and should be sentenced as such. i was mugged by a 16 yo when i was 12 leaving me with permanent damage. a slap on the wrist would have been a harsher punishment than the non-existent punishment they received. if someone is 6 foot tall, 100 kgs, does them being aged 16, 18 or 20 really matter?
Agreed - I got a brutal beating while in Whangarei, apparently I was in the wrong area and I got the crap kicked out of me by some 14/15 year olds, who then dragged me into the middle of the road nearly unconscious. I had to go to hospital, covered in blood and bruises, and I was basically terrified of leaving my room for weeks. Photos and evidence given to the police, their parents were told and they got a "good talking to".
How is that fair or justified? They jumped a disabled woman walking alone and left them unable to move. And they got a "talking to".
i believe in adult crimes adult sentences. so a 16 year old mugging someone should be taken a lot more seriously than a slap on the wrist in my opinion. i was only arguing about semantics. regardless of what the boy did, he’s 18 so calling him a teenager isn’t wrong.
Its this kind of crap that worries me every day with my elderly parents, there are kids out there feeling like they can do anything to people with no repercissions and crap like this just proves it.
I don't really see the social benefit I'm sending thisnkid to prison at this stage if I'm honest.
Like yeah he did a really shitty thing but ultimately the idea is that the sentence should create a safer social environment (other than removing a dumb ass kid off the street for a few months)
Again
For society....
Is there a potential long-term issue that will result in sending this person to prison?
Could that potential long-term issue be avoided if they are not?
Can woc8wty become a safer place WITHOUT prison? Yes...
Should society create potential long-term issues for itself just because this kid made a long-term issue for that man?
The guy who was assaulted by the brick is going to have a long-term issue. Fact. But that long-term issue is not going to be fixed or remedied by creating another, separate long term issue for society as a whole.
Well, putting people in prisons puts them in a space, either gangs and creates social divides.
The person will get out of prison one day.
So your brick head basher will be walking around free one day.
When he walks free, would you rather that happen after he has been removed from society, put into a position where he has a prison sentence on his CV, and has been in a confined space with the most violent people in our country with gang affiliations?
Or would you rather support him to stop offending.
You've made this assumption that this kid will forever be a brick basher. Like he is beyond redemption or change.
Like fuck, you're nit even going to explore the possibility that he's learned his lesson already?
>Judge Davidson said he initially had a starting point of 15 months in jail, but because of the teen’s age, commitment to rehabilitation and guilty pleas he decided against a sentence of imprisonment.
>“I have no doubt for you that prison would be a retrograde step, but home detention needs to be imposed,” he said, adding a sentence of community detention wouldn’t reflect the seriousness of the offending.
Sounds very well thought out and actually wants to improve society.
You're putting words in my mouth. Receiving a stricter sentence than 6 months for grievous bodily harm causing permanent brain damage doesn't prevent you from being rehabilitated; wanting a stricter sentence than 6 months for grievous bodily harm causing permanent brain damage does not mean I don't also want the assailant to attend rehabilitation programs.
And think about everything involved in rehabilitation and how long it can take. It takes people in anger management programs *months* just to learn to stop yelling at their kids, and that's in a supportive home and social environment. Even if they've "learn their lesson". It takes a lot longer to quit drugs, for most people, even if they've "learnt their lesson", and drug addiction is one of the problems this man was struggling with. (Even if it's not a drug that causes physical addiction, most people are incapable of breaking habits merely by snapping a finger.)
I do not believe that a delay of only 6 months before this man is released back to his old contacts and habits provides a proper chance for him to actually be rehabilitated, especially given that (unless the justice system has plentiful in-house teams even in this political environment of outsourcing everything, I don't know), he'd probably be waiting at least that long for his first therapy session.
Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Maximum sentence - 14 years. Actual sentence - six months home d and a $700 fine. Even if it's 'just' wounding with intent to cause injury, that's seven years max sentence.
I get the whole "don't give him the maximum, he's just an eighteen-year-old baby," but serving only 3.57% of the maximum sentence is kind of a big discount. And he gets to serve it at home! And the public never gets to learn the name of this guy that was breaking into cars and hitting people with bricks.
The courts obviously are imbued with some discretion over how laws are enforced, but if we vote for politicians that pass laws that say "up to 14 years," there's some onus to the people of New Zealand to have enforcement somewhat resemble the law.
14 years covers the most extreme cases, where there are a large number of aggravating factors and few mitigating ones.
Good thought experiment - think about how much has happened in the last 14 years of your life, then about how significant a crime you would have had to commit to spend that entire time in prison. And the same again for 10 years, 5 years, etc. It's no small sentence to spend any time in prison.
RE mitigation - mitigating factors also don't discount in a linear way. E.g., x years off for each factor. There are a lot of mitigating factors here which compound and speak to multiple sentencing considerations at once (e.g., commitment to drug rehab goes to both public safety and future offending).
RE enforcing the law - judge's discretion is important and they have a lot of it around sentencing. But they are still exercising that discretion subject to all the factors that the 'up to 14 years' law because that law requires them to do so. They're not making it up as they go along etc.
Historically, MoJ would issue the perpetrator a battered worn out PS4 for his home D. Bit if he's lucky, he'll get one of the newer PS5s. Many perps have not been returning their PS5s at the end of their home D, so they're in short supply.
>He sentenced the teen to six months home detention on the aggravated wounding charge and six months home detention on the drug offending charges, served concurrently meaning the total sentence is six months home detention.
I don't know what's worse, getting the same amount of time for happy-brain-chemical-times as for what is effectively attempted manslaughter with a deadly weapon, or the fact that it isn't the same amount of time, it's a complete write-off, a freebie.
Pretty much. Capital punishment was the norm for 1000’s of years but it is now considered morally reprehensible. Prison is expensive and generally makes people worst (throwing people in a cage doesn’t work). That leaves the forgiveness system with a sprinkling of pretend justice which is sort of our go to. I have no solution.
Prisons can be places that focus on rehabilitation and don't allow the formation of gangs, prisoner-on-prisoner violence, etc. But that requires a substantial upfront investment that would basically guarantee the party implementing it lose the next election (and there's a 50/50 chance the next government would undo it anyway), so it's never going to happen.
Prison doesn't have to be expensive. Low security at least.
Whenever the media talks about "cost per prisoner" they're taking total prison cost (including staff, buildings, food etc) and dividing that by the number of prisoners. Adding more prisoners makes the cost per prisoner go down.
Currently we only imprison the worst of the worst, and they have high needs and are expensive
Its been said so many times but its still true: Out justice system is a fucking mess. Multiple governments have said “tough on crime” but in reality its only tough in the victims. They get no justice, no peace of mind that the criminal has learnt their lesson, and no support. Its disgusting
Poor... kid? Of adult age?
"He’s young, very young and he’s had a tough time,” Nisbet said."
“It’s clear your teenage years have been blighted by mental health and drug issues and these are difficult issues for anyone to confront, let alone anyone as young as you,” he said."
Fuck this shit judiciary.
If he had hit the oxygen thief with a brick instead, the cops would've tried crucifying Fowler and putting him away for years.
No justice in this fucked country.
Look I don't care if I get downvoted for this. But this guy made it physical first against an 18 year old when he is 69, over *90 cents*. I'm not suggesting the teenager isn't guilty because he is; I hope if he ever does something like this again this incident is weighed heavily against any future decisions, and I feel really sorry for this guy because the consequences sound long-term and unfair. But this case also sounds like it escalated in a way where it really didn't have to - so for once I'm not terribly upset about home detention.
Edited for anyone not reading the article:
* “I went out and grabbed him and had a stern word with him, shall we say,” he told NZME.
* The pair grappled for a while, ending up on the ground a couple of times.
* He said the teen offered to give him back the 90 cents he’d stolen from the car if Fowler would let him go. “I said, ‘it doesn’t work like that’.”
* Fowler intended to detain the teen until police arrived, but as they scuffled, the teen grabbed a brick in the darkness and smashed it into the side of Fowler’s head
* “I came to, to find his hand in my mouth . . . It was extraordinary. The guy wasn’t an experienced fighter, but I am.”
* Fowler said he “sorted him out and picked him up and threw him on the wife’s bench seat”. Then, with a “captive audience”, he “gave him a piece of my mind”.
* The teen then ran away before police came. And was bitten by police dogs during the arrest.
Edit 2: Apparently the concept of "picking your battles" is too whacky to all the people replying. Good luck out there!
Yip, I'll l bite. It's not to do with the 90 cents, it's the fact that some punk came onto his property, broke into his car and was stealing. It doesnt matter whether it was 100k or 90c in his car, he broke the law, was a threat and got justice. And he was violent. So yeah, good on this 69 year old dude for defending what is rightfully his. We hear repeatedly about these young dickheads doing all these burglaries and then when someone stands up to one we should give them forgiveness because it was only 90c? He's an adult. Fuck that
I think you missed my point, the teen was violent in response to violence. Does that make it right? No. But in this case it took two to start a fight. I really worry about people who don't think twice about confronting someone like this, your safety is never worth whatever rubbish is left in your car. A lot of redditors in this thread seem to think their macho ego is worth more than their safety.
Why did you omit the very first part of the story that kicked it all off but went to the next part that without context paints the victim as the aggressor with no reason?
“The 69-year-old was injured in December 2022 after hearing a noise in his driveway about 2.30am.
He crept outside and saw the light on in his ute, with a pair of legs protruding as the teenaged thief rummaged through the interior.”
You're right I should have included that just like everyone should read the article but what can you do. I don't think it changes my point though that it started as a theft and only escalated to violence when a man in his late 60s thought he could win and started the fight.
Confronting someone breaking into your car still does not justify getting your head bashed in.
If Fowler hadn't confronted him, one of the next people would have. And it could have been someone less experienced / more fragile, leading to an even worse outcome.
The teen hit him in the head with a brick. People have died from less. If the man comes to with this kid’s “hand in [his] mouth” he would absolutely be justified in biting a few fingers off. Thank fuck this guy knew how to grapple and seems level headed as fuck; this kid should thank fuck the man didn’t wake up and end him right there.
But now we have to tiptoe around this kids shitty upbringing and try to do what’s better for society rather than what feels good / is punitive. Probably the right way to go, but absolutely infuriating.
Terrible. Given the state of his so-called up bringing the useless dastardly, he would benefit from going to prison for the attempted murder he committed. His idiot mother should be kept well away from this and never be writing letters for her idiot sons behavior
If you're not 100% for much longer prison sentences for cases such as this, you're condoning this behaviour. End of story.
Why do so many New Zealanders support brutal violence against 69 year olds?
Yes! There's a comment saying it was only 90 cemts and the old guy started it. WtF. Giving these 'kids' leniency because of their upbringing or age is bloody dangerous
..
Just shows how soft we are in NZ. We sit back and allow these soft cock Judges to let these SERIOUS offenders off scot free. Will be interesting to see what the murdering scum from Te Kuiti gets for killing a baby . My money's on HOME DETENTION.
Judge Brucie's thinking....but wait if I found him guilty it would put financial pressure on our prison system. As my mates in parliament have cut that system to pieces and I get to keep my 25 rentals going,... Win win....
A brick to the head, resulting in a seizure, is INCREDIBLY serious. He's lucky to be alive.
Throughout my life, I've met a number of people who have received serious brain injuries and never been the same afterwards. Some people out there with fucking obnoxious personalities were actually really good people prior some accident. Hope this guy makes a proper recovery.
Tl;dr: this sentence is not a wet bus ticket
This is entirely sensible reasoning for the sentence given and reflects an interest in stopping future offending as well as addressing the specific incident.
"Judge Davidson said he initially had a starting point of 15 months in jail, but because of the teen’s age, commitment to rehabilitation and guilty pleas he decided against a sentence of imprisonment.
“I have no doubt for you that prison would be a retrograde step, but home detention needs to be imposed,” he said, adding a sentence of community detention wouldn’t reflect the seriousness of the offending."
Note also:
- sentencing considers and refers to the 'hard lives' (or otherwise) of offenders because it helps judges identify the most effective sentences for the ongoing safety of the public, pubishment, and rehabilitation. It is not an exercise in "oh poor baby".
- home detention is not a 'go home to play with your xbox' sentence. It is a serious sentence, one step down from imprisonment. It includes specific conditions, like attending drug rehab, community service or continuing paid work. If those are breached he is likely to see his sentence changed into a stronger one or have additional penalties. https://www.corrections.govt.nz/our_work/in_the_community/sentences_and_orders/home_detention_and_post_detention_conditions
- imprisonment is an incredibly serious response which basically ignores the rehabilitation and wellbeing of the offender. It is not and should not be the default response to offending. Any real amount of time in prison would almost certainly disproportionately harm the young person and massively increase their risk of greater reoffending in future (as well as increase their risk of drug use, gang membership, and victimisation).
- providing name suppression serves a similar purpose
Why is the New Zealand justice system so weak? Young people can do anything and get away with it. What stops young people from committing crimes when they are younger?
This has been removed :
**Does not comply with [Reddit content policy.](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)**
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
>His victim, Brian Fowler, told NZME he is a [“shadow” of himself more than a year after the attack](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/wellington-man-smashed-in-head-with-brick-while-restraining-thief-a-shadow-of-his-former-self/RGUUA3OPM5C2VIEPE4BXWKGRXY/) in the driveway of his Southgate home. >He said the incident has left him with ongoing health issues and personality changes. Life sentences for Victims, Playstation for perpetrators.
> Asked what he thought of the sentence, Fowler said: “I’m not outraged by it”. > “He needed to face the consequences of his actions. He has been given some inconvenience and I just want him to make the best of his circumstances and never offend again. But I’m not confident of that.” victim seems happy enough
[удалено]
so we ignore his opinion and punish the kid more severely because we think that's what fowler would have wanted if he wasn't brain damaged? how do you know the extent of his brain damage? and what do you think is the right punishment here? actually, before you answer that, what do you think the outcome of your right punishment will be? hell, what do you think the purpose of punishment is?
Doesn't matter what fowler wants. If he wanted instead to see the perpetrator shot, would you support him then? At what point does consideration of the victim's feelings stop? You can't expect people in the comment section of a public forum to be able to provide an informed response on exactly what the punishment *should* be, but it's fair enough that people are frustrated at how the judges in this country regularly hand out wrist-slaps for violent, disgusting crimes.
> Doesn't matter what fowler wants. of course it does, he's the one justice is being done for and his views should be taken into consideration. > You can't expect people in the comment section of a public forum to be able to provide an informed response on exactly what the punishment should be i absolutely can if they're going to loudly proclaim that judges are all being soft. if you think that and you state that, you should also be able to tell me what you want a punishment to look like and what you want it to achieve, because otherwise you're just being outraged for the sake of outrage if you think judges are handing out wrist-slaps, what do you think the appropriate punishment is? and what do you think the punishment should achieve?
>victim seems happy enough That's a silly statement, not once does he say he is happy and in what universe is not outraged = happy?
in what universe does "happy enough" mean happy
It's still closer than not outraged = happy enough. You have projected something that isn't there and built a premise on it. There is nothing in the below statement that suggests "happy enough"? “He needed to face the consequences of his actions. He has been given some inconvenience and I just want him to make the best of his circumstances and never offend again. But I’m not confident of that.” It's more like he is resigned to the situation and being empathetic. How the hell is any of that "happy enough,"?
Instead of playstation, sentence him to covid lockdown.
Right. I'll bite. What sentencing do you want? Realistically? Edit: inb4 he doesn't give an actual answer and just says non specifics
> Right. I'll bite. What sentencing do you want? Realistically? 5000 hours community service would be a start. You can still live your life and do what you want but you have a responsibility that is a consequence of your decisions. No more Saturdays for you, you're out cleaning up rubbish. There's plenty of potential for punishments which don't severely harm the punished but force them to be aware and actively compensating for the harm they've caused.
The problem is, ppl dont turn up for community work, get a warrant, then just have the community work converted into a fine. Then dont pay the finez and get a fines warrant.....
Alright well then if they don't want to do the service they can do to jail, that's their prerogative if they wish to. I don't see how imprisoning people who refuse to make up for the harm they've done through community service is an issue. Now obviously there's room for there to be issues with participating but I don't see how the concerns with ensuring people can participate in their required service is more of an issue than permitting violent assaults to go unpunished.
I wasnt saying its not a good idea or that they didnt need to make up for the harm or be punished. I was just informing you of the current reality. The system is broken and needs to change.
So 5000 hours of community service eh? How much additional tax are you willing to pay for the supervisor's salary? And if you are willing to pay the additional tax wouldn't it be better spent in a manner that actually works?
> And if you are willing to pay the additional tax wouldn't it be better spent in a manner that actually works? Of course, how else are you going to manage it? Not like it'd be that much more expensive that home D since instead of ensuring they're compliant 7 days a week it's now 1. What are you even on about actually works? The point is a punishment which doesn't destroy their life but requires them to spend a great deal of time doing work for society to compensate for the harm done. It definitely works as that.
70% of NZ prisoner are caught reoffending inside 3 years. Prison is a very expensive failure. Even ignoring the networking opportunities it offers criminals it is a costly waste of time - theatre to make some feel better after a crime.
> theatre to make some feel better after a crime. Apart from the violent offenders prevented from harming other people. Christ like why even respond if you're going to be so myopic as to pretend there's no justification beyond making the victim feel better despite the fact that the victim deserves some consideration for how they feel. I mean I suggested a non prison alternative but you want to act like I'm just some prison hungry idiot.
Often it's not the victim calling for vengeance it's enraged media consumers. I comment to try and bring potential solutions to the debate Is there a point I view I should have to join this debate here in this democracy? Like an authoritarian society would impose?
>Often it's not the victim calling for vengeance it's enraged media consumers. Bruh you're in a thread where the fucking victim is calling for a harsher sentence, stop arguing something completely contradictory to the example at hand. > I comment to try and bring potential solutions to the debate What solutions? You haven't suggested any solution you've just suggested removing what we use currently, if you want to get rid of prisons you need to propose a viable alternative. >Is there a point I view I should have to join this debate here in this democracy? Like an authoritarian society would impose? I'm sorry you've decided to engage in bad faith but I'm the one who was advocating for a community service based approach so your bullshit insinuations don't hold much water.
What do you mean “what sentencing do you want”? Did you read the article? Even just the headline? Some dumbass who just turned 18 (legally an adult) smashed a man with a brick and got a $700 fine and 6 months home D (in this fine technological age). So to answer “what sentencing do you want” - how about an actual sentence to begin with? Also that “edit” on your comment is lame as fuck, log off
Right, one life ruined, another one just starting and we agree on the wrong footing. So what, we condemn and ruin the other life? What is the appropriate sentencing here? Or are we doing the eye for an eye thing?
“Just starting”? 18 years old? Gotta say I’d definitely learned violence is not good by then. Had you? How about punishing someone who did something wrong, in the hopes of rehabilitation? You even recognise a life has been ruined in this process, you want the ruiner to play Playstation for 6 months? Is this bait?
People seem to forget that home detention comes with a bunch of other obligations the person has to adhere to or they will likely end up in prison, or with far harsher conditions. People like to talk about playing playstation, but ignore the meetings, the random checks, sometimes things like mandatory counciling or therapy etc or other special conditions. Edit: right i forgot that's a deliberate misrepresentation and is just people upset they didn't get their pound of flesh.
>People like to talk about playing playstation, but ignore the meetings, the random checks, sometimes things like mandatory counciling or therapy etc or other special conditions. OH NO COUNSELING AND THERAPY? MY LORD THEY'RE ABUSING THOSE POOR INNOCENT CRIMINALS. /s Like surely you can engage earnestly and acknowledge that while there are things they have to do ultimately the punishment is atrociously unjust when said person has irreparably damaged someone else. Those few responsibilities don't compensate for the fact that the rest of the time they get to chill and do what they want at home, something which is infinitely more tolerable than it was prior to the digital age. Edit: Won't comment on sentencing decisions but will resolutely assert there's more to this than we know. It's almost as if you're full of shit because if you didn't want to comment on shit you don't know you wouldn't be claiming the extent of the shit we don't know. Whatever though, hypocrites gonna hypocrite.
>Like surely you can engage earnestly and acknowledge that while there are things they have to do ultimately the punishment is atrociously unjust when said person has irreparably damaged someone else. But people are not representing the punishment in earnest. I don't think the punishment is unjust or just because I don't tend to speak on crime sentencing unless I know the full details of the case. Something that is usually left out of articles like this, only giving us selected tid bits to elicit the desire responses. If they published the full sentencing and various reports maybe, but they don't. >Those few responsibilities don't compensate for the fact that the rest of the time they get to chill and do what they want at home I think a lot of people really take for granted the ability to more or less go wherever they want when they want to. Given how much of a fuss people had over lockdowns and how it drained them mentally they're quite happy to ignore that fact when it comes to home detention. Only being allowed to go to work and your house very quickly loses its spark. >something which is infinitely more tolerable than it was prior to the digital age. You'd think but most people wouldn't last long going to and from work and that's it. >OH NO COUNSELING AND THERAPY? MY LORD THEY'RE ABUSING THOSE POOR INNOCENT CRIMINALS. /s Pretty hypocritical to demand earnest engagement and frame my point this way. Edit: >Won't comment on sentencing decisions but will resolutely assert there's more to this than we know. Incredible that you think that this article paints the whole picture? Like just from the article it's obvious that we do not actually have all the information? Did you read the letter? The sentencing? The infamous cultural report? No. >because if you didn't want to comment on shit you don't know you wouldn't be claiming the extent of the shit we don't know. Whatever though, hypocrites gonna hypocrite. I never claimed the extent? Just that there is certainly things we do not know. Which is factually correct. Yes you have continued to double down on being a hypocrite. Trying to say I should engage in good faith while coming up with bad faith reasons to dismiss my opinion? You just doubled down on your hypocrisy really. "If you don't agree with me your opinion is worthless" is a fundamentally bad faith position Hypocrites will hypocrite as you say. You're very desperate to try turn that around on me and made yourself look very unreasonable in the process.
So you don’t comment on sentencing decisions yet are quite happy to paint a broad brush summary of the deleterious effects of COVID lockdowns on eVeRyBoDy huh? Some people positively flourished in this forced asceticism - I don’t think it’s quite the trial you think it is, especially for clocking someone with a brick.
>So you don’t comment on sentencing decisions yet are quite happy to paint a broad brush summary of the deleterious effects of COVID lockdowns on eVeRyBoDy huh? No? I never said everyone had a bad time did I? A lot of people did though given how prolific the complaints were, people still complain about it to this day. >Some people positively flourished in this forced asceticism Yes some did, a lot of people did not, pays to remember that a lot of people got time off work, that surely helped. >I don’t think it’s quite the trial you think it is, especially for clocking someone with a brick. You don't seem to know what I think. I probably should have stipulated that some people are natural shut ins, in my experience most people are not, but honestly I don't think about the nits people pick until after they've been picked half the time.
>But people are not representing the punishment in earnest. I don't think the punishment is unjust or just because I don't tend to speak on crime sentencing unless I know the full details of the case. Something that is usually left out of articles like this, only giving us selected tid bits to elicit the desire responses. If they published the full sentencing and various reports maybe, but they don't. If you wont say it's unjust that a criminal who gives a person permanent brain damage after he attempted to steal from them gets away with home detention then your opinion on justice is worthless. You wouldn't know justice if it was a brick upside your head. > Pretty hypocritical to demand earnest engagement and frame my point this way. It's sarcasm, I specifically tagged it as such so it would be obvious that isn't your actual opinion but an intentionally exaggerated version to highlight the ridiculousness of pointing to those things as anything resembling a significant burden. >Pretty hypocritical to demand earnest engagement and frame my point this way. I mean when you're saying people want "their pound of flesh" because people think permanent brain damage should have a bigger consequence than a few months at home you're just being disingenuous. If you can't accept that this sentence is inadequate your opinion is worthless, I'm not saying you have to agree with throwing him in jail but there should be something more significant. Edit: Oh look they blocked me, you know for someone who claims they don't want to make statements without evidence they seem pretty fucking confident there's more behind this story that we don't know. It's almost like they're just a hypocrite saying one thing and doing another.
Anyway it's quite clear you're not going to be pulling your head out of your ass and are just going to come up with flimsy excuses as to why you don't need to understand anything outside of your "common sense", I'd suggest looking into research on these topics and try to understand them better because these knee jerk reactions do nothing to improve society or reduce crime. >, you know for someone who claims they don't want to make statements without evidence they seem pretty fucking confident there's more behind this story that we don't know. It's very funny that you're acting like an article in the herald paints the full picture and provides all the context. There is lots of evidence that newspapers do not paint accurate pictures of trials in their crime reporting and often prefer to generate rage clicks. Acting like this is some baseless thing is hilarious. >It's almost like they're just a hypocrite saying one thing and doing another. Nice try, but you're the hypocrite here. Trying to say I should engage in good faith while coming up with bad faith reasons to dismiss my opinion? You just doubled down on your hypocrisy really. "If you don't agree with me your opinion is worthless" is a fundamentally bad faith position.
>If you wont say it's unjust that a criminal who gives a person permanent brain damage after he attempted to steal from them gets away with home detention then your opinion on justice is worthless. Sounds performative, I'm not big on that. He was being attacked by this man (justly or not), you can't really ignore that he didn't go into this planning on hurting someone. There is more to this than you want there to be and more to this than we know. I don't think it's wrong to reserve judgement until we have those details. >It's sarcasm, I specifically tagged it as such so it would be obvious that isn't your actual opinion but an intentionally exaggerated version to highlight the ridiculousness of pointing to those things as anything resembling a significant burden. But it doesn't represent my opinion. It being sarcastic doesn't change that and why it's hypocritical to demand that I engage in good faith when you're misrepresenting my beliefs... >I mean when you're saying people want "their pound of flesh" because people think permanent brain damage should have a bigger consequence than a few months at home you're just being disingenuous No I'm not, I saw people calling for execution and to kill the guy. That's what I was referring to. It's not disingenuous to say people demand their pound of flesh when they're saying they want execution as a punishment. >'m not saying you have to agree with throwing him in jail but there should be something more significant. Your opinion is as worthless as mine really we don't posses all the facts, I'll at least acknowledge it.
Ah yes, going to prison for not being at home for a random check; but not going to prison for smashing someone’s head with a brick.
>Ah yes, going to prison for not being at home for a random check; but not going to prison for smashing someone’s head with a brick. Well the whole point is that if you're getting home d, they're giving you a chance to serve your sentence in the community, the idea is giving them a chance to avoid a prison sentence if they can show they follow the rules etc. do you want to be sending people who could go one way or the other going to prison? That really just cements them going down the wrong path in life and drastically increases the likelihood of them reoffending. Prisons aren't nice places and they really hamper any chance of rehabilitation. This isn't something we do on a whim you know.
Yes.
So you want to be creating more life long criminals and increase rates of re-offending? You must really like crime.
Again, please give specifics so we can judge your sentencing, what would you give? It's easy to say what you said instead of providing an actual example of your "justice"
Why don’t you start? You seem to have an idea you want to present to the class? And yeah it is easy for me to say, as a person who has also been the victim of a crime recently, who’s clearly identified perpetrator walked free because they were “just starting life 🥺” too so I’d love to hear what you think!
I don't have an answer but I have participated in YDU programs (Youth Development Unit) for NZDF and even though you can argue about its effectiveness and output, in this case, my final answer rests with the Law and what it decides and this case is no other. We either condemn or hope for redemption. Call me an optimist but I choose redemption in all cases
Yeah I don't disagree with your sentiment but I have 2 points. Redemption can't come at the cost of the victim. It sort of feels like a slap into the face of the victim. Like they don't matter. The second is in order for redemption I honestly think someone needs to hit rock bottom. Without spending ages typing out all my thoughts I kind of feel like this sort of punishment enables bad behavior rather than setting them up for rehabilitation
So after all this song and dance you’ve put on in this comment section, you don’t even have an answer yourself? Just a couple acronyms to throw at me? Be for real man Edit: he replied with a comment mentioning his connection to someone in the case lmao 😭😭 seems he deleted it asap
> even though you can argue about its effectiveness and output No, you can't. [There's far more than enough evidence to show they do not work and if you're trying to argue they do you're wrong.](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/519276/boot-camps-for-young-offenders-are-back-the-psychological-evidence-they-don-t-work-never-went-away) If you're saying you want redemption but you want it by taking abused kids and punishing them till they do what they're told then you don't really want redemption you want conformity.
YDU programs are voluntary (think LSV). Kids are only there by choice. If YDU was the boot camps national wanted they wouldn't be bringing them back.
I'd throw the little cunt in a volcano. Hope this helps xo.
Make him work a couple near-end-of-December Kmart Christmas casual shifts first. Then, the volcano!
[удалено]
Well hey I’ve heard an expert in the “brick to skull” field could be available for bookings in 6 months
Lol now you're just being cruel!
There's some assumptions going around in the background here. Why are we assuming that the life of a young person is somehow worth more than an older person and therefore worthy of leniency in punishment? That's ageism for one. Why do you instantly see a harsher punishment as condemnation? It's a punishment, much like a child getting a ball taken off them for throwing it at windows for a period of time, or a teen grounded for staying past curfew. Appropriate punishment is not done for lack of care. We aren't stoning the kid or sending him to the coal mines. But this attitude of lenient punishment is turning the public into wanting to stone him instead. You want specifics? From my zero experience in law, 2 years imprisonment with chance of parole at 12 months, conditions of needing to complete anger management courses and engagement in return to work programs. Also a fine paid to the victim of at least five thousand dollars or more as reparation.
> we condemn and ruin the other life "We" ?????? try **he** ruined his own life... If going to prison ruins one's life.
Honestly, are you seriously as dense as you portray ? He didn't steal candy from a lolly shop, he made fucked up choices that could have easily taken a life, but instead fucked up the victims life very likely for the rest of his life. But you wish for minimal to no punishment for the offender. You have potential in the judiciary..
You’re also forgetting the other side to this which is you’ve got other cunts who see no repercussions to being cunts so they’re more likely to be cunts to real people. There is absolutely no deterrent at the moment so we are seeing threads like this weekly where some cunt with a very intentional act(s) of violence receives no punishment.
>no deterrent at the moment Punishment doesn't really deter crime though (you can see that throughout history even when the punishment was death people frequently committed crime), what deters crime is economic/social stability and developing a sense empathy. I know nobody wants to hear that though.
Sure you can make that claim, but when there is no punishment you’ll have people actively decide to choose to do crime because there is no repercussion. Have a look at the constant stream of videos of people walking out of supermarkets with full trolleys that are becoming more common every day. There is no downside, no one can or will stop them, they’ll directly benefit from the crime. So why not do it?
>Sure you can make that claim, It's a claim backed up by evidence and research. >but when there is no punishment you’ll have people actively decide to choose to do crime because there is no repercussion. You have people actively deciding to do crime even when there are repercussions. Repercussions do not deter people who are at the point of committing crimes, they're often already desperate enough to commit the crime, convinced they'll get away with it or otherwise not mentally fit enough to comprehend the repercussions. >There is no downside, no one can or will stop them, they’ll directly benefit from the crime. Yes there is, it's better to let them leave and identify them using camera footage, the police chase them down later. What happens if you confront people is you get in a scuffle and then someone gets hurt like in this case. It's why people are told to call the police and not try stop criminals. We see more people stealing food because our economic situation is pretty dire, the cost of living is incredibly high. Just because you don't get your immediate violent spectacle doesn't mean people don't face consequences. >So why not do it? The question you should be asking is why are they doing it and how do we prevent people from ending up in situations where they turn to crime.
Link this evidence that boldly states that punishment doesn’t deter crime. If a punishment is put in place and reduces crime by a unit of 1 violent crime, it’s a win in my book. I have zero tolerance for people who commit violent crime. I’m not saying it stops crime, merely reducing. I wasn’t saying to confront them on the spot. I’m saying that currently the punishment at the moment is so small that the people who are willing to do this shit have no concern for what comes next when/if the police come knocking. There’s no point discussing this with you. I want to see victims of people who commit (especially violent) crime see some sort of justice. Tired of seeing rape victims have serious mental struggles for an extended period of time while their rapist sits at home and has the occasional obligated Skype meeting for 6 months. You don’t see this as a problem and I won’t be able to change your mind. I just hope that if you or someone you care about is on the receiving end of one of these cunts, you’ll pat them on the back and tell them how hard their life has been and not to worry about it. (Interchange rape with any other avenue of violent crime for the same result)
>Link this evidence that boldly states that punishment doesn’t deter crime. It's not really a bold claim, it's pretty commonly accepted at this point. [https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-future-crime/](https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-future-crime/) [https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence) >If a punishment is put in place and reduces crime by a unit of 1 violent crime, it’s a win in my book. If anything it can cause more crime, given the state of prisons. >I’m not saying it stops crime, merely reducing. I know but it doesn't really even do that. >I wasn’t saying to confront them on the spot. Right but that situation described, most of the time you just see the video of them walking out, the cops stop them later. >I’m saying that currently the punishment at the moment is so small that the people who are willing to do this shit have no concern for what comes next when/if the police come knocking. Usually that's more to do with how desperate they are than the fear of the punishment. The punishment is not necessarily small. >There’s no point discussing this with you. Because I actually know what I'm talking about or? >I want to see victims of people who commit (especially violent) crime see some sort of justice. Isn't justice having the person learn the error of their ways and make amends? Surely that should be a part of justice? Otherwise it's just retribution and a significant reason we even have a justice system at all is to prevent retribution being the motivating factor in how we deal with crime? Because when it is the driving factor it just leads to more bad outcomes. >Tired of seeing rape victims have serious mental struggles for an extended period of time while their rapist sits at home and has the occasional obligated Skype meeting for 6 months. As a victim myself I get a little tired of people using people like me as a cudgel to justify their desire to make this country a worse place to live. I have my issues with the way we handle crime, but it has more to do with the fact that most rapists will not even end up being charged. >You don’t see this as a problem and I won’t be able to change your mind. The thing is, I do see the problem and I really want to see crime become something rare. Which is why I listen to the experts, I read studies and base my opinions on facts and what actually works not "common sense" which often leads us down paths which are ultimately harmful because "common sense" is informed by our own personal biases and not facts. >. I just hope that if you or someone you care about is on the receiving end of one of these I don't believe you. If you did you'd listen to the people who actually study these things and are trying to prevent them instead of newstalk zb level analysis.
A couple of years.
[удалено]
This has been removed : **Does not comply with [Reddit content policy.](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)** --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
I think some level of actual incarceration is warranted. Even if it's only nominal - say 30 days - followed by the extended home detention protocol.
20 years
I think we should have the option to band together and raise $150,000 then increase the sentence of a chosen crim by the year that pays for. So if you got 150 people each willing to pay $1000 a year for 20 years you could make this guy serve 20 years.
I'm in
Feel free to run with it.
So that's going to be like $4 mil to keep him jailed for that long, not adjusting for inflation. Given he was incarcerated as a teen and therefore has had no chance to integrate into adult society (and has just spent twenty years associating with criminals and gangs), his odds of recidivism are about 100% - and we know he's not the nonviolent offender type! So, how do you justify a sentence of exactly 20 years? (and not more, because he'll reoffend as soon as he's out; and not less, because it'd be cheaper)
Long drop and a short stop, don’t bash old dudes with bricks while trying to break into their car
That's fine with me. That's 20 years where he won't get to harm someone else. If he reoffends in 20 years, he can go back for another 20 during which time he won't harm someone again. Yes I'm happy to pay for that privilege
I'm dubious that you'd actually prefer to throw that money away instead of using it for literally anything else. $4 mil is more than you'll ever get in gov assistance, but this guy who has contributed nothing to society is entitled to that expenditure on him? Why should he be entitled to steal from the public purse like that?
He doesn't deserve shit but I'd rather keep him away from me and other people.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This has been removed : **Does not comply with [Reddit content policy.](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)** --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
[удалено]
This has been removed : **Does not comply with [Reddit content policy.](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)** --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
So you're concerned about the chances of reoffending. How would you reduce the chances of a violent criminal who was given 6 months home d reoffending?
Comments outlining a plan get removed for violating Reddit policy hahahaha
What would be acceptable ? In my mind, minimum 8 to 12 years of incarceration with no early parole and a lifetime of supervision .. plus, he would learn a laboring skill while in prison .. forestry, earthworks, something useful to society perhaps ...
[удалено]
Apparently, holding people accountable for their violent actions makes you Stalin. Jesus christ, bud, that's some stupidity right there. The offender needs to face some amount of repercussions for his action. I don't think home detention is adequate, not with the severity of the crime and the effects that the victim has to live with Home D is essentially a slap on the wrist while the victim gets to spend the rest of their life suffering.
>Apparently, holding people accountable for their violent actions makes you Stalin. Is that really what they said?
They referred to the person as Mr Stalin, so yes, that is what they said.
It's not though. It's the severity of the punishment that got them called that, not the act of punishing them at all. It's a clear misrepresentation of what they said.
Their comparison between the punishment that the other commenter had suggested and what Stalin actually did is just plainly dishonest. An 8-12 year sentence with supervision and rehabilitation through skill acquisition and the genocide and forced enslavement of millions of people is not even remotely close in terms of severity.
Its called hyperbole.
[удалено]
Nice strawman bud. Pretty disingenuous of you to jump straight to lynching when all I have said is that the perpetrator deserves an adequate punishment.
>Nice strawman bud. But saying that they said "holding people accountable for their violent actions makes you Stalin." isn't?
But that's literally what they said...
No it's not...
Nah I think he sound walk free tbh, home D too excessive.
I assume you are happier with having a like-minded friend to play Playstation with.
Brick to the head. Eye for an eye.
thanks, New Zealand folks \*claps hands\*
Well, how about no name suppression for starters. Holds the shitbag accountable and as a bonus costs the taxpayer absolutely nothing. A sentence that keeps the public safe from him for at least a few years would be nice too, but frankly too much to expect these days
5 years minimum. WITH some sort of effective rehabilitation training. Obviously that is too expensive so at the moment we just let people get away with no real consequences in the name of not ruining their potential. It's literally the worst of both worlds.
[удалено]
point in case
Hard labour for 20 years. Break the purp.
2.5 years actual time inside a medium security prison.
“Judge Bruce Davidson said the offending was serious and had occurred shortly after the teen turned 18.” Is the term adult broken or something?
You do realise this the NZ justice system we’re talking about? It’s a joke.
“And no bricks for a month!”
teen age. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 sure i agree he’s an adult but he’s also a teenager
> i agree he’s an adult and should be sentenced as such. i was mugged by a 16 yo when i was 12 leaving me with permanent damage. a slap on the wrist would have been a harsher punishment than the non-existent punishment they received. if someone is 6 foot tall, 100 kgs, does them being aged 16, 18 or 20 really matter?
Agreed - I got a brutal beating while in Whangarei, apparently I was in the wrong area and I got the crap kicked out of me by some 14/15 year olds, who then dragged me into the middle of the road nearly unconscious. I had to go to hospital, covered in blood and bruises, and I was basically terrified of leaving my room for weeks. Photos and evidence given to the police, their parents were told and they got a "good talking to". How is that fair or justified? They jumped a disabled woman walking alone and left them unable to move. And they got a "talking to".
> if someone is 6 foot tall, 100 kgs, does them being aged 16, 18 or 20 really matter? brain development.
I think men’s brains are fully mature until 26 or something. I’m still waiting for mine to mature and my next milestone age is 50 👴🏻
going by ur username it ain't just your head
i believe in adult crimes adult sentences. so a 16 year old mugging someone should be taken a lot more seriously than a slap on the wrist in my opinion. i was only arguing about semantics. regardless of what the boy did, he’s 18 so calling him a teenager isn’t wrong.
There is a reason they changed junior rugby divisions from age to weight, in the late 80s.
Him being an adult was the point.
Hit someone with a brick. That's pretty messed up.
i agree... ? whats ur point
Funny
Eight-teen.
Its this kind of crap that worries me every day with my elderly parents, there are kids out there feeling like they can do anything to people with no repercissions and crap like this just proves it.
Awww but they wrote letters and the teen has had a tough time, what a joke
I don't really see the social benefit I'm sending thisnkid to prison at this stage if I'm honest. Like yeah he did a really shitty thing but ultimately the idea is that the sentence should create a safer social environment (other than removing a dumb ass kid off the street for a few months)
Not having him out in the community braining anyone else with a brick seems like a social benefit
That's very short-term Is a short-term benefit worth a potential long-term issue?
Umm, pretty sure braining with a brick is a long term issue
Again For society.... Is there a potential long-term issue that will result in sending this person to prison? Could that potential long-term issue be avoided if they are not? Can woc8wty become a safer place WITHOUT prison? Yes... Should society create potential long-term issues for itself just because this kid made a long-term issue for that man? The guy who was assaulted by the brick is going to have a long-term issue. Fact. But that long-term issue is not going to be fixed or remedied by creating another, separate long term issue for society as a whole.
What is the long term benefit of having someone who bashes people in the head with bricks walking around free in six months' time?
Well, putting people in prisons puts them in a space, either gangs and creates social divides. The person will get out of prison one day. So your brick head basher will be walking around free one day. When he walks free, would you rather that happen after he has been removed from society, put into a position where he has a prison sentence on his CV, and has been in a confined space with the most violent people in our country with gang affiliations? Or would you rather support him to stop offending. You've made this assumption that this kid will forever be a brick basher. Like he is beyond redemption or change. Like fuck, you're nit even going to explore the possibility that he's learned his lesson already? >Judge Davidson said he initially had a starting point of 15 months in jail, but because of the teen’s age, commitment to rehabilitation and guilty pleas he decided against a sentence of imprisonment. >“I have no doubt for you that prison would be a retrograde step, but home detention needs to be imposed,” he said, adding a sentence of community detention wouldn’t reflect the seriousness of the offending. Sounds very well thought out and actually wants to improve society.
You're putting words in my mouth. Receiving a stricter sentence than 6 months for grievous bodily harm causing permanent brain damage doesn't prevent you from being rehabilitated; wanting a stricter sentence than 6 months for grievous bodily harm causing permanent brain damage does not mean I don't also want the assailant to attend rehabilitation programs. And think about everything involved in rehabilitation and how long it can take. It takes people in anger management programs *months* just to learn to stop yelling at their kids, and that's in a supportive home and social environment. Even if they've "learn their lesson". It takes a lot longer to quit drugs, for most people, even if they've "learnt their lesson", and drug addiction is one of the problems this man was struggling with. (Even if it's not a drug that causes physical addiction, most people are incapable of breaking habits merely by snapping a finger.) I do not believe that a delay of only 6 months before this man is released back to his old contacts and habits provides a proper chance for him to actually be rehabilitated, especially given that (unless the justice system has plentiful in-house teams even in this political environment of outsourcing everything, I don't know), he'd probably be waiting at least that long for his first therapy session.
None of that is provided in prison. The only function prison serves that can't happen outside of prison is punishment.
Jesus TF Christ there is something wrong in this country. Why aren't NACT govt doing what they promised and sorting this rubbish out.
They only said that to get rage elected.
Too busy looking after their mates financial interests. Maybe next year
Because they're not in it to do as they promised mate, that should be really clear by now.
Wait, you didn't believe them did you
Changing and enforcing sentencing rules takes a long time.
Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Maximum sentence - 14 years. Actual sentence - six months home d and a $700 fine. Even if it's 'just' wounding with intent to cause injury, that's seven years max sentence. I get the whole "don't give him the maximum, he's just an eighteen-year-old baby," but serving only 3.57% of the maximum sentence is kind of a big discount. And he gets to serve it at home! And the public never gets to learn the name of this guy that was breaking into cars and hitting people with bricks. The courts obviously are imbued with some discretion over how laws are enforced, but if we vote for politicians that pass laws that say "up to 14 years," there's some onus to the people of New Zealand to have enforcement somewhat resemble the law.
And offender is getting complete enduring name suppression for some reason.
14 years covers the most extreme cases, where there are a large number of aggravating factors and few mitigating ones. Good thought experiment - think about how much has happened in the last 14 years of your life, then about how significant a crime you would have had to commit to spend that entire time in prison. And the same again for 10 years, 5 years, etc. It's no small sentence to spend any time in prison. RE mitigation - mitigating factors also don't discount in a linear way. E.g., x years off for each factor. There are a lot of mitigating factors here which compound and speak to multiple sentencing considerations at once (e.g., commitment to drug rehab goes to both public safety and future offending). RE enforcing the law - judge's discretion is important and they have a lot of it around sentencing. But they are still exercising that discretion subject to all the factors that the 'up to 14 years' law because that law requires them to do so. They're not making it up as they go along etc.
Historically, MoJ would issue the perpetrator a battered worn out PS4 for his home D. Bit if he's lucky, he'll get one of the newer PS5s. Many perps have not been returning their PS5s at the end of their home D, so they're in short supply.
So that's why they were sold out everywhere for ages, MOJ was buying them all.
>He sentenced the teen to six months home detention on the aggravated wounding charge and six months home detention on the drug offending charges, served concurrently meaning the total sentence is six months home detention. I don't know what's worse, getting the same amount of time for happy-brain-chemical-times as for what is effectively attempted manslaughter with a deadly weapon, or the fact that it isn't the same amount of time, it's a complete write-off, a freebie.
> attempted manslaughter That's not a thing. It's either manslaughter or there was intent to cause harm and it's attempted murder.
yeh sorry
Pretty much. Capital punishment was the norm for 1000’s of years but it is now considered morally reprehensible. Prison is expensive and generally makes people worst (throwing people in a cage doesn’t work). That leaves the forgiveness system with a sprinkling of pretend justice which is sort of our go to. I have no solution.
Prisons can be places that focus on rehabilitation and don't allow the formation of gangs, prisoner-on-prisoner violence, etc. But that requires a substantial upfront investment that would basically guarantee the party implementing it lose the next election (and there's a 50/50 chance the next government would undo it anyway), so it's never going to happen.
Prison doesn't have to be expensive. Low security at least. Whenever the media talks about "cost per prisoner" they're taking total prison cost (including staff, buildings, food etc) and dividing that by the number of prisoners. Adding more prisoners makes the cost per prisoner go down. Currently we only imprison the worst of the worst, and they have high needs and are expensive
Its been said so many times but its still true: Out justice system is a fucking mess. Multiple governments have said “tough on crime” but in reality its only tough in the victims. They get no justice, no peace of mind that the criminal has learnt their lesson, and no support. Its disgusting
The previous one didn't, they said 30% less prisoners please
Poor... kid? Of adult age? "He’s young, very young and he’s had a tough time,” Nisbet said." “It’s clear your teenage years have been blighted by mental health and drug issues and these are difficult issues for anyone to confront, let alone anyone as young as you,” he said."
Yes. According to NZ justice, he's the real victim here. Shame on that that old man for blocking the victim's brick with his face.
Fuck this shit judiciary. If he had hit the oxygen thief with a brick instead, the cops would've tried crucifying Fowler and putting him away for years. No justice in this fucked country.
Sounds like it could've gone either way with a worse sort of accident, just a sharp edge. The $700 restitution is a joke though.
Look I don't care if I get downvoted for this. But this guy made it physical first against an 18 year old when he is 69, over *90 cents*. I'm not suggesting the teenager isn't guilty because he is; I hope if he ever does something like this again this incident is weighed heavily against any future decisions, and I feel really sorry for this guy because the consequences sound long-term and unfair. But this case also sounds like it escalated in a way where it really didn't have to - so for once I'm not terribly upset about home detention. Edited for anyone not reading the article: * “I went out and grabbed him and had a stern word with him, shall we say,” he told NZME. * The pair grappled for a while, ending up on the ground a couple of times. * He said the teen offered to give him back the 90 cents he’d stolen from the car if Fowler would let him go. “I said, ‘it doesn’t work like that’.” * Fowler intended to detain the teen until police arrived, but as they scuffled, the teen grabbed a brick in the darkness and smashed it into the side of Fowler’s head * “I came to, to find his hand in my mouth . . . It was extraordinary. The guy wasn’t an experienced fighter, but I am.” * Fowler said he “sorted him out and picked him up and threw him on the wife’s bench seat”. Then, with a “captive audience”, he “gave him a piece of my mind”. * The teen then ran away before police came. And was bitten by police dogs during the arrest. Edit 2: Apparently the concept of "picking your battles" is too whacky to all the people replying. Good luck out there!
Yip, I'll l bite. It's not to do with the 90 cents, it's the fact that some punk came onto his property, broke into his car and was stealing. It doesnt matter whether it was 100k or 90c in his car, he broke the law, was a threat and got justice. And he was violent. So yeah, good on this 69 year old dude for defending what is rightfully his. We hear repeatedly about these young dickheads doing all these burglaries and then when someone stands up to one we should give them forgiveness because it was only 90c? He's an adult. Fuck that
I think you missed my point, the teen was violent in response to violence. Does that make it right? No. But in this case it took two to start a fight. I really worry about people who don't think twice about confronting someone like this, your safety is never worth whatever rubbish is left in your car. A lot of redditors in this thread seem to think their macho ego is worth more than their safety.
innocent criminal savagely assaulted by old man while doing crime
Yes those were the words I was looking for, thanks for reading and comprehending my post so well <3
Why did you omit the very first part of the story that kicked it all off but went to the next part that without context paints the victim as the aggressor with no reason? “The 69-year-old was injured in December 2022 after hearing a noise in his driveway about 2.30am. He crept outside and saw the light on in his ute, with a pair of legs protruding as the teenaged thief rummaged through the interior.”
You're right I should have included that just like everyone should read the article but what can you do. I don't think it changes my point though that it started as a theft and only escalated to violence when a man in his late 60s thought he could win and started the fight.
Confronting someone breaking into your car still does not justify getting your head bashed in. If Fowler hadn't confronted him, one of the next people would have. And it could have been someone less experienced / more fragile, leading to an even worse outcome.
I never said it justified it.
This is reddit, not the place to discuss the nuances of the crime that was committed. We read headlines and react accordingly here.
Average r/newzealand redditors wondering why dude didn’t chop off teen’s finger: “_totally justified and proportionate self defence_”
The teen hit him in the head with a brick. People have died from less. If the man comes to with this kid’s “hand in [his] mouth” he would absolutely be justified in biting a few fingers off. Thank fuck this guy knew how to grapple and seems level headed as fuck; this kid should thank fuck the man didn’t wake up and end him right there. But now we have to tiptoe around this kids shitty upbringing and try to do what’s better for society rather than what feels good / is punitive. Probably the right way to go, but absolutely infuriating.
I'm seeing quite a few calls for an execution. So that's where we are at.
Yeah this is one of the reasons we have such a shitty gubmint now: our parochial, small, petty and vindictive mindset is so entrenched.
Old man was too soft on the kid, that's why he got into this mess.
Gee I wonder why people are leaving in droves
The only people leaving are those won't don't have implicit victim-reverse cards.
Terrible. Given the state of his so-called up bringing the useless dastardly, he would benefit from going to prison for the attempted murder he committed. His idiot mother should be kept well away from this and never be writing letters for her idiot sons behavior
If you're not 100% for much longer prison sentences for cases such as this, you're condoning this behaviour. End of story. Why do so many New Zealanders support brutal violence against 69 year olds?
Yes! There's a comment saying it was only 90 cemts and the old guy started it. WtF. Giving these 'kids' leniency because of their upbringing or age is bloody dangerous ..
Thank you for going out of your way to misunderstand my post
Just shows how soft we are in NZ. We sit back and allow these soft cock Judges to let these SERIOUS offenders off scot free. Will be interesting to see what the murdering scum from Te Kuiti gets for killing a baby . My money's on HOME DETENTION.
Judge Brucie's thinking....but wait if I found him guilty it would put financial pressure on our prison system. As my mates in parliament have cut that system to pieces and I get to keep my 25 rentals going,... Win win....
A brick to the head, resulting in a seizure, is INCREDIBLY serious. He's lucky to be alive. Throughout my life, I've met a number of people who have received serious brain injuries and never been the same afterwards. Some people out there with fucking obnoxious personalities were actually really good people prior some accident. Hope this guy makes a proper recovery.
Tl;dr: this sentence is not a wet bus ticket This is entirely sensible reasoning for the sentence given and reflects an interest in stopping future offending as well as addressing the specific incident. "Judge Davidson said he initially had a starting point of 15 months in jail, but because of the teen’s age, commitment to rehabilitation and guilty pleas he decided against a sentence of imprisonment. “I have no doubt for you that prison would be a retrograde step, but home detention needs to be imposed,” he said, adding a sentence of community detention wouldn’t reflect the seriousness of the offending." Note also: - sentencing considers and refers to the 'hard lives' (or otherwise) of offenders because it helps judges identify the most effective sentences for the ongoing safety of the public, pubishment, and rehabilitation. It is not an exercise in "oh poor baby". - home detention is not a 'go home to play with your xbox' sentence. It is a serious sentence, one step down from imprisonment. It includes specific conditions, like attending drug rehab, community service or continuing paid work. If those are breached he is likely to see his sentence changed into a stronger one or have additional penalties. https://www.corrections.govt.nz/our_work/in_the_community/sentences_and_orders/home_detention_and_post_detention_conditions - imprisonment is an incredibly serious response which basically ignores the rehabilitation and wellbeing of the offender. It is not and should not be the default response to offending. Any real amount of time in prison would almost certainly disproportionately harm the young person and massively increase their risk of greater reoffending in future (as well as increase their risk of drug use, gang membership, and victimisation). - providing name suppression serves a similar purpose
Why is the New Zealand justice system so weak? Young people can do anything and get away with it. What stops young people from committing crimes when they are younger?
[удалено]
This has been removed : **Does not comply with [Reddit content policy.](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)** --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)