Currently, when penalties are established for different offences, lawmakers normally set out a “maximum” sentence. For example, the Government's newly announced coward punch offence has maximum sentences of either 8 or 15 years imprisonment, depending on the situation. Judges then have discretion to take into account aggravating or mitigating circumstances. So that's the maximum that can be set. A judge can't go right, that was just outrageous, that's 20 years for you - not allowed to do that, there's a mandatory term.
Late last month the government changes came into effect, capping sentence discounts that judges can apply. So in most cases now the most they can apply is 40%. If a judge thinks that would be massively unjust, they can exceed this discount cap but that will be the exception, not the rule. Now the Government's looking to introduce more minimum sentences so the judges can't start at a laughably low detention rate or give a remarkably soft sentence. There will be a minimum to which that can apply.
So for those who think that's an attack on the judiciary, Labour, or for those like Tamatha Paul, who think this is an attack on the poor, how do you defend these sentences? The 17-year-old knife wielding rapist who had robbed two men at knife point before raping a young woman at Albert Park in Auckland who was coming home after celebrating her 21st birthday. He raped her, threatened to kill her boyfriend. Her life has never been the same since.
The defence wanted home detention for a vicious rape at knife point. The judge said oh no, but am going to give you a 77% discount, for his youth, his guilty plea, no priors, and his attempt at rehabilitation. In the sentencing notes, the judge also seemed to take into account that he was criminally stupid. He was an idiot. Like, as in the old-fashioned version of idiot, barely able to string three words together in any language. So she gave him a 77% discount from her starting point. He ended up with two years, two months, and a week for a knife attack and rape and threatening to kill. And oh, sorry, forgot about robbing at knife point the two men earlier. On appeal, Peter Kosetatino's sentence was three years and 11 months. Again, no, no, no, a rape at knife point for a young woman whose life will never be the same? No.
Drunk driver Jake Hamlin who killed an innocent young woman? 12 months home detention. He's halfway through home and laughing. Quite literally.
The couple who murdered 4-year-old Ashton Cresswell – they were jointly charged with manslaughter. There were only the two of them there, the mother and her partner. Both of them stayed schtum. That's all you have to do when you're a baby murderer, you just shut up. That feral tart protected her partner at the expense of her little boy. The police’s hands are tied. They were jointly charged with manslaughter because nobody else could have done it. It was one of them. Police couldn't prove either one of them because both of them were protecting each other, so they pled guilty to reduce charges of neglect. And so for murdering that little boy and then staying schtum, his mother, in name only, got three years. And the partner got four years for basically torturing a child. So many children are being tortured right now, tortured and killed, and for that you get 3 years and four years.
Is it any wonder why the Government is interfering with the judiciary? Those are three good examples among thousands, thousands, and thousands of why the government has to interfere with the judiciary.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
Late last month the government changes came into effect, capping sentence discounts that judges can apply. So in most cases now the most they can apply is 40%. If a judge thinks that would be massively unjust, they can exceed this discount cap but that will be the exception, not the rule. Now the Government's looking to introduce more minimum sentences so the judges can't start at a laughably low detention rate or give a remarkably soft sentence. There will be a minimum to which that can apply.
So for those who think that's an attack on the judiciary, Labour, or for those like Tamatha Paul, who think this is an attack on the poor, how do you defend these sentences? The 17-year-old knife wielding rapist who had robbed two men at knife point before raping a young woman at Albert Park in Auckland who was coming home after celebrating her 21st birthday. He raped her, threatened to kill her boyfriend. Her life has never been the same since.
The defence wanted home detention for a vicious rape at knife point. The judge said oh no, but am going to give you a 77% discount, for his youth, his guilty plea, no priors, and his attempt at rehabilitation. In the sentencing notes, the judge also seemed to take into account that he was criminally stupid. He was an idiot. Like, as in the old-fashioned version of idiot, barely able to string three words together in any language. So she gave him a 77% discount from her starting point. He ended up with two years, two months, and a week for a knife attack and rape and threatening to kill. And oh, sorry, forgot about robbing at knife point the two men earlier. On appeal, Peter Kosetatino's sentence was three years and 11 months. Again, no, no, no, a rape at knife point for a young woman whose life will never be the same? No.
Drunk driver Jake Hamlin who killed an innocent young woman? 12 months home detention. He's halfway through home and laughing. Quite literally.
The couple who murdered 4-year-old Ashton Cresswell – they were jointly charged with manslaughter. There were only the two of them there, the mother and her partner. Both of them stayed schtum. That's all you have to do when you're a baby murderer, you just shut up. That feral tart protected her partner at the expense of her little boy. The police’s hands are tied. They were jointly charged with manslaughter because nobody else could have done it. It was one of them. Police couldn't prove either one of them because both of them were protecting each other, so they pled guilty to reduce charges of neglect. And so for murdering that little boy and then staying schtum, his mother, in name only, got three years. And the partner got four years for basically torturing a child. So many children are being tortured right now, tortured and killed, and for that you get 3 years and four years.
Is it any wonder why the Government is interfering with the judiciary? Those are three good examples among thousands, thousands, and thousands of why the government has to interfere with the judiciary.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
To understand why judges seem to come from the most left wing lawyers, you only need to look at who have been our attorney generals who appoint them. In the last labour government it was David Parker, before that Chris Findlayson. Earlier it has been largely Magaret Wilson (who appointed her friends like "the triple dipper"), Paul East and Geoffrey Palmer.
The govt isn't "interfering with the judiciary". Parliaments, not courts, make law (although in the British system a senior court can plug a gap in the existing law). Judges are public servants who apply the laws given them by Parliament. If Parliament decided there should be minimum sentences for given crimes, it will pass or modify an Act to that effect which the courts must apply. Repeat, this is not "interfering with the judiciary" but the normal course of events in our system of governance.
Post a Comment