Pakage Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 The Act MP who designed the proposed "three strikes and you're out" law says if it breaches fundamental human rights, the solution is simple - change the Bill of Rights. David Garrett dismissed a report by Attorney-General Chris Finlayson that found three strikes had an apparent inconsistency with the section of Bill of Rights protecting New Zealanders against cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe punishment. Mr Garrett had not read the report, but told of its findings yesterday said: "So what?" "Alter the Bill of Rights Act. We've got too hung up on people's rights." Three strikes would see those convicted of a third serious offence sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year non-parole period. Story continued HERE the bit that ive bolded and underlined is the part that really concerns me.. whats your guys thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grind Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Three strikes would see those convicted of a third serious offence sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year non-parole period. sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Steppa Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Three strikes would see those convicted of a third serious offence sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year non-parole period. sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakage Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 yeah, i mean in theory it sounds good. but what happens when the threshold of what they consider to be a serious offense drops? potentially you could have punishment which is quite disproportionate to the offence which is what the bill of rights is in place to stop happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Americans got too hung up on people's rights, then they came to their senses and opened Guantanamo Bay. Im all for sensible sentencing but not if it means opening the door to abuses of human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teret Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Three strikes would see those convicted of a third serious offence sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year non-parole period. If you don't support this bill now. You will when someone who's been convicted of three serious offences rapes and maims your loved ones. FACT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teret Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 yeah, i mean in theory it sounds good. but what happens when the threshold of what they consider to be a serious offense drops? potentially you could have punishment which is quite disproportionate to the offence which is what the bill of rights is in place to stop happening. Whilst I do agree with this to an extent. Its pretty simple shit. "I've been done for this twice, if i do it again im fucked" Pretty sure urinating in public isn't about to become a serious offence which must please alot of people on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Awesome Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Three strikes would see those convicted of a third serious offence sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year non-parole period. sounds good to me. 3 Strikes and your out sounds fine. ... Maybe one strike if your a ginger and suck at poker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Steppa Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 paedophilia should be one strike and your shot... simple as that. Save the country money. Also if u put a baby in the dryer and on the washing line = Shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nato Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 paedophilia should be one strike and your shot... simple as that. Yeah but like, what if you didn't know she was 8... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gozu Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 lets open up some more cans of worms eh. http://beehive.govt.nz/speech/imprisonment+%E2%80%93+only+part+answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gozu Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 paedophilia should be one strike and your shot... simple as that. Save the country money. Also if u put a baby in the dryer and on the washing line = Shot. what if i put my cat in my bong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeE Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Well, as an ACT supporter and somoene who put a shitload of time into campaigning for them during the election, I have absolutely no confidence in Garret. There are issues with the BORA, but changing it to get a piece of legislation through is not the answer, and the ACT flip flop on the Wanganui Gang Patch legislation is pretty much the final straw. I don't see how ACT can campaign against the EFA because it was against the BORA, and then say change the BORA to get their own legislation through or campaign against the EFA for freedom of expression reasons, then ban gang patches or tattoos simply because gang members cause crime. Especially when the 3 strikes law more than likely isn't "inconsistant" with the BORA... tht was just the initial report from the AG's office, which was likely just one staffers (who is actually an old uni friend of mine) opinion. Its the ACT AGM this week (friday) expect to see a few pissed off freedom loving ACT supporters having a go a their MPs on the new found conservatism and sucking the dick of the sensible sentancing trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now