Despite Police Minister George Hawkins' claim that recorded crime is at an all-time low (something any open-eyed NZer knows not to be the case) the result of a UN study of violent crime shows that this is definitively not the case.

While Scotland topped the survey overall with over 3% of citizens having been the victim of some kind of violent crime (and Japan being the best with less than 0.1% of citizens being a victim of crime), New Zealand ranked in the upper quartile showing that our record ain't that sh1t hot!

Even worse is when you look at property theft and sexual assaults NZ TOPS THE CHARTS! Stand up and be proud NZ, you basically live in one of the most violent and lawless societies in the United Nations! What's even better is that the majority of you have voted in a range of political parties that will allow this sort of trend to continue. We don't actually have that far to go until we actually top a few more categories and maybe the next time this survey comes around we can take out the gold medal overall.

George Hawkins, the Labour government and every liberal-voting New Zealander can stand up and take a bow, you've done so much to fcuk this country in the arse, why stop now?

ummm correct me if im wrong. Wern't national voters enticed to vote that way for a " whats in it for me" reward.

Isnt it the same selfish thought processes of " not my problem" that leads to the rise of crime in a society?

Police and Enforcers cant be expected to do the whole job... Society has to take some responsibility... so Im saying the fault is with the little people... and the mentality of " screw the rest of you im looking out for #1" which seems predominant in the voters of the right

:P

I'd post an intellectual retort to this blatant right wing propoganda, but some cheeky darkie stole my arguement.

I blame television.

Crime being at an all time low in NZ and NZ doing badly in a UN survey on crime are not mutually exclusive. Maybe crime is at an all time low (for NZ) but that amount of crime is still a lot compared to other nations surveyed. There is also the possibility that more crime gets reported here than elsewhere.

Or we're bad for some kinds of crimes but good for others.

Word. Any reply to that khg? And re the comment on us being one of the most violent societies in the United Nations - well, I bet it's a pretty big dropoff after the first few most violent societies. Being in the top quartile isn't a good thing, but I can't exactly see a mini Somalia out my window, can you?

I also take offense at being blamed for other people's crimes. Would a National government seriously have done any better, trying to fund the police out of reduced revenue because of tax cuts? Or we could just toss a lot more people in jail and create a proper underclass. Yeah. Right. That'll solve all our problems. Maybe cutting everyone's benefits down to zip would give them a wakeup call too. :hmm:

There's no smoking gun on Labour "fucking the country up the ass" in your post. And unless you think I should blame all rightwing voters for every crime committed under National, don't go rubbishing me and other leftwing voters in such a childish way. I got L** flashbacks reading that stuff.

To be fair, if you throw someone in jail longer, then that's more time that they can't commit crimes. Hence why I support longer sentences for crimes with high recidivism rates (excluding victimless crimes such as drug use, which should have no jail time whatsoever).

War on crime! We need greater punishments for the criminals, including public humiliation/corporal punishment and even the death sentence, for starters, let's make sure that life imprisonment means a life behind bars!

Hawkins has been criticized before for deliberately ignoring the P epidemic in order to present good figures crime figures. If a problem is not recognized, it cannot be solved.

They also need to convert the facilities into proper prisons, not like the current five-star hotels. If the criminals need to repay their actions to society, we must have forced labor (that way they can also contribute to the economy).

I would support the death penalty (I have absolute contempt for violent people) were it not for one thing: sometimes they get the wrong man.

If the guy's caught red handed, all the evidence (genetice, multiple witnesses, personal confession), then he should kiss hot lead (I prefer death by firing squad for execution).

Fair enough. I also support 'voluntary executions' for criminals who are going to be in jail for a long time and make the rational choice to die instead. These would be made as painless as possible because hey, they're doing us a favour making more space.

Of course, I support voluntary suicide for everyone 'of sound mind' above the age of 18. I like giving people choices, even if they're the wrong choices.

Your choices given to them is indeed fine. At least those eligible will be given a choice that's beneficial to society. As for crimes like drug abuse, a good cure would be public humiliation.

I don't mind living in a police state as long as crime is well under control.

If someone wants to completely fuck themselves over with drugs the state should keep out of it, provided they aren't hurting someone else, including those they should be looking after (dependents). If they want treatment, and only those who request treatment would receive it, the state would pay for it out of taxes levied from those drugs.

"If morons want to die, let them" is my motto.

Drug abuse destroys any country's national image. It is also an enemy of discipline.

You'll find that those states with the most liberal attitude towards drug use are generally those with the least abuse of drugs.

If it's legal, it ain't constituted as abuse.

Good point... allow me to rephrase that: the states which have a more liberal attitude towards drugs tend to get less fucked over by drugs.

By legalization, they would have ignored and delted the drugs problem for good. Claiming victory in the name of 'social progress' while it's a sad case of social regression.

Well compare for instance, the Netherlands with the United States.

What works in the Netherlands may not work elsewhere. I know that weed is legal over there but their police still focus on harder drugs like meth and cocaine.

That should be the case everywhere... going after weed is a waste of resources. You're right in that their policy wouldn't work nearly as well in a lot of countries, but I still prefer the idea of taxing drugs to pay for their detrimental effect on society rather than banning them completely. If the money gained from those taxes plus the money saved by not going after drug users were all put towards treatment, we'd be better off as a result.

Plus I don't like the idea that just because I may find something abhorrent (I don't use drugs myself), that my view should be pushed upon others. Everyone has things they don't like to do or see others doing, but unless someone is being hurt I don't see how ones personal morality should effect the law, otherwise we end up with bullshit like 'no work on a sunday'. Everyone has their vices, because there are so many different standards of what constitutes a vice.

We don't really have the right to kill someone for not conforming to our society's rules. The most that we can morally do is forcibly remove them from our society.

To that end, here's an alternative to the death penalty: instead of killing the criminal, have an island set up where the occupants can't escape (ie if they try to escape a big floating ball comes and attacks them), and just move all the 'death penalty' criminals there, and let them form their own society a la Lord of the Flies.

awesome, isn't it? :brash:

Yeah but then they form their own nation and start calling themselves 'Australians'.

The death penalty is pre meditated murder by the state.

Your point being? I hardly see how executing someone is worse than imprisoning them for their whole life, just two different kinds of death AFAICS.

How much sense does it make to make murder illegal, then punish it by killing the person who did it? Hard to see moral sense in that.

I would argue that it can actually be crueler and more effective to allow the criminal to live, thus (hopefully) forcing them to confront the reality of their actions rather than zapping or gassing them to a swift death.

And as oob said, you can release an innocent person from jail, but you can't release them from the afterlife.

My ideal solution is to give criminals the option of euthanasia. That way if they know they're innocent they can hold out for a retrial or whatever. Of course, you'll get the occasional pessimistic innocent person who opts for it anyway assuming they'll never get out, but thems the breaks.

I can see wringing your hands over killing a criminal against their will, but if some baby raping fuckup wants to take his own life, why not help him along? He's happy, we're happy, everyone wins.

It's an intriguing idea. Don't know what it would do to moral stands on suicide, though (since that's effectively what you're advocating there).

There's always going to be a few people with overactive consciences who cry about anything we do to criminals, fuck 'em. Fucking moral minority ruin everything.

We aim to please. :P

Technically, the proponents of the death penalty are the moral ones. Allowing one's trash to pile up and turning your living space into a breeding ground for disease isn't moral.

I look at it this way, the garbageman's profession isn't glamorous, but it's absolutely necessary in our living environment; now the executioner is society's garbageman, his job is to get rid off the human trash that obstructing the lebensraum of good, hardworking, honest citizens.

and what about those who are wrongfully accused? what happens when 5 years later when they realise they've killed the wrong man? o sorry dude we'll buy you a new coffin and kill this other prick instead?

:ph43r:

You get more and more terrifying every day, Adolf.

Require DNA/genetic evidence.

There will always be screwups. There are screwups in the current system, including cases where people are sent to life in prison when they shouldn't have.

Screwups are inevitable. But personally, I prefer them to be reversible to a degree, which requires that they be non-fatal.

Yeah I feel the same way sometimes. Perhaps we should do a Demolition Man style freeze em until all people involved in the case are deceased/no chance of overturning the charges.

There's a thought... Minority Report style, even.

I am not a very intimidating person!

so your saying that the cops/actual criminals never have to plant evidence to stop themselves looking like useless fuckwits/to get off the crime? unfortunately i agree with samf...that we need minority report style's to catch people...