SOLO-NZ Press Release: Three Cheers for Three Strikes

PhilipD's picture
Submitted by PhilipD on Thu, 2010-01-21 08:49

Three cheers for the proposed 'Three Strikes' legislation proposed by National and Act. Under the legislation an offender found guilty of their third serious crime must receive the maximum sentence for that crime. There is no chance of parole and the option of preventive detention remains.

Peter Williams of the Howard League for Penal Reform argues that such legislation means some criminals 'may kill in order to avoid being caught by police.' He may be right. But people are being killed and raped by scum who have offended multiple times, right now. And should we stop putting harsher penalties in place because rapists, murderers and pedophiles are not going to like it and may react with violence?

Thomas Boy Hohapata had 9 previous rape convictions before finally being sentenced to preventive detention for the rape of a young girl.

Anthony Joseph Hutton was finally sentenced to preventive detention after being convicted of the repeated rape of a seven-year-old girl. Hutton had earlier convictions for nine other rapes and indecent assaults involving four girls under 16 and for the sexual molestation of a nine-year-old boy.

Morrison Hubert Retimana had convictions for his attempted sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl in Christchurch. He had convictions for the assault of a young Christchurch woman at a bus stop and for rape and grievous bodily harm of a 17-year-old Auckland woman. Retimana had stacked up a further 138 offences including rape and aggravated robbery before being finally sentenced to preventive detention for detaining and assaulting a 16-year-old girl.

Tell the victims of these repeat offenders that they should be concerned, as Williams is, that such offenders won't have any incentive to behave inside prison!

Philip Duck: thonburi-1@hotmail.com

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists): SOLOPassion.com


( categories: )

'The three-strikes

PhilipD's picture

'The three-strikes legislation and stripping prisoners of the right to vote breach human rights and could result in New Zealand being hauled before international agencies, a watchdog says.

Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres is concerned about the legislation, which was introduced last year. It would disproportionately affect Maori, he said.

The laws would probably come to the attention of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and other organisations, he said. "And although there are no "enforceable sanctions" this would be embarrassing for the New Zealand Government."

~Dominion Post

Obviously it will disproportionately affect Maori, de Bres, you dumb-fuck. That's because they offend disproportionately.

"... embarrassing for the New Zealand Government."

You sick prick. What's embarrassing, vile and disgusting is that NZ lets monsters such as Tunuiarangi Tautuhi keep seeing the light of day. Here's his criminal history courtesy of the Sensible Sentencing Trust:

Abducted a girl in 1971, attempted sexual intercourse with an eight year old girl in 1986, then sexually abused more young girls in 1988, latest conviction was two counts of sexual violation by rape and two of rendering a 10 year old girl incapable of resistance with intent to rape her in 1996

You sick, evil, prick, de Bres.

The world's fucking mad.

?

James S. Valliant's picture

I don't know what "contradiction" you mean. Nine rape convictions is precisely what Three Strike makes impossible when it is enforced. (In California, there is actually also a One Strike Rape Law which mandates life sentences for aggravated rapes, on the very first offense.)

However, if someone does not deserve a life sentence, I cannot imagine how he could deserve your envisioned permanent deportation, and, in that case, life in prison is safer and more just.

So, shy of murder, rape and child molest, what are talking about?

Today in California, violent felons of all kinds must serve at least 85% of the sentence given.

"Strikers" who can get life must have two prior serious or violent felony convictions. These crimes include residential burglary, robbery (i.e., forcible theft), rape, kidnap, child molest, arson of an inhabited dwelling, any felony in which you use a gun, any felony in which you personally inflict great injury, among others... In my view, these folks deserve life. "Grand theft auto" is not a "strike" offense in California and can't count as one of these type of "priors." Thus, it is only repeat serious offenders who are subject to life in prison. However, if you stack up repeated auto theft priors, the penalties rise and are very significantly augmented each time. Get it?

Today, in California felony sentencing is appropriately tough, apart from offenses like drugs which should not be offenses, and the failure to execute the killers who deserve it, in my view.

As for taxes paying for prisons, I completely agree. Forced labor as a punishment for crime is permitted under the Constitution. However, it can be done without resorting to a "Devil's Island" type facility and be used to pay for the costs. Even to pay victim restitution. And, yes, the matter of compelling restitution is only now being addressed by criminal law, and this, too, urgently needs to be developed.

But neither deportation nor a Devil's Island seems to be either wise or just, in my view.

For what it's worth Mr D ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I've long advocated a remote escape-proof island for incorrigible scum. There's always some resistance to it for some reason. Possibly connected to the fact that I propose sending women there as well.

Seriously, alas, there's no way of relieving the taxpayer of the entire burden. Leave them unsupervised and other scum like the Iranians will pluck them off the island for their own nefarious purposes.

This contradiction can be

John Donohue's picture

This contradiction can be cleared up by a different focus: how can one person have nine rape convictions? I ask the world that.

That should be impossible. Who the hell would let someone out of jail after, say, the second one, and certainly the third one.

This also goes to the point of capital punishment, the screaming injustice of murders who get life sentences.

So to clarify, I was NOT speaking of offenders like repeat rapists and murderers. I agree they should not go free. However, I am now turning my extradition idea into a 'Devil's Island' idea for anyone who for whatever reason is not put to death for their crime. The cost and grief of lifetime incarceration is unfair to citizens.

Meanwhile for, say, the guy with seven grand theft auto? Should he go to prison for life next occurance?

Mr. Donohue

James S. Valliant's picture

I presume we're talking about someone as bad as a "Third Striker." If someone thus merits a life-sentence, or under your idea, deportation, any failure to incarcerate him for the period of his life (or a failure to supervise him on parole for that same period [the inevitable period of parole by law for a lifer] assuming he merits parole at some point), and merely booting him into another country, would be both dangerous and unjust. He has earned that life sentence. Also, his unsupervised return is always possible, and, in any case, he would be the continuing danger that he's already demonstrated himself to be. Perhaps we should eliminate parole, but that has its problems, too.

In any case, no, I prefer a life sentence for someone that dangerous, thank you.

"Well, no. The Constitution

John Donohue's picture

"Well, no. The Constitution states that anyone born in the U.S., or naturalized under its laws, are citizens. Period. And it would be irresponsible to merely expel criminals, unjust to other nations and dangerous to ourselves."

Perhaps the Constitution needs to change; perhaps it is flawed. What is the philosophical grounding of citizenship being driven by random birth or naturalization as opposed to requiring non-contradiction to a fundamental tenet of our political philosophy, the prohibition of intiation of force?

As to your pragmatic points: why is it unjust to other nations? The criminal inside the U.S. can easily fly to another country and commit crimes. Pragmatically he might have MORE trouble doing that from an isolated island with no resources. Why is a criminal deported to some remote island more dangerous to us than happy and free inside the country (after getting out of jail for instance.) and planning his next violation?

John

James S. Valliant's picture

Well, no. The Constitution states that anyone born in the U.S., or naturalized under its laws, are citizens. Period. And it would be irresponsible to merely expel criminals, unjust to other nations and dangerous to ourselves.

Here is a question that has

John Donohue's picture

Here is a question that has been on my mind for 30 years or more.

At some point.......Don't you lose your ciitizenship completely and require explusion?

You're passport and citizenship are revoked, you go on the NoFly, NoTrain, NoBorderCrossing, NoSwim list. We give you a suit of armor (referece to a movie) and put you to the curb. I would favor a row boat in the middle of the Pacific, but how about some God-forsaken (irony intended) island in the middle of no where that no country claims.

They are never permitted back in the USA.

This is for certain guilt of crimes, repeatedly.

As a Former Prosecutor...

James S. Valliant's picture

... in California when we enacted (a much tougher) Three Strikes Law, I can testify that it was a great success -- for both plain old fashioned justice and in reducing crime. Under our law, two serious or violent felonies means that the third felony results in, ahem, a life sentence. A single "strike" (one serious felony conviction prior) means that any new felony will have double the penalty, mandatory consecutive sentencing for each new and separate offense, a requirement to serve 80% of the term before parole is considered, among other delightful effects. This has kept the streets safer because, gee whiz, it seems that all the crime is committed by the same set of people, and keeping them in prison longer results in fewer victims. I'll be darned!

Peter Williams of the Howard

reed's picture

Peter Williams of the Howard League for Penal Reform argues that such legislation means some criminals 'may kill in order to avoid being caught by police.'

This problem is caused by concurrent sentencing.

Consecutive sentencing is the fix.

I agree Philip

gregster's picture

If more jails are needed, then build them. And make the inmates contribute to their own upkeep.

Peter Williams, although an admirer of Linz, is a fuckwit.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.