Today’s the anniversary of New Zealand women getting the right to vote.
This timeline from infoplease shows when each country granted that right.
- 1893 New Zealand
- 1902 Australia1
- 1906 Finland
- 1913 Norway
- 1915 Denmark
- 1917 Canada2
- 1918 Austria, Germany, Poland, Russia
- 1919 Netherlands
- 1920 United States
- 1921 Sweden
- 1928 Britain, Ireland
- 1931 Spain
- 1934 Turkey
- 1944 France
- 1945 Italy
- 1947 Argentina, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan
- 1949 China
- 1950 India
- 1954 Colombia
- 1957 Malaysia, Zimbabwe
- 1962 Algeria
- 1963 Iran, Morocco
- 1964 Libya
- 1967 Ecuador
- 1971 Switzerland
- 1972 Bangladesh
- 1974 Jordan
- 1976 Portugal
- 1989 Namibia
- 1990 Western Samoa
- 1993 Kazakhstan, Moldova
- 1994 South Africa
- 2005 Kuwait
- 2006 United Arab Emirates
- 2011 Saudi Arabia3
NOTE: One country does not allow their people, male or female, to vote: Brunei.
1. Australian women, with the exception of aboriginal women, won the vote in 1902. Aborigines, male and female, did not have the right to vote until 1962.
2. Canadian women, with the exception of Canadian Indian women, won the vote in 1917. Canadian Indians, male and female, did not win the vote until 1960. Source: The New York Times, May 22, 2005.
3. Women in Saudi Arabia will not be eligible to vote until 2015.
Homepaddock 
Great post thank you Ele
LikeLike
Interesting that Maori men already had the vote but in several other countries women getting the vote didn’t mean universal suffrage owing to racial discrimination.
LikeLike
I was interested in Fiji . . . 1963.
http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm
LikeLike
It appears that after giving everyone the vote we have now started heading the other way and removing the vote (disregarding human rights):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/70520140/prisoners-should-be-allowed-to-vote-high-court
LikeLike
Was women’s suffrage in New Zealand about “giving everyone the vote” or about challenging the world-view that only men were suited for public affairs and women for the household chores (and therefore didn’t need to vote)?
Everyone does not have the vote. I was fully independent from my parents at the age of 16, and contributing at least as much to society, but could not vote for another two years.
Prisoners are not able to freely participate in public affairs so they should not be able to vote.
LikeLike
Maybe losing the right to vote, along with other civil liberties that go along with incarceration, could be seen as an incentive not to commit crime?
LikeLike
“Prisoners are not able to freely participate in public affairs so they should not be able to vote.”
Tracey, it’s not that simple and we will be discriminating against those who haven’t the means to escape prison: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11488139
blanket rules often have unfair consequences.
I agree about lowering the age to 16. It occurs in other countries and a 16 year old can be employed, be married, have children…it will also provide an incentive to provide civics education in secondary school.
Paranormal, most of those in prison are poor, Maori, unqualified and have suffered abuse while in the care of the state. They are already removed from society as a punishment and you are supporting that they have their democratic rights be removed completely. It’s like once in prison they deserve being punished many times over.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/282623/'staggering-link'-between-cyf-care-and-crime
I don’t understand the theory that once people are damaged by neglect from their parents and the state, that constant punishment will make them better people and contribute positively to society.
Better still lets let the private sector run our prisons…. 😛
Good grief!
LikeLike
DK You are showing your absolute arrogance towards the poor, Maori, unqualified and those that have suffered abuse. You are suggesting they are mindless drones incapable of making any rational decisions. It is your mindset that traps people into crime, welfare dependency and poverty. And we won’t talk about what it is called when teacher unions maintain the status quo for their own power games that fails a significant tail of students….
Whereas the alternative is to consider all individuals as rational humans capable of making decisions, changing their behaviour and succeeding in life.
And what difference does it make who runs the prisons? As long as they maintain standards it makes no difference. The sad thing is the private prison that the clarkula government shut down was showing the public system up for the poor way they managed
LikeLike
In some respects votes for women had to come from a place like NZ.
Chivalry wasn’t a male conceit but a system developed for its time to protect women, children and assets.. indeed some of us may have had an echo of all this in our own marriage vows.. “to love and protect”, with all my worldly goods”, “to obey” etc.
But its hardly a structure that could have survived long in settling this country.. Wakefield may have thought to import class, culture and land ownership structures from England but circumstances soon changed that and Lands Minister John McKenzie broke up the big estates in the 1880s so that the future land holdings would very much be one man and one woman breaking in the land and farming it.
Even though she might have produced eight children and ran the household the nature of farming here meant she had a different relationship with her man than just about anywhere else.. she was part of the management and decision making of the farm as a matter of necessity.
In town her sisters found the same thing, booming migration and farming meant they became part of the weave of small businesses that had to spring up to meet demand.
Small wonder then that emancipation met less opposition and was more a logical development.
When you drill down to the famous “No 8 wire mentality” you find it came from fiercely independent UK settlers nestled and isolated on their farms and farming communities up valleys who spoke in accents and dialects that could differ markedly over just a few miles and over the ridge. Neither Wakefield, the big Aussie landowners or the great British companies could impose the top down structures of the home countries that kept women in a lesser role.. so that was another impediment removed from emancipation.
Different, even unique circumstances then bring forth different men who make decisions and laws. As a group these blokes might have had little sympathy for emancipation but they were elected by men sitting across the table from wives who were a part of their business.. women who with a vote could strengthen their hold on Govt, prevent the land aggregation that they and McKenzie hated with an unholy passion and keep politics local.
Practical types those dour Scots, wild Irish and phlegmatic Cornishmen!
JC
LikeLike
“Practical types those dour Scots, wild Irish and phlegmatic Cornishmen!”
To say nothing of we Shetlanders 🙂
LikeLike
“You are showing your absolute arrogance towards the poor, Maori, unqualified and those that have suffered abuse.”
Paranormal: No I am not, i just stated fact. Maori dominate our prison populations and according to principal Judge Becroft:
“The Youth Court dealt with the most damaged, dysfunctional and disordered young people in New Zealand, and the overwhelming majority of them had a care and protection background.”
“83 percent of prison inmates under 20 have a care and protection record with Child, Youth and Family.”
These are the criminals of the future and those who still dominate our prison populations later. Where is the arrogance in stating fact?
Of course they should be held accountable for their actions, but when so many of them were identified as needing support at a young age, and that support was substandard, why should we continue to remove their human rights and dignity as adults and punish them multiple times? It is just another form of state sanctioned abuse that continues from childhood into adulthood. Do we rehabilitate these damaged people or punish them into submission?
LikeLike
This topic is a little outside my normal commenting – but why not?
When convicted prisoners are incarcerated they lose rights. Many many many rights. They lose the right to chose where to live, they often lose the right to chose what they wear, what they eat, where they go and what they do.
Should they have the right to vote? Interesting one.
The vote to right is partly the right to influence NZ law. Should we have incarcerated rapists affecting rape law, should we have incarcerated drug dealers affecting drug law?
Currently we have 10,000 incarcerated, based on the last voting statistics that would be 0.4% of voters. That is enough for politicians – law makers to be influenced by their wants/needs, of that I am quite sure, although none would ever admit it. 0.4% can be the difference in the balance of power.
Incarceration is a serious matter and applied to only our worst of offenders. Lets face it, loss of vote is only temporary for most.
Will the right to vote affect their rehabilitation? When they are missing their right to choose where to sleep, what to eat, what to wear and what to do, is their right to vote a big impact on their rehabilitation? I doubt it.
Does their right to vote have serious impacts on the sensibility of our democratic laws? I think so.
This discussion contains a lot of shades of grey. There is no perfect solution. But when I have balanced the pros and cons, I think restricting the right to vote is the right thing to do.
LikeLike
Mr E, you are talking a blanket loss of rights that only effects those who are in prison. The majority of those in prison are not serious offenders (rapists and murderers). Many in prison are there because they did not have access to a lawyer (legal aid has been much reduced) or can afford to have a lawyer to allow alternative sentencing for minor crimes. The difference between the treatment of blue collar crime and white collar crime is also pronounced. Tax cheats are pardoned but those who are supposed to have committed benefit fraud are treated in a very heavy handed way:
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/research/expertise/business-commerce/fraud-sentencing
Therefore if you are a Maori who has been abused as a child and not supported well by the state (the majority of those in prison), you are more likely to be arrested and imprisoned, there is also evidence of institutional discrimination.
Click to access do-maori-charters.pdf
Click to access 01_Structural_Discrimination_in_the_CJS.pdf
Teachers have lots of discussion around matching appropriate discipline with misdemeanors and there is general agreement that one approach to discipline can never fit all situations (especially if an individual can be rehabilitated). Removing the democratic right to a vote is serious removal of rights and effectively turns prisoners into non-citizens. A prisoners punishment is removal from society and loss of personal freedoms and the Cerco fiasco has shown that even while in prisons, individuals should still be treated with respect as human beings.
Given the diverse backgrounds, crimes and reasons for being in prison we cannot treat all identically in terms of criminality and the extent of how far we go to remove rights.
LikeLike
Dave,
You appear to confuse issues.
You claim some are unfairly incarcerated. That is a seperate issue.
I don’t think any of your other points are worthy reasons to allow imprisoned the vote.
LikeLike
Mr E, banning all prisoners from voting doesn’t stake up on many levels. We will have to agree to disagree on this, especially if you reject all the arguments I have described and linked to. Here is an opinion from a legal perspective that also supports my view. I just don’t like knee jerk punishments.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11488139
LikeLike
Sorry, “stack” up in first line above.
LikeLike
“banning all prisoners from voting doesn’t stake (sp) up on many levels.”
I don’t agree with the ‘levels you have proposed as not ‘stacking up’.
i.e.
Even punishment when uneven punishments are required
Affects reintergration to society
Affects rehabilitation
Risks punishing people unfairly imprisoned.
If we all worried about any of these issues, people would simply not be incarcerated.
Prison is a bad place. Human rights are affected. It is meant to be a bad place. We treat prisoners as lesser individuals. It has to be that way. Otherwise prison would be full of the general population.
There is no ‘knee jerking’ in that. There is only logic.
Should we give prisoners the right to affect the laws that incarcerate them. I think not.
“We will have to agree to disagree on this”
I can do that.
LikeLike
“I agree about lowering the [voting] age to 16. It occurs in other countries and a 16 year old can be employed, be married, have children…”
I am not advocating that. It is not typical for 16 year-olds to be fully independent and contributing members of society. My own example is the exception rather than the rule and I accept that laws need to be made to suit the majority.
Just as an aside, I was interested to see that my working class great-grandmothers signed the Women’s Suffrage Petition but my middle class ones did not. Curious.
I wonder if this was a precursor to the widespread apathy we see in current times whereby many people, even fully engaged members of society, don’t bother to vote because things are pretty good and they have no burning passion for change?
LikeLike
Having said that, I would add this; if I had to choose who should be allowed to vote, law-abiding 16 and 17 year-olds would be ahead of prisoners.
LikeLike
Dk your understanding of what happens in the justice system is way out of line with what happens in reality.
For someone to be given a custodial sentence they have generally been convicted of multiple crimes previously.
Once in prison, they are out having served only a third of their sentence, unless they have been really recalcitrant in prison.
Given that background the loss of civil liberty seems justified. We need a stick as well as a carrot to get individuals to understand crime is not acceptable in our society.
We currently have white collar criminals serving sentences longer than rapists and murderers. Sort of makes a lie of your comments regarding white collar crime.
You might consider a little background reading http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0508/S00801.htm or http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/stephen-franks-competition-to-end-parole.html
As it doesn’t speak to your wonky worldview I won’t hold my breath.
LikeLike
Paranormal and Mr E, we just have different views on offending. You are obviously Garth McVicar supporters who who push for longer and harsher sentences and have caused New Zealand to have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world and a poor rehabilitation record.
We have the 7th highest rate of incarceration in the OECD (just behind Mexico) and it costs around $100,000 a year to keep someone in prison.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/government_finance/central_government/nz-in-the-oecd/justice.aspx
We are also helping to create a criminal class when around 80% of those convicted in youth courts were being managed by CYFs and we have 87% of those imprisoned under 20 years reoffending.
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/reconviction-patterns-of-released-prisoners-a-48-months-follow-up-analysis/re-imprisonment-rates-by-age-at-release.html
It appears from most research that heaping the punishments onto offenders by putting them in prison, removing their vote, extending their sentences, shifting them away from their families… just ensures that they will reoffend and cost the country hundreds of thousands to keep them locked away.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/authors/ampp3d-from-mirror/prison-doesnt-work-50-time-3748230
We need to protect society from criminal behaviour and the best way of doing that is to stop their criminal behaviour and rehabilitate them into individuals that will contribute positively to society. I have no trouble with putting mass murderers and serial rapists in prison, but they make up a small percentage of those inside. Our current systems just ensures that our criminals remain criminals and a danger to society. Removing voting rights is like using another stick to beat our damaged young people into seeing sense, we should be building a sense of responsibility, not a sense of worthlessness.
LikeLike
Tracey, Austria allows 16 year old to vote if they have employment and them seems to work for them. It is surprising how thoughtful and responsible young people can be and when I organised for all the candidates in Invercargill to visit our secondary schools we found some of the most informed questions came from those meetings. Many young people would be voting for their future and we are inclined to forget that the decisions we make today are often more likely to impact our youth in the future rather than us to day, especially if we delay decisions or borrow heavily. It will be our young who will have to pay for our mistakes and debts.
I also organised for Invercargill’s Young Enterprise teams to join our farmers market with their stalls and our own stallholders were blown away by their skills and professionalism.
LikeLike
DK – you obviously don’t want to understand what is actually happening in our justice system then. McVicar knows more from first hand experience than you ever would from your ideological ivory tower.
Did you even bother reading the links I put up? On average a criminal receives 9 convictions before they are sent to prison. In addition they are generally out after only serving a third of their sentence. that’s hardly ‘heaping punishment’ onto criminals.
Yes there are damaged people – have you read http://www.penguin.co.nz/products/9780143571032/another-mothers-love
No amount of rehabilitation will fix that.
LikeLike
Dave,
“You are obviously Garth McVicar supporters who who push for longer and harsher sentences and have caused New Zealand to have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world and a poor rehabilitation record.”
You are obviously wrong. That seems obvious.
ObviouslyTM
LikeLike
Paranormal, New Zealand must have far more dangerous criminals in our small population than most OECD countries given that your argument is that we need to increase imprisonment. Your idea of hitting young offenders even harder to teach them a lesson is highly flawed. McVicar is actually reacting to failures in diversion and rehabilitation programmes and mistakenly (and understandably) thinking that rehabilitation isn’t possible. Lock ’em’ up, remove their vote and throw away the key is just giving up on a percentage of our population that have never had the support they deserved.
I would love to see evidence from you that supports imprisonment as an effective way of changing behaviour. It actually does the opposite. We are also using the justice system for managing those with mental health and addiction problems rather than investing in proper care.
We should be spending more of our money on helping kids who have to bring themselves up in abusive environments, not spending more money on using the justice system to round them up and lock them away.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11503405
It is always better to address the causes of criminal behaviour not add to them as we are currently doing. This Government has recognised that but then gave the responsibility to the likes of Cerco whose income is dependent on a growing prison population, not reducing it. We should learn from the mistakes of the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_Cash
“McVicar knows more from first hand experience than you ever would from your ideological ivory tower.”
As someone who spent part of my teaching career in high needs classes with intermediate aged children with behaviour problems, I have first hand experienced of the backgrounds of our troubled youth. I also have a friend who worked in rehabilitation for offenders. She recently left when the targets were shifted from making a difference to the individuals to just pushing more through a reduced programme. The Government was more interested in saying how many did the programme than how many were actually changing behaviour.
LikeLike
Dave,
” I have no trouble with putting mass murderers and serial rapists in prison, but they make up a small percentage of those inside. Our current systems just ensures that our criminals remain criminals and a danger to society.”
You seem to be saying – a vote for Green is a vote for softer sentences.
You also seem to be saying – Prisoners should have the right to vote.
You can’t seen the problem with that?
LikeLike
most of those in prison are poor….
I don’t understand the theory that once people are damaged by neglect….
Better still lets let the private sector run our prisons….
another form of state sanctioned abuse….
Tax cheats are pardoned ….
I have no trouble with putting mass murderers and serial rapists in prison….
I also organised for Invercargill’s Young Enterprise teams….
As someone who spent part of my teaching career in high needs….
It is always better to address the causes of criminal behaviour….
Blaahblahblahblahblah.
Title of post.
Timeline of women’s right to vote
Troll
noun [C] uk /trəʊl/ /trɒl/ us /troʊl/
Someone who posts irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum.
Obviously(TM)
LikeLike
“a vote for Green is a vote for softer sentences”.
Mr E, you are doing what you generally do, twist the message for your own ends. That is just emotive nonsense.
A vote for the Greens would be a vote to shift from extremely expensive ways of managing crime (that have been shown to fail) to programmes of early intervention to address the causes of crime. Spending a lot of money to deal with mess at the bottom of the cliff is just stupid spending.
I guess the argument comes down to one’s philosophy and whether one believes that punishing people is the best way of changing behaviour, or teaching them other ways of behaving…and the earlier the better.
You would do well to read Jimmy Boyle’s autobiography.
https://www.list.co.uk/article/2808-jimmy-boyle-a-sense-of-freedom-1977/
“You also seem to be saying – Prisoners should have the right to vote.”
Yes I do, in the same way prisoners deserve to sleep, eat and receive help in readjusting to society and contributing positively to society. For most of them we owe it to them for the years most were abused and neglected when young by their families and the state. For many kids the abuse under state care was worse than with their original families.
Even Paula Bennett recognises the issues:
“About 80 per cent of current inmates had been abused as children and had notifications with CYF.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10772163
Let’s spend the money on giving CYFs the ability to do their job properly rather than building more prisons and allowing Cerco to profit from our inadequate child support systems.
The Greens School hub policy would make a huge difference in identifying and helping kids and families in a timely fashion.
I really do wonder about people who enthusiastically support punishing people and removing their rights.
LikeLike
NW, read the thread, this is about the right to vote. Whether prisoners should be able to vote too is directly related to the topic. Ele was celebrating our country’s role in extending the right to vote while ignoring her party’s involvement in reducing the right to vote.
This article in the Economist is worth a read on this topic:
http://www.economist.com/node/14744966
LikeLike
Dave,
I didn’t raise the concept of efficacy of incarceration into the debate – you did.
So yes – A vote Green is a vote of softer sentences.
And yes. – You want prisoners to have the vote.
From reading your commentary both those statements appear to be factual. There is no twist. There are only facts.
If I was you I would not be discussing the two matters in conjunction. I would avoid it like the plague. Because a link between the two is very very concerning. And the Green party appears to represent this link.
LikeLike
DK – yet again you are Obviously Wrong ™ (thanks Mr E).
The issue is not incarceration levels but crime levels. The going soft on criminals experiment that has been running for 30 years in NZ and has clearly not worked.
Prison actually has three roles – Punishment, Prevention, and Rehabilitation. You want to focus solely the last part, which in the current framework is not working.
You mention the OECD. There is only one country in the OECD that has had significantly reduced crime over the past two decades. Have a look at the US for what happens when you get truth in sentencing combined with welfare reform. Even your counterparts in the US,can’t believe we don’t have LWOP.
So, back to the topic at hand. To end up in prison in New Zealand you have had to try really hard. It is totally acceptable that part of the reward for your efforts is the removal of the right to vote.
LikeLike
Paranormal
Prison also protects the general population from criminals.
An extremely important role.
LikeLike
Absolutely Mr E. That is the ‘Prevention’ part, as in prevention of crime against society.
LikeLike
True
LikeLike
“The going soft on criminals experiment that has been running for 30 years in NZ and has clearly not worked.”
Paranormal, you couldn’t be more wrong, sentences are becoming tougher and longer over time but serious offending is increasing (sexual and family violence).
Mr E, two can play your game 😉 I could easily represent your argument as supporting increasing punishments for prisoners and removing basic rights (despite evidence it doesn’t reduce offending). Again you provide no counter evidence to my own.
“Prison also protects the general population from criminals.”
Prisons currently increase the likelihood of reoffending after release so has the opposite effect in the end (87% in the case of under 20s). The worst and most expensive form of rehabilitation. We would only be truly safe from these criminals if they were never released and it appears that this is what you would really support.
More wise advice here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11293142
LikeLike
Phttt Paranormal
You might think the Soviet Union with its Gulags was harsh but they had got nothing on the modern USA where a whopping 1% of its adult population is incarcerated in conditions which you wouldn’t keep an animal in
Truth in sentencing my arse, Justice in the USA is in the hands of the rich who dispose of the poor in ghastly warehouses where they rot
LikeLike
So how would you reduce crime then Andrei?
LikeLike
More rubbish from you DK. What has been the effect of the Liarbour sentencing reforms where criminals only need to spend one third of their sentence in jail?
Again you miss the point on prevention. Criminals can’t commit crime against society when they’re in prison. It says as much in your vaunted BOP Times link. But then again you would suggest crime is not the criminals fault as all property is theft?
LikeLike
I don’t have any grandiose schemes for reducing crime Paranormal, an endeavour for which the solutions will never be found in pithy soundbites favoured by politicians.
We socialized our kids in our family. church and cultural milieu and sent them forth to make their way as best they can – seems to have worked out ok as far as can be seen thus far
People who have a stake in society, as a rule are not criminals (there are exceptions of course) people who do not for whatever reason are quite likely end up behind bars
The answers lie in building strong families and communities based on strong family ties in my view and as unpopular as it may be in these enlightened times the Church – perhaps we need to reclaim Sunday as a day of worship and rest, an opportunity to build family and community ties
We live in a time of fragmented families, social isolation and a society whose values are frankly grotesque where more and more people, particularly young men get left behind and left out
And one answer is, I suppose, . to lock up these young men on the flimsiest of excuses and throw away the key – and the rich can invest in private prisons and profit from this human misery
LikeLike
“Criminals can’t commit crime against society when they’re in prison.”
So your answer to deal with the thousands of abused young people is to take no responsibility for the failures of the state to protect them but instead lock them up for ever at a cost of $100,000 a year for the rest of their lives. What a callous and incredibly costly approach.
I would never excuse criminals of their crimes but surely you would rather they contributed to society and the economy than becoming a drain on our resources for the rest of their lives. Or perhaps you are one of the “line them up against a wall and shoot them” brigade? Criminals are still human beings and their criminal behaviour doesn’t have to define them for ever, (except for the likes of yourself I guess) 😛
LikeLike
Dave,
“two can play your game 😉 I could easily represent your argument as supporting increasing punishments for prisoners and removing basic rights ”
You could try but that would reflect dishonesty, obviouslyTM. I have not said punishments should increase. I haven’t even suggested it.
Whereas you have suggested punishments need to be lessened and that is a fact. As is the fact you are suggesting law breakers have the right to lessen their punishments.
Facts vs dishonesty Dave. I hope you know the difference.
LikeLike
Mr E, you are dishonest in your argument style, you are only focussing on one aspect of my argument as if it is the whole argument. My alternatives to a focus on incarceration is rehabilitation using education, counseling and behavioural change. If you yourself don’t believe in increasing punishment and don’t approve of those who want prison reform, then you must support the status quo, which is clearly failing.
LikeLike
DK you’re not even getting close. But as Mr E points out, you’re Obviously (TM) engrossed in politics rather than solving the issues.
If you can take off your ideological blinkers for just a moment and actually read what i have posted above, and for that matter on previous threads, you may start to get there. Here’s a starter for you. What are your suggestions for those damaged by Foetal Alcohol Syndrome?
LikeLike
Andrei I was with you until your last paragraph. If you look at what was happening in the private prison that Liarbour shut down, you would have seen a gold standard in how to engage with the community to aid in rehabilitation.
LikeLike
“What are your suggestions for those damaged by Foetal Alcohol Syndrome?”
Paranormal, thanks for bringing this up as i was going to include it earlier as another example of the mental health of those who end up in prisons. Again punishing people for something that they have no control over is the ultimate cruelty. Otago University’s longitudinal study on the relationship between nature and nurture and life outcomes show that an individual with certain genetic or behavioural dispositions can achieve positive outcomes in their lives with good support. One can’t assume that the only solution is to lock people up.
The links you provide just support the fact that many young people are so damaged that it becomes very difficult to change their behaviour. However it is not a child’s fault that they were seriously abused and therefore despite their behaviour they should be treated with compassion, not more abuse. That treatment and support should take into account the risks they provide to our wider society, and may involve some loss of liberty, but the idea of using punishment to change their behaviour is appalling.
Anne Tolley was just interviewed on National Radio and her description of the failing of CYFs was quite shocking. Given that the state has essentially bee abusing 1000s of young people through neglect and poor oversight for many years, we have to take some collective responsibility for that. Locking up these young people that we have failed and removing any semblance of having any individual worth or value (including taking away their right to vote) is just callous and cruel.
We need to protect society from dangerous people but we also need to change the environments that cause them to develop and attempt to change the behaviour of those we have to lock away.
LikeLike
“Mr E, you are dishonest in your argument style”
Ummm no I am not.
“you are only focussing on one aspect of my argument”
Nope – I included the many aspects. As is obviousTM from my comment at September 23, 2015 at 8:57 am.
“If you yourself don’t believe in increasing punishment and don’t approve of those who want prison reform, then you must support the status quo, which is clearly failing.”
Ummm. Nope. Wrong again.
This discussion is about if the vote should be given to prisoners. I am amused that you are determined to discuss the efficacy of punishments whilst discussing prisoners right to vote, becuase you fuel the validity of my arguement.
And my arguement is essentially that prisoners should not have the ability to affect the laws that they are encarcerated under.
The strength of their numbers mean they could have a signifcant impact on law makers behaviours.
And here you are seemingly doing that. In one breath saying prisoners should have the vote, and the next breath, punishments should not be so harsh.
My advice to you Dave, leave the efficacy of punishments out of the discussion. I think it undermines your position on the right of prisoners to vote.
Dont think about scoring points against me, through false claims of dishonesty. Think about the discussion and the points I have raised. I think a good politician would do that.
LikeLike
“And my argument is essentially that prisoners should not have the ability to affect the laws that they are encarcerated under.”
Enlightened prisons include prisoners in having input in the way prisons are managed and what would best facilitate their rehabilitation. Prisoners are no different to anyone in society who will have multiple reasons for voting and ex-prisoners also vote. Removing a democratic right to vote is a big deal and you are assuming that prisoners votes are compromised because of their situation. One could easily say the same for problem gamblers, drug addicts, the mentally impaired, tax cheats, property investors… where do you draw the line?
I am much more concerned about the influence of property investors whose influence and interest in growing their capital assets against all logic and sense is probably a bigger danger to our economy and society than a prisoners vote.
LikeLike
It is not a child’s fault they are seriously abused, but they are still responsible for their subsequent behaviour.
Have a read of http://www.penguin.co.nz/products/9780143571032/another-mothers-love to see just how broken the system is. My best friend has experienced this first hand. They tried the approach you are advocating. Sadly the child is so damaged we will all be hearing about him in the years to come in the worst way.
What you are proposing will only make things worse, particularly where welfare is involved.
So back to the topic – taking the vote away from those incarcerated in prison is reasonable. They have chosen to step outside of society’s bounds, and for the three reasons above, society has rightly removed the benefits of a free society whilstthey are incarcerated.
LikeLike
Dave,
“where do you draw the line?”
The answer seems obviousTM – at incarceration. That is what we are talking about.
Those incarcerated are there because they are convicted criminals. As was pointed out, one of the reasons they are there, is to protect the public from them.
I think it is also wise to protect the public from the impacts those incarcerated could have on laws. Why would we want those proven to be morally corrupt impacting our laws?
I dont think we are making any ground since we agreed to disagree. Your argement seems to have a strong moral flaw to it, and I will never agree with that.
But I will also iterate that there are shades of grey in this discussion, and there is no perfect answer.
LikeLike
“It is not a child’s fault they are seriously abused, but they are still responsible for their subsequent behaviour.”
I support your view here, where we disagree is that you believe punishment brings about positive change in individuals, while I believe that while society needs to be protected from dangerous people there is evidence that harsh and lengthy sentences (with no effective rehabilitation) is a costly response and actually ends up releasing even more damaged people back into society.
All the evidence in countries that have much lower incarceration rates show that there is less repeat offending when alternatives are used.
You continually forget that not all offenders end up in prison and people who commit exactly the same crime or worse can avoid a prison sentence. To be fair and consistent you should be saying that all those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence should lose their vote. That would include all the white collar criminals and tax fraudsters who have community sentences because they can afford expensive lawyers. Prisoners are largely those who are Maori and poor (statistically) so you will end up discriminating against those who have no power or influence, other than their vote, and you want to remove that as well.
LikeLike
Mr E, see above, you are just supporting unfair discrimination.
LikeLike
“Why would we want those proven to be morally corrupt impacting our laws?”
What a loaded statement, are you really saying that all prisoners are “morally corrupt” (drug addicts, those with mental health issues, those convicted of manslaughter after accidental death or an accident). That is clearly nonsense and ignores the morally corrupt who don’t end up in prison (white collar criminals, tax fraudsters).
LikeLike
Dave,
“you are just supporting unfair discrimination.”
How?
LikeLike
Mr E, that those whose convictions involve a prison sentence be treated differently from those convicted criminals who don’t end up in prison (the reasons for imprisonment are not just the danger they pose to society but whether they can afford fines or a good lawyer).
Your view that all prisoners are morally corrupt further displayed your ignorance around what behaviours and crimes result in a prison sentence. Your black and white approach to offenders is dangerously simplistic and will only result in greater injustices.
LikeLike
Given the failures of CYFs, we should be looking at the failures within our prison system too. Our country has perpetrated an ongoing cycle of abuse on a vulnerable section of society that starts when children are identified as needing state support (but don’t get it) and are then continually “revictimised” right through to adulthood. What was going on under Serco’s management is just as shocking.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/72363207/horrifying-outcomes-for-cyf-kids-warrant-a-whole-new-model–tolley
LikeLike
Dave,
It is my view that those who are convicted and imprisoned are put there becuase they are/were morrally corrupt. Incarcerated drug addicts, and prisoners who have metal illness are or have been morally corrupt. Drugs and illness may be supporting the corruptness.
Would it surprise you if I said I have a family member who has been in an out of prison because of drug addiction?
In NZ there is evidence of a small number who are incorrectly imprisoned. And they have my sympathy. But the solution to incorrect or unfair incarceration is not offering them a vote. Suggestings like that are silly and moot.
And I don’t have a black and white approach to prisoners. I believe in a varied approach for so many things. Length of sentence, security levels of prisons, parol, rehabilitation programmes etc. All these things can be varied.
LikeLike
Dave, I think you’ve got a fair point – but only to a point. Criminals who go to prison because they haven’t the means to pay a fine to keep their freedom aren’t going to be incarcerated for very long because their crimes will be minor (it’s not like you can pay a fine as an alternative for going to prison for murder). It is unlikely that this short stay in prison will coincide with a General Election. Unless they are being convicted and imprisoned repeatedly, in which case, every release is a new opportunity to keep their rights to freedom.
Being able to afford a good lawyer might help. But look at some of the crimes appearing in the media. Would a good lawyer normally make all the difference between being convicted or not?
Didn’t work for these guys who had good lawyers:
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/333926/taunts-anger-four-jailed
Ryan Geary-Smart turned and replied: “F*** you, f*** the world.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11405266
Answer an honest question, Dave. Do you personally want these guys to have a vote at the next election?
LikeLike
Mr E, another point where we will have to disagree regarding all prisoners being morally corrupt and all those who are given prison sentences should have their right to vote removed. I find enthusiasm for punitive approaches distasteful. I agree with removing those from society who pose real risks but don’t see the point of prison if not, it rarely has the effect intended.
Tracey, you know I have continually repeated that prison is still a necessary option and murderers are a small percentage of those in prison. We now have over 10,000 people in prison, and the population has increased around 20% under this National Government, with the numbers of violent and sexual crimes increasing. We have to do things differently and privatising services isn’t the answer and taking away voting rights won’t do it.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2007/justice-sector-forecast-2007-2015-prison-population-forecasts
LikeLike
Dave,
You think incarcerated are morally sound. And you want them to vote and let me guess you want them to vote for you.
Yes we should be agreeing to disagree.
LikeLike
I never said “taking away voting rights” is the answer to everything.
You didn’t answer my honest question so I’ll try again. Do you personally want Cummings and co to have a vote at the next election?
Why? / why not?
LikeLike
“You think incarcerated are morally sound. And you want them to vote and let me guess you want them to vote for you.”
Oh dear, Mr E, you refuse to actually debate my arguments directly and have to resort to that sort of emotive nonsense. And I’m still waiting for an email 😉
Tracey, i would like you to reflect on your argument style, which is very like Mr Es. When I say all prisoners should be allowed a vote (which includes those you referred to), you choose some who must represent the very worst end of offending our of the 10,000 in prison as examples to make your point. A very manipulative approach. Most in prison are not murders, rapists or serial killers.
There could be a case for someone who is mentally unwell (which could involve those you linked to) or with limited intellectual function who perhaps shouldn’t vote but that would be hard to always determine, especially with those suffering form various degrees of dementia. I see voting as a major democratic right that everyone should have, including all prisoners.
LikeLike
Dave, I would like you to reflect on my question.
LikeLike
And a further reflection; If we were successful in reducing the majority of the prison population to those of Cumming’s et al. ilk, would you support removing prisoners’ rights to vote?
LikeLike
Tracey, in which way?
LikeLike
Dave,
You are promoting the morality of prisoners.
Your are promoting the voting rights of prisoners.
And there can be no doubt, you want their votes.
Can you really call the obviousTM emotive nonsense?
Tracey seems to have you lost for arguements too.
I’ll follow up on emails.
LikeLike
Mr E, it was you who passed judgement on the morality of all prisoners, it is clear that I am not specifically chasing the votes of prisoners as they are unlikely to follow this blog and I directly responded to Tracey’s questions.
Your selective style of debating ignores the core of my argument which is essentially that I believe the right to vote is a basic human democratic right that should apply to all people, even those in prison.
You, on the other hand, obviously have no compassion or understanding of the realities for most of those in prison. You claim all are morally corrupt and none of them deserve the vote. These are very damning statements and typical of those who love to promote punishment and vengeance instead of rehabilitation. No wonder we have increasing violence in our society and a 20% increase in prisoner numbers. Let’s just entrench and increase the problem rather than stop the cycle of offending. 😛
Looking forward to the email 😉
LikeLike
Answering a question with a question is not direct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging
LikeLike
Tracey, your questions: “Do you personally want Cummings and co to have a vote at the next election? Why?”
Me: “I say all prisoners should be allowed a vote” answers the first.
And then every other comment i have put up, answers the second (human rights, fairness, inconsistencies in sentences….)
Please reflect on my answers then reflect on your responses 😛
LikeLike
I have reflected and am left wondering why it is so hard for you to answer with a straight “yes”.
LikeLike
Tracey, good grief! 😛
LikeLike
More support for reform:
“Breaking the link between substance abuse and offending is crucial if we want to reduce the number of people in prison.”
“About two-thirds of prisoners have substance abuse problems and more than half of crimes are committed by people under the influence of drugs and alcohol.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/72102552/government-leaving-exprisoners-high-and-dry-in-latest-rehab-budget–counsellor
LikeLike
Dave,
You are making ridiculous misrepresentations.
“You claim all are morally corrupt and none of them deserve the vote”
These statements are clearly wrong – I have not done that as is evident – “In NZ there is evidence of a small number who are incorrectly imprisoned. And they have my sympathy”
Our laws are their to protect our society. Our laws are a reflection of our morals and to some extent can influence our morals.
Largely those who are incarcerated are guilty of societies worst crimes. These crimes are measures of our laws, which in turn are a reflection of our moral codes.
Your claim that those guilty of rape, murder and other horrendous crimes, deserve the right to impact the laws that incarcerate, is inhuman to me.
I can’t imagine the thoughts of a mother of a murdered son, knowing that she has the same rights to impact the laws governing convicted murderers as the murder may have.
I wonder Dave, would you like murderers and rapists to vote for the Green party? What about drug dealers, and thieves? Would you like their support?
LikeLike
Mr E, your highly emotive approach is full of wiildly exaggerated claims and not supported by fact. We do not have 10,000 rapists and murderers in our prisons. Most are poorly educated, Maori, ex CYFs kids who committed crimes while under the influence of alcohol and drugs according to all the reliable links I have used. Your implication that I am after the votes of rapists and drug dealers is highly distasteful, and unnecessary.
“It is my view that those who are convicted and imprisoned are put there because they are/were morally corrupt.”
This is a crazy belief because it implies that one’s morals are fluid, surely morality is shaped by ones upbringing and values and doesn’t change substantially over one’s life. Put a child molester in prison without protection and see what happens to them. Prisoners do not suddenly end up in a moral vacuum when behind bars. I believe that any landlord who rents a known P lab to a family of young children is morally corrupt to a level beyond most prisoners. Your arrogance in making judgements on the morals of others without taking into account the nature and context of any offending just displays a level of bigotry that is concerning.
What is considered an imprisonable crime also changes over time. We used to imprison gays and those caught using cannabis and based on those archaic laws a good number of our MPs could be labeled morally corrupt and unfit for office. While prisons will always exist in some form to protect society from the most dangerous individuals, I believe the majority should never have ended up there if our welfare and justices systems were operating as they should.
Mr E, I think your line of argument is morally corrupt. Voting isn’t something that one earns, or “deserves” it is just a basic right. Your assumption that all prisoners don’t deserve to vote based on your assessment of their morals is not an argument I could ever support.
LikeLike
Dave
“your highly emotive approach is full of wiildly exaggerated claims and not supported by fact.”
Ok so lets see what claims they might be:
“We do not have 10,000 rapists and murderers in our prisons.”
Didnt make that claim!
“Your implication that I am after the votes of rapists and drug dealers is highly distasteful, and unnecessary.”
Didn’t make that implication.!
I asked a question…. Do you know what a question mark is?
I think you are dodging the questions. Much like you dodged Tracey’s question. I expect this from Winston Peters. More and more I am expecting it from you. Is an answer possible rather than a nasty untrue smear?
“This is a crazy belief because it implies that one’s morals are fluid, surely morality is shaped by ones upbringing and values and doesn’t change substantially over one’s life.”
You think humans values dont change over time. I therefore guess that supposedly rehabilitation is not possible or needed. Funny.
And you think I unfairly judge prisoners. You think I am reponsible for bigotry.
“I believe that any landlord who rents a known P lab to a family of young children is morally corrupt to a level beyond most prisoners”
Then as a politician you could be pushing for a law to make that happen. And as a politician I think you should not have prisoners convicted of P trade affecting your judgement. You must agree with that.
“Your arrogance in making judgements on the morals of others without taking into account the nature and context of any offending just displays a level of bigotry that is concerning.”
Who knows what will be next from the Green Party?
Banning prisons because sleeping under the same roof is bigotry?
Banning Courts because consistent judgements are bigotry?
Banning laws because they treat the masses the same – bigotry?
Who know where the weirdness might go.
” I think your line of argument is morally corrupt. Voting isn’t something that one earns, or “deserves” it is just a basic right. Your assumption that all prisoners don’t deserve to vote based on your assessment of their morals is not an argument I could ever support.”
I’ve always said there are shades of grey in this discussion. But it does appear we are at polar ends of that continuum.
I am absolutely happy with my view. For those that have been incarcerated:
Our courts hold them in contempt
Our laws hold them in contempt
And largely speaking I hold them in contempt
Those laws are defined by our democratic systems. Should those who have failed the measure of contempt, that measure of ‘morality’ be able to affect those measures? I think not.
To help me understand what you think is fair, how about put down a list of voters in the prison population that you would be happy to get voting for you. That way I dont have to keep making suggestions that you apparently don’t like. I take it you aren’t after rapist and murderers votes, or drug dealers or thieves?. Which ones would you be happy to get?
LikeLike
In this argument, I think it is important to look logically at who would be most affected by a decision to remove prisoners’ right to vote, and how.
Take 2014 as a representative year; 6762 of the 7656 sentences were between 6 months and 3 years long. This means that at least 88% of those sentenced will only potentially miss voting in ONE General Election (either 2014 or 2017) provided they don’t re-offend and end up back in prison. Many won’t miss voting at all.
The 6% of those sentenced in the 3 to 5 year category might, but won’t all, miss voting in TWO elections (2014 and 2017). But provided they don’t re-offend, don’t need to miss any more.
The 5% of those in the 5+ year category could miss more voting opportunities. But, as 67% of these sentences are for sexual assault and illicit drugs crimes, I’m not too worried about them missing two or more elections.
The remaining 0.5% are sentenced to either life or preventative detention. Of them, 83% are for homicides and related offences. It doesn’t bother me at all that they’d miss voting in several elections. They have taken away, or helped to take away, another’s ability to vote forever.
Dave, I’d really like to have the opportunity to look you in the eye one day and ask you if you personally believe that Clayton Weatherston should be able to vote.
I could not look my step-brother in the eye and tell him that his partner’s murderer should have the right to vote while in prison. She will never be able to vote.
The women’s suffrage petition was about WOMEN having the right to vote. Dead women can’t vote and neither can those who are too scared to go out because they were raped or kidnapped. Many of the victims of the lengthier crimes are women.
LikeLike
“This is a crazy belief because it implies that one’s morals are fluid, surely morality is shaped by ones upbringing and values and doesn’t change substantially over one’s life.”
Not crazy at all. It is widely acknowledged that the human brain is plastic. Morality is rooted in self-perception which is largely determined by caregiver responsiveness in infancy. Yes it can be a missed or damaged developmental window for some infants. And we are only infants once. But if the brain can change so can morality.
The first part of your statement “surely morality is shaped…” is correct but the second part is wrong, Dave.
LikeLike
“I am absolutely happy with my view. For those that have been incarcerated:
Our courts hold them in contempt
Our laws hold them in contempt
And largely speaking I hold them in contempt”
Mr E, your arguments get even more extreme. Our courts and laws do not hold those they imprison “in contempt” they just pass judgements on based on law in as fair a manner as they can, based on the legal system and culture they work within. That you regard criminals with “contempt” just shows your inherent bigotry and blind faith in the infallibility of the law. How frightening.
I pity those who have been abandoned by their families and the state and forced to survive in the world without skills or moral guidance. I find it incredible that at 17 years old, those under state care are abandoned and forced to live independently with no mentors or oversight. When those same young people make poor choices, you Mr E, hold them in contempt, surely most are just young and foolish and lacking effective guidance. I can’t believe that you are so lacking in compassion and empathy.
It is now understood that a brain isn’t fully developed until after 24 years old and impulsive egocentric decisions are common in youth and young adults. A high percentage will end up breaking the law at some point and many escape convictions or imprisonment through luck than good management. To regard all these young people so contemptuously and think them morally corrupt is extraordinary.
To continue to demand who, out of rapists, murderers, drug dealers etc, I would prefer to vote for me, what kind of loaded, nonsense question is that?
This has been a very revealing and shocking discussion, Mr E, and you have revealed much about yourself and your own morals. I am not a Christian, but I support the core teachings of Christ regarding compassion and the way we should treat all people, no matter what their crimes.
What would the Green Party do? Probably implement the changes recommended in the CYFs report and the sort of changes sought by Youth Court judges, the Law Society and the Children’s Commissioner. In terms of prison reform we would look at what works, and implement systems and programmes that achieve the best outcomes for those convicted of crimes and protect our wider society. I had huge respect for Celia Lashlie’s views that came out of her experience when working in prisons. She would be appalled at your description of prisoners.
Claiming that the Greens would “ban” prisons altogether is just more of your extreme, fear mongering nonsense.
LikeLike
Tracey, your argument is highly emotive and flawed. It does appear that the only people you really believe shouldn’t vote are those who our very worst criminals that you claim make up only 0.5% of the prison population. These are the only examples that you are presenting in a really graphic way. This would mean that the other 99.5% of prisoners probably should retain the right, most will end up back in society and be very little different than they were when inside and yet be able to vote again. Using Clayton Weatherstone to represent all prisoners and to test my views is disingenuous in the extreme and doesn’t even deserve a response.
Of course thinking changes, but ones moral base is unlikely to change greatly in reality. My own has changed little since I became an adult and I believe it would be similar for most people. I would hope that those brought up in abusive families or CYFs care, who may not have had a strong moral upbringing, may develop a better moral understanding with support and positive experiences. Feeling that others regard them with contempt will probably limit that from happening. Experiencing compassion teaches compassion.
LikeLike
We need to make sure this is the experience for all kids under CYFs, sadly it isn’t common. Timely interventions, not condemning people and treating young criminals with firmness and compassion is the best way to limit crime: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/are-you-a-cyf-kid/12719775/I-was-one-of-the-lucky-ones
LikeLike
Dave, I’m not burdened by the fact that you don’t like my argumentation style. It’s impossible for one to adopt a style that suits everyone. I just try to be myself, as well as consistent, and accurate.
You say:
“This would mean that the other 99.5% of prisoners probably should retain the right”
The vast majority WILL retain the right because their sentence will not coincide with a General Election.
I can’t see how there is a loss of rights until one is actually disadvantaged. Real, rather than imagined, disadvantage is at the core don’t you think?
And it will be a temporary disadvantage for those who choose to be lawful. That’s a good principle.
“Using Clayton Weatherstone (sic) to represent all prisoners and to test my views is disingenuous in the extreme and doesn’t even deserve a response.”
What a joke. I didn’t say that at all. You are simply ticked off because your views actually were tested (by an emotive female no less!)
And before you accuse others of being “emotive” perhaps you should look back to your use of the Pike River Mine disaster. I’ve several times commented that a cousin died in the mine. Yet you slammed some of the responsibility on me for the disaster because of how I vote. Now that really is extreme.
Kate Sheppard would be appalled.
LikeLike
Tracey, you bring up some good points. While I believe that voting is a basic right it is also one that should be treated with respect and responsible voting should be encouraged. Sadly the National Party has been responsible for passing legislation that has had a direct and negative impact on health and safety in the workplace and the employment rights of workers. I don’t hold you personally responsible for the negative consequences of the National Party’s actions because it was probably never your intention that these terrible things should happen as a result. However it is useful to try and make you aware of what your vote has ended up supporting.
Here are some more examples: http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/nationals-top-ten-dumb-ideas.html
LikeLike
Dave,
I think it is you who is extreme in your view.
“Our courts and laws do not hold those they imprison “in contempt” they just pass judgements on based on law in as fair a manner as they can, based on the legal system and culture they work within.”
And those that end up in jail have been judged. And found wanting. They have failed to live up to our laws. And to consider prison as anything but being held in contempt seems naive. Prison is designed to be an unpleasant place to be
You seem to feel nothing but pity for our incarcerated. And that pity seems closely related to wanting convicted criminals voting. I can’t help but wonder if the two are connected. i.e. There there prisoner, it will all be ok, here is the vote. 😉
Yet your pity for the victims of crimes is completely devoid in this discussion. Your Christian-like-compassion seems completely devoted to criminals.
When I think about the list of people that you support with pity and compassion, and the victims who you have not referred to at all in this discussion, I feel very concerned about the role you play in NZ politics.
It seems on planet Kennedy acts of crime are morally acceptable. They are not acts for concern. Deserving of pity, compassion and the vote. Nothing else it seems.
I do agree with you that more could be done to prevent crime. And I also agree with you that more can be done to rehabilitate. But voting has nothing to do with either of those things.
In terms of prison reform we would look at what works, and implement systems and programmes that achieve the best outcomes for those convicted of crimes and protect our wider society”
I can imagine the bolded section along with “prisoners need votes” on the next Green Party poster.
“She would be appalled at your description of prisoners.”
I am appalled that you pretend to know the thoughts of a deceased person and present them carelessly.
That seems to be a very low level you are stooping to. To think you can speak on behalf of Celia appals me. Your Christian-like-compassion seems to have temporarily left you.
I am interested in this view you have that peoples morals cannot change beyond an early age. It is no surprise to to me that you think this when I consider how unmovable your own views have been portrayed on this blog.
I can very well imagine what the justice system would be like under a Green rule.
The Judge would say – “Now Jo Bloggs, a jury of your peers has found you guilty of Murder and Rape.
The court thinks this was simply “just young and foolish and lacking effective guidance”. So we have a sentence of “pity” and “compassion” lined up for you.
To the victims of this crime – suck it up.
Thanks for coming.”
LikeLike
“I am appalled that you pretend to know the thoughts of a deceased person and present them carelessly.”
Mr E, Celia’s thoughts and views are publicly available in her books and presentations. She regarded all prisoners and criminals with compassion and fought against those who would describe them as morally corrupt and would never condemn them. You really must read “The Power of Mothers”. She rails against the “comfortable middleclasses” and expresses horror at our “disastrously high imprisonment rates”. She also states:
“The children entering our prison are ‘our’ children, children born pure and full of magic, but who are let down over and over again by the system that should protect them. We are ALL responsible. The appalling waste of young lives must stop.”
The 18-20 year olds entering our prisons are really just children. They are vulnerable and damaged by years of abuse and neglect and their behaviour is generally a result of their treatment.
Your view that they are all morally corrupt and should be condemned is the dead opposite of anything Celia would support. I am perfectly comfortable with stating that. I won’t presume what Celia thought about removing the right of prisoners to vote because I couldn’t find a quote around that, but it is very clear what her probable position on this would be. You would be a very brave man to publicly state, Mr E, that Celia would support the removal of that basic right. How on earth would we teach civic responsibility if we take that right away.
Your imaginings of a Green justice system are pure emotive nonsense. Justice can be managed firmly, and with compassion. Compassion doesn’t imply weakness and also acknowledges victims. I don’t think the Youth Court justices and the Children’s Commissioner that I aligned with would support what you claimed.
You so hate it when you think I put words in your mouth and yet you do that all the the time in relation to me. At least I actually quote you you and you still object, how ironic is that 😉
LikeLike
“Tracey, you bring up some good points. While I believe that voting is a basic right it is also one that should be treated with respect and responsible voting should be encouraged.”
Thank you Dave. So do you.
But you let yourself down with “[s]adly the National Party has been responsible for passing legislation that has had a direct and negative impact…I don’t hold you personally responsible….”
Nor should you. You ought to realise that legislation doesn’t make people act. Their morals do. My morals would not allow me, as an employer, to knowingly be a participant in exploitative or neglectful workplace and employment practices.
If you want a highly moral society, as I do, you have to stop blaming so much of what goes wrong on the legislation.
We like to think that legislation compels people to act but it clearly only compels when there is a moral motivation, at the individual level, to act in a lawfully compliant way. Otherwise there would not be so many people breaking the law.
You and I simply come at the issue from different angles. I’m very much of the self-determination/moral motivation camp. That’s a function of my upbringing, and my career path, which are very different to yours.
Unlike you, I would say that my morals have changed a lot over my life, but were always quite different from certain key people in my upbringing. They just got more different as I grew. One day (on another thread) I might tell you how I controlled the moral motivators in my life at risky stages. It was pretty simple really. That could not be done without strong self-deterministic values.
I vote with the party that shares the most similar values to me.
LikeLike
This really is another DK comedy gold post fest.
It’s hard to understand how a Green party activist wants to give prisoners the vote when they want to take so much else away from everyone else: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_greens_banned_list.html There’s a big H word in there somewhere….
As for basic human rights – voting doesn’t seem to be on this list:
The right to life and liberty
Freedom of expression
Equality before the law
The right to be free from discrimination
https://www.hrc.co.nz/your-rights/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/ but then we run the risk of having to discuss ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ rights with a devout leftist.
As for responsibility for children, surely the parents have the first responsibility? Then we get back to the whole welfare system incentivising children to have babies, that starts the whole circular argument again. It’s surprising with all your alleged experience in the real world DK you haven’t seen how this works.
But coming back to the subject. It takes a lot for someone to end up in prison, regardless of your sanctimonious opining DK. Mr E is so right how you are willfully disregarding victims rights in all this. It is manifestly just that prisoners, who have infringed the rights of others have their rights, including the right to vote, removed from them as a part of the harshest sanction the state has in their toolbox of sentencing options.
LikeLike
Paranormal, despite the fact that the Greens don’t use that word as often as implied it is a bit sad that you support the opposite of the list you linked to. You obviously support:
-Fizzy drinks in schools
-Violent programmes on TV when children are watching
-NZers serving as mercenaries
-the promotion of internet gambling
-advertising unhealthy food to children
-Building lots of new prisons
-The common availability and use of semi-automatic weapons
-cars that are not fuel efficient
-genetic mixing between species
-importing products that don’t meet quality requirements
-importing goods that don’t meet basic durability requirement
-exporting hazardous waste
-Support programmes on TV that feature gratuitous violence…..
Where have I disregarded the rights of victims. Restorative justice can be a useful way of confronting the perpetrator with the realities of their crimes and helping in their rehabilitation and also useful for the victim in getting closure.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/criminal-justice/restorative-justice
Of course people who pose a danger to society should be managed appropriately. However if a criminal isn’t a danger to society then why should we have to spend $100,000 a year to keep them in prison. Such people should have to be involved in some form of community service that adds value and not becoming an economic drain on taxpayers.
The right to vote is included in Article 21 of the Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
LikeLike
“I vote with the party that shares the most similar values to me.”
Tracey, that is my point and why we disagree. These are the guiding principles of the Greens:
Ecological Wisdom:
The basis of ecological wisdom is that human beings are part of the natural world. This world is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible. Ecological sustainability is paramount.
Social Responsibility:
Unlimited material growth is impossible. Therefore the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally.
Appropriate Decision-making:
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.
Non-Violence:
Non-violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.
The National Party is all about reducing Government and regulations and encouraging individual responsibility. This leads to money driven values, environmental degradation and the most vulnerable being exploited. The poor become poorer and the richer even richer. Rich, private schools even capture special needs funding from those who need it more because the poor can’t afford the fees to access it ($400 for a psychologist report).
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/8830344/Private-schools-snare-special-needs-cash
If you have money you have power and influence in National’s world, working hard and honest endeavor doesn’t guarantee success. if you are a woman then you are less likely to be treated equally too.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/completely-neutral-URL
CEOs cream it, workers are lucky to get anything despite increases in productivity.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/285229/fonterra-boss-gets-$750k-pay-hike
These are not values I support and not the sort of country I want my kids to live in.
LikeLike
Good luck with that “ecological wisdom” theme, Dave. Most of the people won’t have the foggiest idea what that means.
“working hard and honest endeavor doesn’t guarantee success”
So true. Just a basic fact of life. There are no guarantees of anything.
Don’t pretend your party can guarantee success. It can’t. In all your “ecological wisdom” you guys don’t seem very wise.
LikeLike
By the way, Dave, here are National’s values:
• Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign as Head of State
• National and personal security
• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
• Limited government
• Strong families and caring communities
• Sustainable development of our environment
Click to access National_party_rules_0.pdf
I’m sure you could have found them had you bothered to look.
LikeLike
Tracey, ecological wisdom means we can’t keep consuming finite resources: http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Depletion_of_fish_stocks.html
I found National’s values and read them. I used a summary that I thought accurately represent the reality. Interestingly “caring communities” and “sustainable development” are at the bottom of the list and that is how they are regarded. I don’t see most of the goals being actively pursued, especially equal opportunity for women. 😛
LikeLike
Purely to show the Greens ignorance and so put into perspective your rabid support for criminals, bad enough to require a prison sentence, to vote for you, lets address some of the things the Greens want to ban. Most of them are not the problems the Greens make them out to be.
Soft drinks pfft, maybe banning dud parents is a better response? Products with standards – ever seen the NZS mark? And for something I know a lot about – whats wrong with semi automatic firearms? Semi automatic firearms work very well thank you and efficiently fulfil the requirements the owners need from them. Whereas you Obviously (TM) have no idea about firearms. I would suggest that translates into most other areas of the stuff you want to ban.
The Green banning list just represents Greens complete lack of reality or addressing the real underlying issues.
LikeLike
Paranormal, when the Greens’ views around prisons and rehabilitation align with those who work with troubled teenagers, Celia Lashlie, the Law Society and the Children’s Commissioner, I think we are in good company.
You stay with your “condemn them all”, “lock em up” and take away their vote club (that’ll learn them!). Good grief.
LikeLike
Good grief ™ – you are amazing DK. Your sanctimonious make it up as you go along bs can take “the harshest sanction the state has in their toolbox of sentencing options” and turn it into “condemn them all”, “lock em up” and take away their vote club (that’ll learn them!)”.
And you wonder why people describe your debating style as disingenuous, and consequently by association the Greens are essentially ignored.
LikeLike
Paranormal, There are obviously some people who need to be managed in a secure way to protect the public and themselves, but it costs too much to keep 10,000 people imprisoned when there is evidence that it makes the problems worse. The “harshest sanction” isn’t necessary for most crimes.
LikeLike
And that’s merely your opinion. You’re welcome to hold it but don’t come over all sanctimonious when you Obviously ™ don’t see the larger picture or for that matter understand how things currently work.
LikeLike
Paranormal, I rely on the Children’s Commissioner, Corrections staff and Youth Justice judges etc to help inform my opinions and keep me in touch with what is really happening (hence the many links). Who do you use to inform your interesting opinions?
LikeLike
Another example of how those with money and influence avoid prison: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11518977
LikeLike
Interesting comments DK that you make – you rely on judges to inform your opinions and yet you are the first to suggest above they are getting sentencing wrong.
Your comments above obviously ™ showed you had no understanding of what is happening in criminal justice. for example you didn’t realise how many convictions individuals receive before they get a custodial sentence.
LikeLike
Paranormal, Judges do a great job of operating within the laws they are given to work with. As prison sentences for certain crimes have been lengthened then they have to comply. I heard a talk recently from Christine French, Invercargill’s High Court Judge, and she has real concerns about many changes in the legal system, especially the cutting back of legal aid and the number of people with no law background who are forced to represent themselves (often badly).
“many convictions individuals receive before they get a custodial sentence?”
It depends on the crime, the legal representation and how the police have charged an individual. Surely you are aware of this yourself?
LikeLike