• Police should make a decision and stop the torture

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

This is from the NZ Herald:

Leonida Gashi, 18, died after she was knocked down and dragged 400m, after tripping and falling in front of a Metrolink bus as she left the Lantern Festival in Auckland on Waitangi Day.

Police say they finished their investigation two months ago, but are waiting for their legal team to decide whether to prosecute the driver.

This bus driver has, in my humble opinion, been tortured for at least two months because an overworked and/or incompetent police force can’t make a decision. He’s probably under a great deal of stress, wondering if he’s going to face a charge that could end his career. I’d like to know how many decades were required for the investigation.

Some would say that this is cruel and unusual punishment. The police should make a decision and stop the torture.

~~~~~~~~~~

• Sian Elias and the “Blameless Babes” speech

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Updated 26-7-09.

I’ve read the execrable speech titled “Blameless Babes”, which was given by Sian Elias – our illustrious Chief Justice – and I’m amazed that she isn’t a basket case. It must cause massive internal conflict when her world view says one thing and reality says the opposite. A person who wishes to function in that situation has two options – deny reality or change their world view. Elias has chosen to deny reality, and if someone does that for long enough they’ll head into the realms of mental illness.

What is Elias’ world view? I cannot say with certainty, but judging by her speech and the fact that Helen Clark appointed her to the Supreme Court (when the Privy Council was done away with in 2004), I think it very likely that Elias is a Socialist/Marxist, an extreme feminist, and an extreme social liberal.

Let’s have a look at two portions of the speech (PDF 126kb)…

Portion 1: Where did “Blameless Babes” come from?

This speech was the annual Shirley Smith address, given in her honour and hosted by The Wellington Branch of the New Zealand Law Society Women-in-Law Committee. Elias says that she “loved” Smith.

Elias said

In November 1999 Shirley wrote a letter to the editor expressing her opposition to a bill increasing sentences. She said:

“To provide only a prison at the bottom of the cliff is not a solution. Criminals will just go on falling into it, at great cost to the community.

We have to find out why blameless babes become criminals. Writing as a lawyer who has read many probation reports I have no doubt that their life experience has been the cause. Society creates criminals, society must look at the conditions that create them. ” (para 4)

I have three comments about this:

*****1-> Smith says “We have to find out why blameless babes become criminals…I have no doubt that their life experience has been the cause“. This is correct in and of itself but Elias and Smith blame the wrong life experiences: they believe that children are born blameless and would remain so if they were not corrupted (made evil) by an external factor or factors, including parents. This, Elias and Smith believe, means that criminals are in fact victims and those who corrupted them are ultimately at fault. To say that people would remain as blameless as a babe unless corrupted by “society” is pure fiction, because children are born with an inclination to evil which they will follow unless they are taught (trained) otherwise. Consider this: any civilised parent will tell you that a child left to its own devices will do wrong in short order, and teachers patrol school grounds at lunch time for the same reason. Raising children is like laying a concrete path: if you just throw the concrete on the ground it will follow its natural inclination, which is to spread out and make a mess that hurts the feet of those people that come into contact with it. What is needed is boxing – the pieces of wood that shape the concrete – and something to smooth the top so that the concrete will form a good path that is kind to those whom come into contact with it. Concrete can make a bad path or a good path. Children can become kind adults or criminal adults. Children will grow up and make a mess of their life and the lives of those whom they come into contact with unless they are shaped by parental training that opposes their inclination to evil.

The life experiences that lead to criminality are (1) being raised by parents with a criminal world view or (2) being raised by parents who allow their children to follow their natural inclination to evil (i.e. their parents failed to teach them to deny that inclination and do good)¹.

*****2-> The sentence “To provide only a prison at the bottom of the cliff is not a solution. Criminals will just go on falling into it, at great cost to the community” says a lot about Smith and Elias. They think that criminals “fall” into crime and prison, as if it’s something beyond their control. They think that whatever corrupted the “blameless babes” is to blame for their later “fall” into crime and prison. That is dung of bull: criminals choose to commit crimes, knowing that prison may be the consequences of their actions.

*****3-> “Society creates criminals, society must look at the conditions that create them”. I detect the stench of Socialism/Marxism here. According to Smith and Elias, you and I have created Theodore the Thug who lives down the road, and we “must” (that’s them telling us what to do) look at the conditions that created him. This is how Smith and Elias take the responsibility for crimes committed away from Theodore the Thug and place it on everyone else’s shoulders. As I said above, criminals choose to commit crimes, and they are solely responsible for their actions.

Portion 2: Elias’ Conclusion

Elias’ speech is rambling and has little structure, but the conclusion does give us a good summary of what Elias believes. She has clearly adopted the views of her beloved Smith:

Time and again Shirley Smith made the point that “the threat of imprisonment does not deter, and imprisonment does not reform”. She points to the causes of crime – lack of love and care, cruelty, bad diet which handicap the child and lead to physical damage of the brain as well as psychological damage. I leave the last words to her. “As a society we create our criminals; we, as a whole, are responsible”, she wrote in one letter to the editor. And in another, she said this:

“As counsel over many years, defending those charged with criminal offences, I read probation reports that would break your heart.

Children brought up in dysfunctional families, without love, abused and beaten, ill-fed and ill-clothed, how were they to turn into model citizens?

An overall cause is the replacement of a sense of community by that “every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost” culture …

To reduce crime it is necessary to identify what makes criminals and deal with the causes …

This is the only long-term, effective way to help victims, to reduce their numbers. Punishment does not work”. (para 46)

I have six comments about this:

*****A-> “She points to the causes of crime – lack of love and care, cruelty, bad diet …“. Those things do not cause crime, and I am amazed that supposedly intelligent people would think that they might. Those three things are common in criminal families, so perhaps Smith and Elias are making the fundamental error of confusing coincidence and causality.

What are the causes of criminality? Either the criminal world view is actively taught by a child’s parents, or parents allow their children to follow their evil inclinations to a degree which results in criminality. In either case criminality is deeply – almost indelibly – etched onto a child’s heart by the time the child is about seven years old. The criminal world view is characterised by narcissism, hedonism, indolence, rebelliousness, and lack of respect for the person and property of others. Translation: the criminal world view is one of utter self-centredness and a grossly inflated ego, where pursuit of pleasure is the purpose of life. Add to that laziness, rebellion against laws and the mores of society, and a lack of respect for the person and property of others, and you have a criminal who will take whatever he wants because it is the easiest way of fulfilling his lusts/desires. It also saves him from getting a job where he will have to obey the boss and not be able to do whatever pleases him.

*****B-> “As a society we create our criminals; we, as a whole, are responsible”. Bunkum – see #3 above.

*****C-> “Children brought up in dysfunctional families, without love, abused and beaten, ill-fed and ill-clothed, how were they to turn into model citizens?“. The phrase “model citizens” sounds very Orwellian to me, and a capitalist would say something like “healthy individuals”.

*****D-> “the threat of imprisonment does not deter, and imprisonment does not reform”. “Punishment does not work“. How amazing, here’s something else that I agree with. The question is, why not? I believe that because the criminal world view is deeply etched on a person’s heart they will continue to be a criminal, because people always act according to their world view. A criminal will always be a criminal unless he changes his world view, and the state cannot change the world view of an adult. Adults can and do change their world view, but it is a very rare and difficult thing.  Also, a person has to want to change their world view and most people prefer the status quo. I’m reminded of an old and rather lame joke: how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? One, but the light bulb has to want to change.

*****E-> “To reduce crime it is necessary to identify what makes criminals and deal with the causes …“. I believe that it is illegitimate for the state to be involved in crime prevention. Furthermore, this type of statement is almost always a justification for state interference in the raising of children.

*****F-> “To reduce crime it is necessary to identify what makes criminals and deal with the causes …This is the only long-term, effective way to help victims, to reduce their numbers“. Even if this was legitimate and it worked it wouldn’t be the only way. Amongst other things, I want to see an end to welfarism and state education that reinforces the criminal world view. I want to see restorative justice, where a criminal is repaying his debt to the victim, instead of this nonsense where criminals repay their fictional “debt to society” by occupying a rent-free bed with meals, laundry, etc. thrown in. I want to see a legal system that does not hinder victims when they seek redress from criminals.

My conclusion

• Smith and Elias think that the cause of criminality is as follows: children are born innately (naturally) good and then corrupted (made evil) by external factors, including “society”. Later they become criminals and “fall” into prison, but it’s not really their fault and “society” is “responsible” for them. The solution, they say is state intervention in child rearing.

• The real cause of criminality is parents who instill a criminal world view into their children or allow their children to follow their inclination towards evildoing. By about seven years of age a child’s world view is deeply – almost indelibly – engraved on a child’s heart. Prison and the alternatives don’t change criminality because people act according to their world view. A change of world view is possible but rare and difficult. The state, itself a criminal, can never change the world view of another criminal.

• Elias doesn’t have a clue about the causes and cures of criminality because her world view is grossly defective. In her speech she says that imprisonment doesn’t work and therefore prison populations should be reduced. She also says that alternatives have been shown not to work, but that we “need to keep trying to see what works in the criminal justice system” (para 19 & 8). Thanks, that’s a great help.

• In my humble opinion this speech shows that Elias is confused and has nothing to offer New Zealand. In both respects she is like every other person who shares her Socialist/Marxist, feminist, social liberal world view.

• Criminals and crime will always be with us as long as this world lasts, so build a bridge and get over it.

What do you think about Elias’ speech and the points that I have raised here?

Related posts:

Mother expects police to control her 10 year old son

Update to “Mother expects police to control her 10 year old son”: more about the car theft

Nine year old thug in New Zealand

New Zealand should have restorative justice

1. Obviously I’m just concentrating on the two primary causes of criminality for the sake of brevity. If I tried to cover every possible path to criminality you’d be reading a PhD thesis 🙂

~~~~~~~~~~

• Are we innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

MandM have put up a post, saying

MandM have just one thing to say on the David Bain trial:

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Do not expect any commentary or speculation on the trial at MandM until the verdict is in.

I do not intend to criticise MandM in any way, but I do intend to show you that the common aphorism “Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” is bunkum that falsely makes the state a moral codifier¹. Here we go:

1) Guilt or innocence is not decided by a court. If I turn up at your house today and kill you without just cause (e.g. self defence) I am guilty of murder, even if I am never “proven” guilty in a court of law. Conversely, if I leave your house after a pleasant exchange and you’re murdered an hour later by someone else I may well be “proven” guilty of murder in a court of law, but I will always be innocent of murder. I will have experienced the truth of the fact that…

2) It is possible to be both innocent and “proven” guilty in a court of law. Just ask Arthur Allan Thomas. Let’s look at another example: imagine that the state passed a law requiring everyone to rape their children daily. Presumably you would refuse to do so, and the vast majority of the population would consider you to be innocent of any crime. Yet you could be prosecuted by the state and “proven” guilty of the crime of not raping your children daily, while remaining innocent. More controversially, you might smack your child today and be “proven” guilty of assaulting that child, yet I and more than 80% of the population would consider you to be innocent².

It is sometimes true that we are “Innocent in the eyes of the state until proven guilty in a court of law”³, but that is something entirely different to “Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. Our innocence or guilt is entirely independent of the state’s declarations.

What is your response to what I have written? Has this given you a new perspective on guilt and innocence?

~~~~~~~~~~

1. The idea that the state should be a moral codifier (the person or body which decides what is moral and what is immoral) is based upon the false belief that it is necessary for the state to maintain social order. Also, remember that the state uses laws, police, courts and prisons to impose it’s will upon the population: click here for an example.

2. I am referring to a smack that is along the lines of a swat on the rump steak. At least 83% of the population were opposed to the anti-smacking law, but I expect that number to decline over time as state propaganda and persecution gain ground. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest Sue Bradford and her cabal.

3. Theoretically it is always true, but the state often does treat people as guilty before they are “proven” guilty: have a look at these examples, particularly #15 and #20.

~~~~~~~~~~

• ACT Party tramples on freedom to get three strikes law

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

I have previously covered the Gang Insignia Bill here and here.

This is from the NZ Herald in regard to the Gang Insignia Bill:

Mr [Rodney] Hide said that while he objected to the ban “on principle”, the party had flip-flopped to try to get National’s support for its proposed “three strikes and you’re out” law. He denied it was part of a deal.
[…]
“We voted for it [the patch ban] because what it’s going to do is get three strikes through this Parliament.”
[…]
At its first reading in April, Mr Hide told Parliament he would happily vote against the bill because it was against the principles of freedom.

“Freedom is about the individual, and the measure of a free society is how we move to protect the minority from the majority. If the majority thinks that people wearing glasses should be locked up, that is not freedom or democracy,” he said.
[…]
[ACT MP] Mr Garrett is a hardliner who this week told the Herald that if three strikes was found to breach fundamental human rights, the solution was to change the Bill of Rights.

So, by Hide’s own definition the Gang Insignia Bill is against the principles of freedom and democracy, and Hide is now also opposed to the principles of freedom and democracy because he has voted for that law*.

Basically ACT is saying “We will sacrifice our principles and trample on freedom in order to keep our election promise of a three-strikes law. If that three-strikes law breaches the current definition of fundamental human rights we will simply change the definition of fundamental human rights”.

This illustrates the great danger that lies in the concept of “human rights” and in legislation that defines it: the definition of “human rights” can and does change without warning. As I said in my earlier post, there is no such thing as “human rights”, there are only personal and property rights. Only when personal and property rights are defined according to the non-aggression axiom are we safe from the depredations of politicians.

Laws such as the Bill of Rights are simply a means of restricting our rights to those which are defined in the legislation. If we were truly free there would be no need for such legislation, but instead we only have those rights which the state kindly allows us to have this week.

I really did expect better from the ACT Party, who should stop trampling on freedom and instead make a stand for it.

What do you think about ACT’s actions and the Gang Insignia Bill?

***********

*Compare this with what ACT MP Heather Roy said in September:

“Such moves are wrongly-focussed, token-ist and entirely predictable – hard-line policies to deal with gangs are reeled out by different Parties in the run up to every election,” Mrs Roy said.

“Clearly none of these ‘flash in a pan’ policies have worked – because they focus more on addressing the mayhem that individual gang members cause, rather than on initiatives that will hit gangs hardest and make it harder for them to operate.

“Legislation outlawing gangs and their insignia is just more law – we don’t need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have and give police the power to tackle lawlessness where and when it happens.
[…]
“This is political spin at its worst. Enforcing the laws and by-laws we already have, and following the money rather than the mayhem – a view reinforced by South Australia Premier Mike Rann in Auckland yesterday – is the real answer to dealing with gangs in New Zealand,” Mrs Roy said.

~~~~~~~~~~

• Gang Insignia Bill takes a step forward, freedom takes a step back

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

The NZ Herald in reporting that the Gang Insignia Bill has passed its second vote in parliament. This evil law is intended to prevent the display of gang patches/insignia in Wanganui (it says as much in the Bill) and opens the door for state suppression of other groups that are found to be inconvenient.

Furthermore, this law is unnecessary because another law covers this situation: there’s more about that and the wider issues in my earlier post. The penalty for breaking that other law is $4,000 or 6 months prison, yet the select committee wants to make the penalty under the proposed new law $2,000. So they’re adding to our massive burden of legislation and bringing in a smaller penalty at the same time. How daft is that?

The select committee also says

We recommend an amendment to insert new clause 8, which would allow the police to stop a vehicle, without a warrant, if they had reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed under this legislation. Police would not then have to use other legislation to stop a car with an occupant displaying gang insignia, and we consider this amendment necessary for the efficient enforcement of the provisions of this bill.

Simply displaying a gang patch does not violate the non-aggression axiom and therefore should not be illegal. When the state prohibits the display of certain insignia and gives related stop-without-warrant powers to police that state is a police state and freedom is dying.

What do you think about this law and the points that I have made?

Related topic: Police checkpoints

~~~~~~~~~~