The Three Strikes law leaves me feeling ambivalent. As mentioned before, my doubt hinges on the possibility it may do more harm than good.
However Kim Workman is trying very hard to run it out of town by any means. So what if the calculations ACT made differ from the one he is making? There is nothing hidden. ACT's calculations were based on different inputs.
Mr Workman said Act needed to put things right.
Just a minute...
Mr Hide said the different figures had come about because three strikes had been merged with National's sentencing measures in the Sentencing and Parole Bill.
There you go. As they say, it's the putting right that counts.
I suspect this is just another attempt to shut down the discussion before it can be had; to discredit opponents instead of the idea.
In any event, the implication of Workman's figures is, as the strike qualifications currently stand, they will not save as many lives as would be the case under ACT's original policy. That should be taken into account at the select committee deliberations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The policy won't save as many lives because it has been changed so that fewer offenders will be affected.
That reduces both the benefits *and the costs* of the policy compared to ACT's original proposal.
The average offender affected by the modified policy will be more dangerous than the average offender affected by the original one.
So the case for the modified three strikes policy is even stronger than the case for the original one.
This doesn't help Workman at all.
Why oh why are people listening to Kim Workman?
Post a Comment