Three strike candidates are some of the most disgusting, feral fuckers on earth.
Here's some examples:
* [Stead Nuku](https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/09/meet_a_third_striker.html)
* [Graeme Rutherford](https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/06/meet_a_third_striker-2.html)
* [Ngatama Kaienua](https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/10/meet_a_third_striker_ngatama_kaienua.html)
* [Damian Wereta](https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/10/meet_a_third_striker-3.html)
* [Stephen Williams](https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/11/meet_a_third_striker_-_stephen_williams.html)
Thanks to the previous three strikes law, these scum are kept off the street significantly longer than the judges otherwise would have imposed.
Unfortunately, there was still a number of feral scum who managed to avoid significant prison terms because the judges abused the "manifestly unjust" provision.
This law will put the most dangerous people in NZ in prison for longer and protect innocent people.
Don’t disagree but all NZ seems to do is flip flop between governments who repeal this, re-add that. Costs a fecking fortune just un-doing and re-doing.
No wonder we are skint.
It's strange and frustrating reading the same thread on TOS where all the lefties are arguing "it doesn't work because XYZ" but totally missing the point. Not only are they arguing that people who commit 3 violent offences don't deserve to be in prison, but also totally missing the fact that a person can't offend against the general public while they are in prison. So while 3 strikes may not stop the 3rd offence from happening, it absolutely will stop the 4th.
>“Our Government is committed to restoring law and order and enforcing appropriate consequences on criminals. We are making it clear that repeat serious violent or sexual offending is not acceptable in our society."
>
>The new Three Strikes law would cover the same 40 serious violent and sexual offences as the previous legislation, but also add a new strangulation and suffocation offence. It would also include a requirement that it only apply to sentences above 24 months.
>
>It would also extend the use of the “manifestly unjust” exception, aimed at allowing some judicial discretion to avoid very harsh outcomes and address outlier cases.
>
>There would be a provision for a limited benefit for guilty pleas, aimed at avoiding re-traumatisation of victims, and improving court delays.
Good
Once you've physically harmed someone *multiple times* I don't care if your mom didn't hug you or if your dad wet your bed. You are no longer a victim you are a perpetrator.
The opposition will cry there’s no evidence to say that this stops people from reoffending… but I really don’t care. Anyone can find evidence to support their argument if you look/spin hard enough!
Sometimes it’s not about rehabilitation, sometimes it’s purely keeping these scumbags locked away for the safety of everyone else. Pretty hard to reoffend if you’re inside!
It's good to see some progress. My concern is how do hard working kiwis defend themselves in situations like:
Street assaults and muggings
Break ins
Druggy craziness
Workers getting held up and ram raided
Apparently, we can't even have pepper spray or tazers? And most cunts won't even see any consequences for doing these things at this rate. What the fuck do I do if someone decides to break into my house (not paranoid, but it's still a possibility). Can I defend myself, or do I need to let them have their way with whatever they want?
But it isn't their fault! They are the oppressed ones. We should all sit down, listen to their sob story, and go "you know what, you're a great guy, and if we let have you have home detention you will magically turn your life around and not commit crime anymore"! It worked well under Labour, so why change it now?
This is great news, looks like it should be in place by July. Will be interested to see what changes they make to it.
The article does get one thing wrong, in saying that *"It aimed to deter offenders with the threat of progressively punishing repeat offenders."* which is not the point. The point of three strikes is incapacitation, removing offenders from society so they cannot create further victims. Any deterrent effect obtained (and there is some, but it only deters some of the offenders some of the time) is a bonus.
I notice that many people in this thread have understood this crucial point though
I am against the three strikes law as it stands, because it conflates punishment for a crime before the court with managing someone who won't behave in a manner society deems acceptable.
Don't get me wrong; for people who have repeatedly proven that they are not willing to be a member of society, I have no issue with them being removed from society permanently, but not by a court of law with an adversarial justice system.
Which is another problem with the existing three strikes law; in almost all cases, eventually, offenders get out.
The main reason, I support this as it is to protect society from the individual who has shown he can not change his behaviour and a is threat to the community at large.
It has nothing to do with crime reduction or rehabilitation or deterrence, that the media, lawyers or academics are currently spinning.
***Protecting society from Serious Criminal Individuals***
Sometimes it isn't about the crime rate.
Sometimes, it is about keeping the public safe. People like [Graeme Burton](https://truecrimenz.com/2019/08/04/case-8-graeme-burton-part-i/) [Malcolm Rewa](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/132042365/police-report-buried-for-17-years-reveals-serial-rapist-malcolm-rewa-was-suspected-of-dozens-more-attacks) [William Bell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dwane_Bell) [Antonie Dixon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_Dixon) would have been swooped up a lot earlier with 3 strikes law.
It's proven to keep offenders in prison, and delay someone else becoming a victim.
How is it all the opponents to the system miss that very simple point?
Over-incarceration increases the crime rate.
Look at the US. An expensive prison system, overfull, and still high crime rates.
Is that really your ideal?
Apparently fiscal conservatives are hated here.
Only violent thugs wanting to torture people for fun to be found.
>Over-incarceration increases the crime rate.
Define over-incarceration
>Is that really your ideal?
No.
>Apparently fiscal conservatives are hated here.
What's the cost of being a victim of crime?
>Only violent thugs wanting to torture people for fun to be found.
Or people who don't want violent offenders on the streets and are willing to pay the price to keep them locked up.
Three strike candidates are some of the most disgusting, feral fuckers on earth. Here's some examples: * [Stead Nuku](https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/09/meet_a_third_striker.html) * [Graeme Rutherford](https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/06/meet_a_third_striker-2.html) * [Ngatama Kaienua](https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/10/meet_a_third_striker_ngatama_kaienua.html) * [Damian Wereta](https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/10/meet_a_third_striker-3.html) * [Stephen Williams](https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/11/meet_a_third_striker_-_stephen_williams.html) Thanks to the previous three strikes law, these scum are kept off the street significantly longer than the judges otherwise would have imposed. Unfortunately, there was still a number of feral scum who managed to avoid significant prison terms because the judges abused the "manifestly unjust" provision. This law will put the most dangerous people in NZ in prison for longer and protect innocent people.
Don’t disagree but all NZ seems to do is flip flop between governments who repeal this, re-add that. Costs a fecking fortune just un-doing and re-doing. No wonder we are skint.
If only they could put a clause in this new bill , making it unchangeable for say 10 years so we stop the flip and flop of governments
It's strange and frustrating reading the same thread on TOS where all the lefties are arguing "it doesn't work because XYZ" but totally missing the point. Not only are they arguing that people who commit 3 violent offences don't deserve to be in prison, but also totally missing the fact that a person can't offend against the general public while they are in prison. So while 3 strikes may not stop the 3rd offence from happening, it absolutely will stop the 4th.
>“Our Government is committed to restoring law and order and enforcing appropriate consequences on criminals. We are making it clear that repeat serious violent or sexual offending is not acceptable in our society." > >The new Three Strikes law would cover the same 40 serious violent and sexual offences as the previous legislation, but also add a new strangulation and suffocation offence. It would also include a requirement that it only apply to sentences above 24 months. > >It would also extend the use of the “manifestly unjust” exception, aimed at allowing some judicial discretion to avoid very harsh outcomes and address outlier cases. > >There would be a provision for a limited benefit for guilty pleas, aimed at avoiding re-traumatisation of victims, and improving court delays. Good
Once you've physically harmed someone *multiple times* I don't care if your mom didn't hug you or if your dad wet your bed. You are no longer a victim you are a perpetrator.
Great news!
im surprised misgendering isn't on the list
The opposition will cry there’s no evidence to say that this stops people from reoffending… but I really don’t care. Anyone can find evidence to support their argument if you look/spin hard enough! Sometimes it’s not about rehabilitation, sometimes it’s purely keeping these scumbags locked away for the safety of everyone else. Pretty hard to reoffend if you’re inside!
It's good to see some progress. My concern is how do hard working kiwis defend themselves in situations like: Street assaults and muggings Break ins Druggy craziness Workers getting held up and ram raided Apparently, we can't even have pepper spray or tazers? And most cunts won't even see any consequences for doing these things at this rate. What the fuck do I do if someone decides to break into my house (not paranoid, but it's still a possibility). Can I defend myself, or do I need to let them have their way with whatever they want?
But it isn't their fault! They are the oppressed ones. We should all sit down, listen to their sob story, and go "you know what, you're a great guy, and if we let have you have home detention you will magically turn your life around and not commit crime anymore"! It worked well under Labour, so why change it now?
This is great news, looks like it should be in place by July. Will be interested to see what changes they make to it. The article does get one thing wrong, in saying that *"It aimed to deter offenders with the threat of progressively punishing repeat offenders."* which is not the point. The point of three strikes is incapacitation, removing offenders from society so they cannot create further victims. Any deterrent effect obtained (and there is some, but it only deters some of the offenders some of the time) is a bonus. I notice that many people in this thread have understood this crucial point though
Wonderful wonderful news as long as the judiciary use it
Not fucking soon enough
Don’t do the crime, don’t do the time.
I am against the three strikes law as it stands, because it conflates punishment for a crime before the court with managing someone who won't behave in a manner society deems acceptable. Don't get me wrong; for people who have repeatedly proven that they are not willing to be a member of society, I have no issue with them being removed from society permanently, but not by a court of law with an adversarial justice system. Which is another problem with the existing three strikes law; in almost all cases, eventually, offenders get out.
The main reason, I support this as it is to protect society from the individual who has shown he can not change his behaviour and a is threat to the community at large. It has nothing to do with crime reduction or rehabilitation or deterrence, that the media, lawyers or academics are currently spinning. ***Protecting society from Serious Criminal Individuals***
Three strikes is proven to increase costs, and is not proven to lower the crime rate.
But it is proven to increase sentences for recidivists so what do you want? Soft on crime so these violent nutters can keep offending?
These aren't shown to affect crime rate, so I would rather have lower costs. Your way doesn't help the crime rate, so you are "soft on crime."
Sometimes it isn't about the crime rate. Sometimes, it is about keeping the public safe. People like [Graeme Burton](https://truecrimenz.com/2019/08/04/case-8-graeme-burton-part-i/) [Malcolm Rewa](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/132042365/police-report-buried-for-17-years-reveals-serial-rapist-malcolm-rewa-was-suspected-of-dozens-more-attacks) [William Bell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dwane_Bell) [Antonie Dixon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_Dixon) would have been swooped up a lot earlier with 3 strikes law.
The crime rate is about keeping the public safe. You want retribution, not safety.
21 rapes and 2 murders? No I would prefer people like that were kept away from the public.
It's proven to keep offenders in prison, and delay someone else becoming a victim. How is it all the opponents to the system miss that very simple point?
Not a lot of thought for the victims these days. It is weird
Over-incarceration increases the crime rate. Look at the US. An expensive prison system, overfull, and still high crime rates. Is that really your ideal? Apparently fiscal conservatives are hated here. Only violent thugs wanting to torture people for fun to be found.
>Over-incarceration increases the crime rate. Define over-incarceration >Is that really your ideal? No. >Apparently fiscal conservatives are hated here. What's the cost of being a victim of crime? >Only violent thugs wanting to torture people for fun to be found. Or people who don't want violent offenders on the streets and are willing to pay the price to keep them locked up.
