Monday, October 06, 2008

Gazumped

Today's Dominion Post features the front page headline "National plan for life to mean life - two strikes policy for violent crimes".

Ye Gods. Gazumped. ACT's policy is only three strikes.

Clever move by National. Makes ACT irrelevant on the very ground they chose to fight the election on.

Where ACT should have gone - publicly - is to the root of most crime and the best way to prevent it. Serious and radical welfare reform. National would never follow them there.

It's OK to lock up high risk violent offenders for life but what about the next generation of criminals being bred every day under our policy of paying people without the means - either material or emotional - to have babies? Under our obsessive state-backed anti-adoption stance? Under our 'the child is always best with its biological mother' policy? Under our 'if you have an addiction you can live off the taxpayer' policy? Under our 'being a victim of ongoing domestic violence but staying with the perpetrator qualifies you for the DPB' policy? Under our 'men are alienated and neutered by the anti-male bias of the welfare system but we don't give a shit' policy?

No. National wouldn't go there.

11 comments:

MikeE said...

And an "Abolition of Victimless Crimes Bill" ...

Blair said...

I don't think you read the policy Lindsay. It's only no parole after two strikes. It's not the maximum sentence. They are only promising that for the worst offenders, almost identical to what happens now anyway.

There's no gazumping here at all. It's a piss-weak window-dressed policy. It will be no deterrent to crime.

Lindsay said...

Blair, It doesn't matter. Voters won't read it either. It's all about headlines and perception.

Sus said...

For the life of me, folks, I don't know why you'd subject another one (or two, in the case of ACT) innocent people to a serious offence before locking the offender away for a long time?

Why not get serious with the *first* conviction for violent crime?

Anonymous said...

Why not get serious with the *first* conviction for violent crime?


Which is why ACT's right to self-defence policy is the most important one.

Ask South Auckland shopkeepers: why send people to jail for a first offence when you can send them straight to the cemetery.


Self defence is effective against robbers, against taggers, against gangs and dealers.

I guess it's also effective against politicians: perhaps thats why National will never have the guts to follow that ACT policy.

Blair said...

Lindsay, I believe the response to that is called campaigning. You should do some. You'd be surprised how effective it is.

Lindsay said...

Blair, I never stop campaigning for what I believe, whether there is an election on or not.

James said...

Now now.....the enemies out there people...out there!



;-)

MikeE said...

"Self defence is effective against robbers, against taggers, against gangs and dealers."

Drug dealing is a consensual crime, how is it self defense when someone is dealing?

Rick said...

ACT took the low road and National found a lower one.

Anonymous said...

Drug dealing is a consensual crime, how is it self defense when someone is dealing?

IF someone tries to deal to me, to my kids, in my street or neighbourhood or surburb

I have a right to defend myself, my kids, my property values, my street and my neighbourhood and suburb against him

just as much as if he tried to break into my house
or assault or injure me or my kids.

I have the right - in fact the responsibility - to respond with overwhelming, immediate, lethal force.