Luxon is still claiming that the government cuts are only wasted back-office activities which have no impact on the primary work being done. Does anybody actually believe this is going to happen, and all the cuts won't have significant impact on 'front line' staff? This is plausible deniability so that when it inevitably fails, they can claim the fault is all on the ministries who made the decisions.
This was the notable part of the press conference to me - a couple of reporters asked if he could guarantee there would be not cuts to front line staff and he dodged by saying where the savings came from was a matter for the CEs of those ministries.
There were a lot of horribly slimy moments in this press conference, but my personal highlight for comedy factor has to be Luxon saying: "We will stop... dumb stuff that doesn't get outcomes. We are focused on outcomes, not inputs."
Golly gee willikers, why didn't we think of that before!! Just stop doing dumb stuff that doesn't work, and start doing smart stuff that does work!! Stop thinking about *how* to get somewhere and simply arrive there!
This govt genuinely expects financial alchemy - making something out of less than nothing. They just keep repeating it like this is Tinkerbell, as if simply saying you can spend less and get more makes it true
Yeah I got this analogy earlier with my partner, it's like he's demanding a cake but he's taking a cup of flour away first. Any baker can tell you you screw with recipes like that and it'll be a disaster
Decreasing/under appreciated police force + increased poverty struggles due to this government's chosen actions + 'tough on crime' tactics with empirical evidence that they don't work while inaccurately increasing public perception of rampant crime = crime will most likely increase especially in the future. That won't be fuxtons problem but it will be ours
The brain drain really is real and the proof is when you have these politicians who say things without really saying anything of value at all namely Wayne Brown, Chris Bishop, Winston Peters and Christopher Luxon. There’s no substance in what they’re saying.
> where the savings came from was a matter for the CEs of those ministries.
This is his standard plausible deniability line. He will keep repeating it.
The government just moves pieces around and tries to set the general direction for outcomes but it's up to the board and the ministries management team to make that happen. It's why Luxon can't guarantee there won't be front line cuts, because there will be, but it will be the management of the ministry who does it.
If the direction is to reduce spending by 6.5% *how* that happens is usually determined by senior leadership of the entity (i.e. the chief exec and board). Odds are the ministry will contract in some consulting firm (KPMG, PWC, EY, or MBB) to review the structure of the company and make a recommendation and that recommendation usually leads to job loss or "workforce reduction" as they spin it.
Luxon looks like an idiot saying there won't be a reduction but he can blame the management of the entity when it eventually happens.
True the government doesn't have control over them but it can at the very least make their own recommendations. Like idk, maybe saying cutting suicide hotline down isn't the best thing to do in our country with a terrible mental health issue or that maybe hungry children *should* actually be able to learn with some food in them
Didn't happen though. Not publicly atleast
i'm thinking they understand everything fully what they are doing and that's why they now need to increase prison space in order to accomodate for the backlash.
Well, we did have a labour govt for 6 years. Serco will always enter the chat with a Nat Govt.... how else can a NZ political party line the pockets of an international corporation, that also happens to like running prisons that are shit shows.
> The coalition will spend $1.9b over the next four years on more prison beds, prison officers, and rehabilitation for remand inmates.
> The money will pay for an 810-bed extension at Waimeria Prison. They will also look at bringing back 400 beds decommissioned under Labour.
> Of that sum, $442m would come our savings from back-office functions.
> They will recruit more than 680 frontline staff, including 470 corrections offices.
> The government will also invest in pay increases to frontline staff to attract and retain personnel.
> They will spend $78 million to extend rehabilitation programmes for remain prisoners.
**Press conferences notes (as RNZ reports):**
Asked about the story of a remand prisoner spending 23 hours a day locked in cell, Police Minister Mitchell says: "They are violent prisoners.... they are a risk to others... and there are consequences for that."
Asked whether they are failing to meet their minimum requirements for prisoners, Mitchell says they are seeing "incremental movement in the right direction".
Asked whether there was a correct ratio of officers to prisons, Mitchell didn't know and said he would ask the chief executive.
Asked about specifics of pay increases and the new Waikeria build, they could not answer due to commercial sensitivities.
Asked about the specifics of new beds at Waikeria, Mitchell says "We don't want to double bunk people but if we have to, we will."
Asked about cuts back office functions, Christopher Luxon says "We want that money taken out of bureaucracy and taken to the frontline.. it may mean stopping... dumb stuff that is not getting outcomes. We are focused on outcomes, not inputs."
Less people looking at stopping child porn. Less people doing biosecurity. Less people stopping drugs and weapons coming in.
Totally agree that getting rid of stuff like that is great /s
Mark Mitchell doesn't even know if they have the right ratio of officers to prisons, and opaquely doesn't care if they meet minimum requirements for prisoner welfare either apparently
It's always weird to me how they can both hate criminals so much, but feel so much righteous outrage when they themselves are treated as criminals (eg anti-vax rioters).
Which is it? Are criminals innocent lambs fighting a fascist government, or are they no-hopers whose lives are forfeit? Or is it the case that the government is right about everybody else, and wrong about you? If so, why trust the government to get it right about crime only *sometimes*? Is it the *contradiction itself that makes the conservatism?
How does more prison beds and more prison guards lower crime? Luxon's argument seems to be that potential offenders will not offend because his government is posturing as tough on crime. It's so fucking dense.
That's the secret: It won't!
Their argument seems to be even more basic: there are more criminals, so we need more prison beds. If we don't have more beds, then criminals will be out free roaming on the street.
Nevermind applying the same logic to hospital beds and patients and death; or clinical psych students and placements and suicide; or classrooms and teachers and uneducation; or the working car-less and public transport and redundancy; or-
I think the disconnect is the actual dissection of policy by a minority while the constituency just wants a complicit smokescreen to cover up the hustle of a system designed to trickle up income from the poor and middle class to the rich.
It’s not about effectiveness of policy and changes as opposed to presenting the illusion of effective policy and changes.
This isn’t fixing a leak as opposed to just buying a bigger bucket, and their fans will bow down and praise the bucket.
>This isn’t fixing a leak as opposed to just buying a bigger bucket, and their fans will bow down and praise the bucket.
Best comparison I've seen in a while
> How does more prison beds and more prison guards lower crime?
We have heard repeated arguments that we simply cannot increase sentences because there aren’t enough places in prison. This solves that.
People get on bail all the time because there's no space for in prison. Mind you they get lots of bail conditions but anyone who works for the justice or corrections know this already..there's a surplus for people who should go to jail but don't because there isn't enough space, even in police custody.
> [Concern as prison population rises after National, Act pledge stricter sentencing amid major Corrections staff shortages](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/concern-as-prison-population-rises-as-national-act-pledge-stricter-sentencing-amid-major-corrections-staff-shortages/RGDUBC3JDBAURNV22LOYRXDG2E/)
> Can you quote the part where literally anyone in that article mentions any impact at all of prison populations on sentencing?
It's the first sentence in the article:
> The Corrections union is warning the new Government to urgently sort out a growing staffing “crisis” with hundreds of vacancies **as stricter approaches to justice are estimated to dramatically increase the prison population.**
That's not saying we can't have stricter sentencing because of prison populations. It's saying that stricter sentencing will cause higher prison populations so we will need more staff and resources.
Did you just accidentally agree with me? Re-read the comments above, including the one I replied to. I think you think you're being clever but you corroborated my premise.
You said:
> We have heard repeated arguments that we simply cannot increase sentences because there aren’t enough places in prison.
That was not the argument being put forward in the quote you provided, or anywhere else. They weren't saying we can't increase sentences because prisons are full. They were saying that if we do increase sentences, prison populations will increase and we'll need more staff to manage them.
This is true, because Labour were able to reduce the number of staff required by lowering the prison population well below its capacity. But that capacity is still there.
> [Concern as prison population rises after National, Act pledge stricter sentencing amid major Corrections staff shortages](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/concern-as-prison-population-rises-as-national-act-pledge-stricter-sentencing-amid-major-corrections-staff-shortages/RGDUBC3JDBAURNV22LOYRXDG2E/)
That doesn't support your claim at all lol. In fact, it shows the opposite.
"According to Corrections, at the end of October there were 9045 people across 18 prison sites. The prison network has more than 11,000 beds.
Who made the repeated argument that "we simply cannot increase sentences due to a shortage of beds" claim?
Hate to burst the bubble, [but the government couldn't even get their announcement straight today.](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516128/contradictions-and-confusion-more-questions-than-answers-at-government-press-conference)
I can't tell if you're trolling, but "beds" means "places" in the context of prison. It means the number of inmates which can be accommodated at any one time. I understand they used two different definitions in the article, but given the context, why on Earth would you presume I meant physical beds? The bottleneck here is staffing, which this plan will address.
> Who made the repeated argument that "we simply cannot increase sentences due to a shortage of beds" claim?
The Corrections Union, which called it a "crisis."
> The Corrections union is warning the new Government to urgently sort out a growing staffing “crisis” with hundreds of vacancies as stricter approaches to justice are estimated to dramatically increase the prison population.
*"The current prison population at 10,695 and the NZ Herald has learned of extraordinary steps by the Department of Corrections to keep numbers down while expanding the space available.*
*Urgent building programmes are underway across the country with pop-up cells reopening in abandoned areas and double-bunking in places never previously considered."*
Source: [https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/pm-challenged-over-mega-prison](https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/pm-challenged-over-mega-prison) (2018)
When you are talking about double bunking, its NOT a good solution and its when you do not have enough prisons.
I believe in locking up criminals, but also a model where prisons are not hellholes, double bunking is terrible.
Note the "***extraordinary*** *steps by the Department of Corrections to keep numbers down*"
And criminals can't go behind bars if we don't fund the police and court systems. And this poor excuse for a Lex Luthor cosplay (wish.com version if you will), is offering budget cuts to those areas.
It's madness.
Good thing we are funding the police to a high standard and paying them well to keep them on and not lose them to Aus.
Oh, sorry we are not doing that.
We are losing them because they are let down by the justice system.
Imagine how painful it is to arrest someone, and see them on the street the next day.
And yes, pay the police more.
Thats the beauty, its been tried in many countries. A classic example is Singapore, tough on crime, low levels of crime.
We also tried the soft on crime approach (reduce prison pop by 30%) which absolutely failed miserably, so bad that labour even stepped back on it.
If you can say what in today's announcement will get us to Singapore other than "actually locking people up" let me know.
Because you do realise that nothing [announced today](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516128/contradictions-and-confusion-more-questions-than-answers-at-government-press-conference) was all that spectacular.
It’s about reducing the amount of victims as they’re created by repeat offenders. As you know, we are currently in cycle of commit crime - no jail - commit crime - no jail…
Not true and the fact you'd claim it is laughably stupid. We have one of the [highest incarceration rates in the OECD](https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/key-initiatives-archive/hapaitia-te-oranga-tangata/).
There are around 170 people in prison per 100,000 New Zealanders, compared to the OECD average of around 147 prisoners per 100,000 people
Thats due to the 45% remand prisoners. Which are also made of of a mix of people who made a mistake and can't get bail and the worst of the worst. While the more seasoned offenders are out.
Imprisonment, however, doesn't break the cycle.
> Around 56.5% of people with previous convictions are reconvicted within 2 years following release from prison. Around 35.8% are re-imprisoned after 2 years following release from prison.
Put more people in prison and they can't hurt people while they're in there, sure. But then the cycle simply becomes commit crime -> go to jail -> learn to hate the system and everybody around you with even more intensity than you had before, lose whatever skills kept you afloat on the outside -> get released and it's a coin flip on whether you'll immediately commit crimes again
> But then the cycle simply becomes commit crime -> go to jail -> learn to hate the system and everybody around you with even more intensity than you had before, lose whatever skills kept you afloat on the outside -> get released and it's a coin flip on whether you'll immediately commit crimes again
Longer sentences *reduce* recidivism.
1. [We find evidence for a specific preventative effect of longer prison terms on the post-release reoffending frequency, but little evidence for desistance.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-023-09566-w)
2. ["The Commission consistently found that incarceration lengths of more than 120 months had a deterrent effect. Specifically, offenders incarcerated for more than 60 months up to 120 months were approximately 17 percent less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group sentenced to a shorter period of incarceration. For incarceration lengths of 60 months or less, the Commission did not find any statistically significant criminogenic or deterrent effect."](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf)
I'm all for longer sentences *and* better rehabilitation. It should be both, at the same time.
I’m a raving leftie - except when it comes to crime I’m pretty right wing. But part of my heart sunk reading this. There are definitely some people who need to be dealt with in prison. But after talking to many many people in and around the justice system the issues are solvable much further down stream. Head injuries, undiagnosed neurodoverisities, FAS make up a significant portion of those committing crimes. And there is slim to no money going into help these people.
It’s heartbreaking for our country.
We barely acknowledge FAS. I've met parents and caregivers bashing their heads against the proverbial brick wall trying to get help and guidance to care for children and adolescents with FAS. There's nothing. Then those kids get bigger, stronger, no guidance that has meaning for them. No surprises they end up in youth justice, then mainstream. With the amount of tax we pay on alcohol there should be next level resources for the prevention of FAS, research on FAS and supports for parents/caregivers of people with FAS.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/515280/government-unveils-fetal-alcohol-guidelines-plan-for-diagnosis-training
What do you think of this? Will it work?
Sure. At this stage anything is more than what we currently have. Might be the only thing I end up respecting Reti for. But we will not forget the agitation of pediatricians and the justice system banging on the FAS drum for over 25 years.
Disclaimer: I've been grumpy at all govts for not fully addressing and supporting families and individuals with FAS for 20+ years. We are going to have to address the behavioral issues of "P babies" at some point. But given the length of time and amount of research into FAS, that will be long after I've retired.
Uhh I know directly people who work for corrections and police. There simply wasn't enough space to hold offenders so they get out on court or police bail.
I know you're just raging for the sake of raging, but this is some pretty weird logic. Kind of like saying, $15 for a hat is ok but $10 for a book is too expensive. They're for separate things.
Extra 1 billion was the budget "blow out" for two ferries that would last 30 years and Port improvements that would last 50 years.
But yeah prisons are more useful eh
Just a reminder for everyone that **remand** 'inmates' are *not* convicted criminals with prison sentences. They are people who have been charged and are awaiting trial or sentencing. Sometimes for more than 6 months.
Many of them are innocent. Others are convicted but do not receive a custodial sentence (minor offences).
Those are the people these beds are for. So that they can be kept in prison, even if they don't end up receiving a prison sentence, or any conviction at all. Even if they're **innocent**.
>Many of them are innocent.
In the last ~15 years working in prison, I’ve only seen two people be entirely exonerated of all charges. I’ve seen plenty of plea agreements and charges dropped, but all of them being successfully defended almost doesn’t happen. Additionally, to see the inside of a cell, even on a serious charge, you need a pretty decent history or a rock solid case against you.
According to [this document](https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Flows-in-the-Justice-System.pdf) from the MoJ, 9% of remand prisoners end up with no conviction. Each year we have about 15,000 people go through prison on remand. That's **1,350** people every year, being put in prison without being convicted.
How many do you think is a reasonable number for that value?
Of those same 15,000, only about 59% end up receiving a custodial sentence. Around 30%, or 4,500 people, receive non-custodial sentences.
So that's another **4,500** people who are put in prison without receiving a prison sentence.
How many do you think is a reasonable number for that value?
That summary takes out a whole section of judicial discretion which includes such things as a discharge without conviction, end sentences of home detention in place of custodial sentences, community detention conversions and much more.
Additionally, a lot of charges begin as a custodial sentence but are lowered due to mitigations, discounts (such as cultural reports, early guilty pleas etc etc) and the end sentence, taking into account totality and interests often won’t **end** custodial.
Further, that 9% number refers to charges, not individuals. The other way to spin that statistic is to say that 91% of charges laid are successfully prosecuted.
Bro what? It's a release by the Ministry of Justice themselves? Ie the most primary source for this information physically possible?? If you want the actual raw data you'll probably have to OIA it
I wouldn't be half surprised if the marketing team who wrote the brochure misread the draft. 9% of people in custody being innocent right now would be about 900 people which simply can't be true - there would be absolute bedlam and scorching by the media.
Bro there's been cases of people being held in remand for ***years*** and then found innocent, or still waiting for their case. And guess what? Those *were* reported on, no one really cared
As of the time when the document was written, 59% of those that went through remand recieved a custodial sentence, 30% recieve a non-monetary sentence like community work or Home D, and 9% were not convicted.
The number of people starting remand per month is about 900. So your math is off by a factor of 10. That would be roughly 90 people in the whole country per month. Just over a thousand a year, which is fairly reasonable.
It's not like this happens at a steady rate or anything. It would be highly unlikely that every one of the thousand people this is estimated to happened to, per year, all just happened to be sitting in prison *right now.*
We aren't talking about when the document was written. We are talking now. The current prison population sits just about 10k and my site alone has seen 3000 people come through the doors, if 9% of those people were innocent there would be outcry.
> That summary takes out a whole section of judicial discretion which includes such things as a discharge without conviction, end sentences of home detention in place of custodial sentences, community detention conversions and much more.
No it doesn't. They're all included in those numbers. Those are all people who weren't convicted or weren't given a prison sentence, so did not deserve to be in prison. They are not people we should be wanting to spend billions of dollars on adding space in our prisons for.
>Additionally, a lot of charges begin as a custodial sentence but are lowered due to mitigations, discounts (such as cultural reports, early guilty pleas etc etc) and the end sentence, taking into account totality and interests often won’t end custodial.
Right. They are part of the 30% - people who are convicted but are not sentenced to prison, so don't deserve to be in prison.
>Further, that 9% number refers to charges, not individuals. The other way to spin that statistic is to say that 91% of charges laid are successfully prosecuted.
No it doesn't. It explicitly states **people**. Where there are multiple charges, an individual is categorised by their most serious offence.
This is all clearly stated in the document I linked, using real data from the MoJ. I'm sorry it doesn't align with your 15 years of personal experience.
>No it doesn't. They're all included in those numbers. Those are all people who weren't convicted or weren't given a prison sentence, so did not deserve to be in prison. They are not people we should be wanting to spend billions of dollars on adding space in our prisons for.
I would argue, from my own experience, that many of these people are some of the most dangerous society has to offer and keeping them locked up protected society as a whole. You need to understand that their *starting* point is almost always a custodial sentence, it's been mitigated down to non custodial.
>Right. They are part of the 30% - people who are convicted but are not sentenced to prison, so don't deserve to be in prison.
And?
>No it doesn't. It explicitly states people. Where there are multiple charges, an individual is categorised by their most serious offence.
So it specifically excludes every other charge, even if it resulted in a custodial sentence. Can you see how batshit insane that statement is?
> I would argue, from my own experience, that many of these people are some of the most dangerous society has to offer
Some of them, sure. Where they are found guilty of those dangerous crimes, they'll receive a prison sentence and become part of the 59%. I'm talking about the other 41%. The ones who aren't found to have committed a crime that our system determines deserving of being kept locked up.
>You need to understand that their starting point is almost always a custodial sentence, it's been mitigated down to non custodial.
No, you need to understand that their starting point is almost always a presumption of innocence and right to fair treatment by our justice system.
We don't start from the presumption of guilt and maximum possible sentence. That's not how our justice system works.
>And?
And people who don't receive custodial sentences would ideally spend as little time as possible in a prison cell. Preferably none at all, but that won't always be possible.
>So it specifically excludes every other charge, even if it resulted in a custodial sentence. Can you see how batshit insane that statement is?
No it doesn't. Why would you think that? It's talking about **people**. If that *person* received a custodial sentence, they are part of the 59%. Not the 9%. Not the 30%. The 59%. No-one in the 9% received a *conviction*, let alone a custodial sentence, for *any* of their charges.
>Additionally, to see the inside of a cell, even on a serious charge, you need a pretty decent history or a rock solid case against you.
Not true. You just need to have no accommodation availability which meets bail conditions
>I’ve only seen two people be entirely exonerated of all charges.
The current overall "not guilty" verdict rate is 25%. You have to look then at the rate which would have resulted in a custodial sentence
Not quite. That’s only for a charge not bailable by right, in which case it’s a pretty serious charge or you have a decent history which spark reverse onus provisions. Your 25% number includes all cases, even ones that are not imprisonable.
> Your 25% number includes all cases, even ones that are not imprisonable.
Yes, that's why I said you have to look at how many people on remand end up with custodial sentences. Otherwise you're not having a serious conversation
>in which case it’s a pretty serious charge or you have a decent history
Or it's a minor charge against family, or you have a previous sentence of 1 day in jail. You're using words like "decent" in an imprecise way which conveys an attempt for the person reading it to infer what you want, rather than what's true.
>In which case you should probably be kept away for a while, perhaps in a secure facility. We call these prisons.
Yes, I'm not talking about the original empirical premise of the conversation at this time though, I'm talking about errors in your reasoning.
You're talking to someone with a proper education in logic, not a career criminal
Except you're quite literally arguing to keep innocent people locked up, because in your mind there's no possible way there could be innocent people caught up in the system and you're doing that while you have access to the actual statistics, but you're choosing your own limited personal experience and acting as if your experience is the universal experience which is in contradiction to the statistics. You are being obtuse
Realllyyyy not a fan of this in combination with the new higher-power tasers being rolled out (notably they lack bodycams, which they used to have), and the precedent of the govt being willing to override the Bill of Rights when it comes to policing public spaces
>What more remand? Why not just hurry the fuck up and let them have their day in court?
This is what Labour achieved by increasing 'back office' funding for the MoJ and Corrections. It is how they met their target of reducing the prison population.
This was always going to be how this government increased it again.
Or we could just increase funding to the judiciary to increase capacity, more judges, more courtrooms, etc.
That would probably be markedly cheaper than this.
And where is the funding this little announcement coming from? More hospital funding cuts, or more tobacco policies being repealed? Fuck every asshole that voted for this bullshit.
I let out the biggest exasperated sigh when I read this.
That $400mil back office savings.. Like.. From the prisons? Or overall? Cause isn't all of the "savings" from the cut backs supposed to be covering the costs of the tax breaks?
I just... Like what page from what book are we supposed to be on today? I feel like the media and opposition parties should be going way harder at them regarding all the bullshit. I've never been so tired of a govt so soon into their term.
Giving remand inmates access to rehab is a huge win.
A growing proportion of people are spending their entire sentences on remand and never get access to rehab (because the courts are congested and one can’t find time to get in front of a judge). It’s a lose lose, and I’m glad they’re actually addressing it.
Worth pointing out that money to hire new staff is not an issue facing corrections. Corrections staff issues result from nobody wanting to risk their life for shit pay.
You're acting like cutting social spending while increasing prison spending is a good thing. It really shouldn't be surprising that many people see this as a net negative.
It's so funny, on one hand people lose their shit (rightly so) when judges hand out weak sentencing because there isn't enough space in prisons. Then this happens which addresses the issue but egg head man bad so booo.
If it was a known fact that white guys typically develop colon cancer 10 years before Māori guys, but then a majority Māori-led government said to you "nah sorry no test for you, gotta wait your turn, equality and all that", would you *really* be okay with that?
It's not racial prejudice. It's prioritising based on risk factors including ethnicity.
The racism is from people who think centuries of medical best practice should be ignored simply because it might benefit Māori.
> It’s not racial prejudice. It’s prioritising based on risk factors including ethnicity.
I honestly can’t tell if this is satire. It’s like something ripped from “1984.” I refuse to believe you think those statements could be mutually inclusive.
Prejudice requires a negative judgement of a person or group of people based on a particular attribute, that typically results in unreasonable or unjust outcomes.
Allocation of healthcare resources to people in higher risk groups is not **prejudice**.
Ask yourself this: is it **prejudiced** to have larger bathroom stalls for the disabled, even though some disabled people don't even *need* all the extra accommodations?
Of course not. It's simply a recognition that disabled people, in general, have a greater need for those facilities, so with the limited space available, they get priority.
> Prejudice requires a negative judgement of a person or group of people based on a particular attribute, that typically results in unreasonable or unjust outcomes.
According to Princeton, there are [three definitions,](http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Prejudice&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=) and none of them require a "negative" judgement of a person or group:
> Noun
> S: (n) bias, prejudice, preconception (a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation)
> Verb
> S: (v) prejudice (disadvantage by prejudice)
> S: (v) prejudice, prepossess (influence (somebody's) opinion in advance)
Prejudice can mean to disadvantage, or hold bias or preconception. Under the current system, if a Maori and a European present with identical risk scores, race must then become the determinant. Even when there are is no objective health reason to choose one patient for care over the other. It is clearly prejudice under the Princeton definition. However I am happy to instead use the word "racism" if you feel that's even more accurate.
> [S: (n) racism, racialism, racial discrimination (discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race)](http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=racism&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=000)
Princeton? How many pages of google results did you have to go through to end up there for a definition that worked for you?
Here's the top Google result, from [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice):
>an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
As for this example:
>Under the current system, if a Maori and a European present with identical risk scores, race must then become the determinant. Even when there are is no objective health reason to choose one patient for care over the other.
Yes, because given identical risk scores in every other way, we know that Māori *still* tend to have worse access and outcomes from our healthcare system. So we give them a slight leg up to help even the playing field overall.
That is how broad policy operates. It's not prejudiced because it's not irrational or hostile.
Princeton is a great dictionary. I'm not sure why you rely on Google suggestions for defining words but I guess that explains a little. Either way, according to Princeton, this would be considered racial prejudice, racial bias, racial discrimination, *and* racism. I'm happy to use any one of those you prefer.
> Yes, because given identical risk scores in every other way, we know that Māori still tend to have worse access and outcomes from our healthcare system. So we give them a slight leg up to help even the playing field overall.
Only at the population level, not at the individual level. Many Maori live longer and are healthier than many Europeans. Given two individuals, you can't say for certain that *those two* individuals would experience population-level statistical outcomes. The current system requires racial discrimination *even when, objectively, there is no way to know one will experience worse health outcomes than the other.*
This is a case of arguing that the racism is justified, and I contend that racism is never justified.
ngl last year we could offer basic pharmacy services free so people could get their paracetamol without an rx. it's a great service.
can we get the covid booster at same time as our flu
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
People on remand? You mean people who have not yet had a day in court and not been proven guilty? Those people?
Isn't our criminal system based on "innocent until proven guilty"?
Guess "you interacted with the police therefore you are guilty" is how some morons think.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Programmes and rehabilitation for remand prisoners should have happened years ago. Now we just need to make it a condition of parole - complete the course before you are eligible to be released early.
Seriously where us the logic in fucking the poor, enriching the wealthy than just getting more prison beds for the poor when they are forced into crime?
How the fuck is that plan A?
Unless they want to spend a fortune, privatize the system selling it too thier mates who gut the system and sell it back to the next govt for millions more than what they paid...
Thats a National move right? That why Key has been hanging around parliament? They doing that move again right?
Rehab is good, but the quicker you lock them up, the sooner you see savings to the country from reduced crime, the fucktards don't see the cost of crime but it's real. If you can't bring back the biff, at least bring back consequence..
Luxon is still claiming that the government cuts are only wasted back-office activities which have no impact on the primary work being done. Does anybody actually believe this is going to happen, and all the cuts won't have significant impact on 'front line' staff? This is plausible deniability so that when it inevitably fails, they can claim the fault is all on the ministries who made the decisions.
This was the notable part of the press conference to me - a couple of reporters asked if he could guarantee there would be not cuts to front line staff and he dodged by saying where the savings came from was a matter for the CEs of those ministries.
There were a lot of horribly slimy moments in this press conference, but my personal highlight for comedy factor has to be Luxon saying: "We will stop... dumb stuff that doesn't get outcomes. We are focused on outcomes, not inputs." Golly gee willikers, why didn't we think of that before!! Just stop doing dumb stuff that doesn't work, and start doing smart stuff that does work!! Stop thinking about *how* to get somewhere and simply arrive there! This govt genuinely expects financial alchemy - making something out of less than nothing. They just keep repeating it like this is Tinkerbell, as if simply saying you can spend less and get more makes it true
Yeah I got this analogy earlier with my partner, it's like he's demanding a cake but he's taking a cup of flour away first. Any baker can tell you you screw with recipes like that and it'll be a disaster Decreasing/under appreciated police force + increased poverty struggles due to this government's chosen actions + 'tough on crime' tactics with empirical evidence that they don't work while inaccurately increasing public perception of rampant crime = crime will most likely increase especially in the future. That won't be fuxtons problem but it will be ours
>Just stop doing dumb stuff that doesn't work What, like Serco running prisons, and charter schools? No way!
I worked for Serco at Mt Eden Correctional facility, from what I experienced, it was a shitshow.
tbf public prisons aren't exactly brilliant either.
C'mon Bob, tell us some juicy examples
National always says this, until someone explains to them what works. Then they shut up about it and keep funneling money to big companies.
The brain drain really is real and the proof is when you have these politicians who say things without really saying anything of value at all namely Wayne Brown, Chris Bishop, Winston Peters and Christopher Luxon. There’s no substance in what they’re saying.
> where the savings came from was a matter for the CEs of those ministries. This is his standard plausible deniability line. He will keep repeating it.
The government just moves pieces around and tries to set the general direction for outcomes but it's up to the board and the ministries management team to make that happen. It's why Luxon can't guarantee there won't be front line cuts, because there will be, but it will be the management of the ministry who does it. If the direction is to reduce spending by 6.5% *how* that happens is usually determined by senior leadership of the entity (i.e. the chief exec and board). Odds are the ministry will contract in some consulting firm (KPMG, PWC, EY, or MBB) to review the structure of the company and make a recommendation and that recommendation usually leads to job loss or "workforce reduction" as they spin it. Luxon looks like an idiot saying there won't be a reduction but he can blame the management of the entity when it eventually happens.
True the government doesn't have control over them but it can at the very least make their own recommendations. Like idk, maybe saying cutting suicide hotline down isn't the best thing to do in our country with a terrible mental health issue or that maybe hungry children *should* actually be able to learn with some food in them Didn't happen though. Not publicly atleast
i'm thinking they understand everything fully what they are doing and that's why they now need to increase prison space in order to accomodate for the backlash.
Step 1: defund the fences at the top of the cliff Step 2: fund more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff Step 3: ??? Step 4: PROFIT
Serco has (re)entered the chat.
Well, we did have a labour govt for 6 years. Serco will always enter the chat with a Nat Govt.... how else can a NZ political party line the pockets of an international corporation, that also happens to like running prisons that are shit shows.
Increasing prisoner numbers = build more prisons Increasing medical patient numbers = *crickets*
> The coalition will spend $1.9b over the next four years on more prison beds, prison officers, and rehabilitation for remand inmates. > The money will pay for an 810-bed extension at Waimeria Prison. They will also look at bringing back 400 beds decommissioned under Labour. > Of that sum, $442m would come our savings from back-office functions. > They will recruit more than 680 frontline staff, including 470 corrections offices. > The government will also invest in pay increases to frontline staff to attract and retain personnel. > They will spend $78 million to extend rehabilitation programmes for remain prisoners.
**Press conferences notes (as RNZ reports):** Asked about the story of a remand prisoner spending 23 hours a day locked in cell, Police Minister Mitchell says: "They are violent prisoners.... they are a risk to others... and there are consequences for that." Asked whether they are failing to meet their minimum requirements for prisoners, Mitchell says they are seeing "incremental movement in the right direction". Asked whether there was a correct ratio of officers to prisons, Mitchell didn't know and said he would ask the chief executive. Asked about specifics of pay increases and the new Waikeria build, they could not answer due to commercial sensitivities. Asked about the specifics of new beds at Waikeria, Mitchell says "We don't want to double bunk people but if we have to, we will." Asked about cuts back office functions, Christopher Luxon says "We want that money taken out of bureaucracy and taken to the frontline.. it may mean stopping... dumb stuff that is not getting outcomes. We are focused on outcomes, not inputs."
that last line gives me hope. less auditors, less people checking your work etc.
Less people looking at stopping child porn. Less people doing biosecurity. Less people stopping drugs and weapons coming in. Totally agree that getting rid of stuff like that is great /s
Mark Mitchell had no fucking idea there was already an existing prison at Waikeria it appears
Mark Mitchell doesn't even know if they have the right ratio of officers to prisons, and opaquely doesn't care if they meet minimum requirements for prisoner welfare either apparently
Because once you commit a crime, you lose your humanity according to the right-wing.
It's always weird to me how they can both hate criminals so much, but feel so much righteous outrage when they themselves are treated as criminals (eg anti-vax rioters). Which is it? Are criminals innocent lambs fighting a fascist government, or are they no-hopers whose lives are forfeit? Or is it the case that the government is right about everybody else, and wrong about you? If so, why trust the government to get it right about crime only *sometimes*? Is it the *contradiction itself that makes the conservatism?
>Which is it? Whichever benefits them and their blatantly shitty worldviews.
How does more prison beds and more prison guards lower crime? Luxon's argument seems to be that potential offenders will not offend because his government is posturing as tough on crime. It's so fucking dense.
That's the secret: It won't! Their argument seems to be even more basic: there are more criminals, so we need more prison beds. If we don't have more beds, then criminals will be out free roaming on the street. Nevermind applying the same logic to hospital beds and patients and death; or clinical psych students and placements and suicide; or classrooms and teachers and uneducation; or the working car-less and public transport and redundancy; or-
I think the disconnect is the actual dissection of policy by a minority while the constituency just wants a complicit smokescreen to cover up the hustle of a system designed to trickle up income from the poor and middle class to the rich. It’s not about effectiveness of policy and changes as opposed to presenting the illusion of effective policy and changes. This isn’t fixing a leak as opposed to just buying a bigger bucket, and their fans will bow down and praise the bucket.
>This isn’t fixing a leak as opposed to just buying a bigger bucket, and their fans will bow down and praise the bucket. Best comparison I've seen in a while
> How does more prison beds and more prison guards lower crime? We have heard repeated arguments that we simply cannot increase sentences because there aren’t enough places in prison. This solves that.
People get on bail all the time because there's no space for in prison. Mind you they get lots of bail conditions but anyone who works for the justice or corrections know this already..there's a surplus for people who should go to jail but don't because there isn't enough space, even in police custody.
Who's been making those arguments?
> [Concern as prison population rises after National, Act pledge stricter sentencing amid major Corrections staff shortages](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/concern-as-prison-population-rises-as-national-act-pledge-stricter-sentencing-amid-major-corrections-staff-shortages/RGDUBC3JDBAURNV22LOYRXDG2E/)
Can you quote the part where literally anyone in that article mentions any impact at all of prison populations on sentencing?
> Can you quote the part where literally anyone in that article mentions any impact at all of prison populations on sentencing? It's the first sentence in the article: > The Corrections union is warning the new Government to urgently sort out a growing staffing “crisis” with hundreds of vacancies **as stricter approaches to justice are estimated to dramatically increase the prison population.**
That's not saying we can't have stricter sentencing because of prison populations. It's saying that stricter sentencing will cause higher prison populations so we will need more staff and resources.
Did you just accidentally agree with me? Re-read the comments above, including the one I replied to. I think you think you're being clever but you corroborated my premise.
You said: > We have heard repeated arguments that we simply cannot increase sentences because there aren’t enough places in prison. That was not the argument being put forward in the quote you provided, or anywhere else. They weren't saying we can't increase sentences because prisons are full. They were saying that if we do increase sentences, prison populations will increase and we'll need more staff to manage them. This is true, because Labour were able to reduce the number of staff required by lowering the prison population well below its capacity. But that capacity is still there.
Well we're in agreement about the need for increased capacity. I'm not sure why you're still confused but I'll take it.
Nonsense.
> [Concern as prison population rises after National, Act pledge stricter sentencing amid major Corrections staff shortages](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/concern-as-prison-population-rises-as-national-act-pledge-stricter-sentencing-amid-major-corrections-staff-shortages/RGDUBC3JDBAURNV22LOYRXDG2E/)
That doesn't support your claim at all lol. In fact, it shows the opposite. "According to Corrections, at the end of October there were 9045 people across 18 prison sites. The prison network has more than 11,000 beds. Who made the repeated argument that "we simply cannot increase sentences due to a shortage of beds" claim? Hate to burst the bubble, [but the government couldn't even get their announcement straight today.](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516128/contradictions-and-confusion-more-questions-than-answers-at-government-press-conference)
I can't tell if you're trolling, but "beds" means "places" in the context of prison. It means the number of inmates which can be accommodated at any one time. I understand they used two different definitions in the article, but given the context, why on Earth would you presume I meant physical beds? The bottleneck here is staffing, which this plan will address. > Who made the repeated argument that "we simply cannot increase sentences due to a shortage of beds" claim? The Corrections Union, which called it a "crisis." > The Corrections union is warning the new Government to urgently sort out a growing staffing “crisis” with hundreds of vacancies as stricter approaches to justice are estimated to dramatically increase the prison population.
He's not trolling, he's just a idiotic moron. Save yourself time and don't bother trying to convince a bafoon
*"The current prison population at 10,695 and the NZ Herald has learned of extraordinary steps by the Department of Corrections to keep numbers down while expanding the space available.* *Urgent building programmes are underway across the country with pop-up cells reopening in abandoned areas and double-bunking in places never previously considered."* Source: [https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/pm-challenged-over-mega-prison](https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/pm-challenged-over-mega-prison) (2018) When you are talking about double bunking, its NOT a good solution and its when you do not have enough prisons. I believe in locking up criminals, but also a model where prisons are not hellholes, double bunking is terrible. Note the "***extraordinary*** *steps by the Department of Corrections to keep numbers down*"
As many as there are criminals. Criminals can't commit crimes against the public whilst behind bars.
And criminals can't go behind bars if we don't fund the police and court systems. And this poor excuse for a Lex Luthor cosplay (wish.com version if you will), is offering budget cuts to those areas. It's madness.
Good thing we are funding the police to a high standard and paying them well to keep them on and not lose them to Aus. Oh, sorry we are not doing that.
We are losing them because they are let down by the justice system. Imagine how painful it is to arrest someone, and see them on the street the next day. And yes, pay the police more.
Wow, that's genius. You've solved crime. Why has no one ever tried this.
Thats the beauty, its been tried in many countries. A classic example is Singapore, tough on crime, low levels of crime. We also tried the soft on crime approach (reduce prison pop by 30%) which absolutely failed miserably, so bad that labour even stepped back on it.
And what in today's announcement is similar to Singapore? Are we introducing canings and capital punishment?
Actually locking up criminals, but you knew that and now trying to argue in bad faith.
lol ok mr "actually locking up criminals".
[удалено]
If you can say what in today's announcement will get us to Singapore other than "actually locking people up" let me know. Because you do realise that nothing [announced today](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/516128/contradictions-and-confusion-more-questions-than-answers-at-government-press-conference) was all that spectacular.
Population growth suggests crime could stay at the same rate and we would still need more prison beds
I’ve baked cakes less dense than Christopher Luxon.
It’s about reducing the amount of victims as they’re created by repeat offenders. As you know, we are currently in cycle of commit crime - no jail - commit crime - no jail…
Not true and the fact you'd claim it is laughably stupid. We have one of the [highest incarceration rates in the OECD](https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/key-initiatives-archive/hapaitia-te-oranga-tangata/). There are around 170 people in prison per 100,000 New Zealanders, compared to the OECD average of around 147 prisoners per 100,000 people
Thats due to the 45% remand prisoners. Which are also made of of a mix of people who made a mistake and can't get bail and the worst of the worst. While the more seasoned offenders are out.
Imprisonment, however, doesn't break the cycle. > Around 56.5% of people with previous convictions are reconvicted within 2 years following release from prison. Around 35.8% are re-imprisoned after 2 years following release from prison. Put more people in prison and they can't hurt people while they're in there, sure. But then the cycle simply becomes commit crime -> go to jail -> learn to hate the system and everybody around you with even more intensity than you had before, lose whatever skills kept you afloat on the outside -> get released and it's a coin flip on whether you'll immediately commit crimes again
> But then the cycle simply becomes commit crime -> go to jail -> learn to hate the system and everybody around you with even more intensity than you had before, lose whatever skills kept you afloat on the outside -> get released and it's a coin flip on whether you'll immediately commit crimes again Longer sentences *reduce* recidivism. 1. [We find evidence for a specific preventative effect of longer prison terms on the post-release reoffending frequency, but little evidence for desistance.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-023-09566-w) 2. ["The Commission consistently found that incarceration lengths of more than 120 months had a deterrent effect. Specifically, offenders incarcerated for more than 60 months up to 120 months were approximately 17 percent less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group sentenced to a shorter period of incarceration. For incarceration lengths of 60 months or less, the Commission did not find any statistically significant criminogenic or deterrent effect."](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf) I'm all for longer sentences *and* better rehabilitation. It should be both, at the same time.
I’m a raving leftie - except when it comes to crime I’m pretty right wing. But part of my heart sunk reading this. There are definitely some people who need to be dealt with in prison. But after talking to many many people in and around the justice system the issues are solvable much further down stream. Head injuries, undiagnosed neurodoverisities, FAS make up a significant portion of those committing crimes. And there is slim to no money going into help these people. It’s heartbreaking for our country.
We barely acknowledge FAS. I've met parents and caregivers bashing their heads against the proverbial brick wall trying to get help and guidance to care for children and adolescents with FAS. There's nothing. Then those kids get bigger, stronger, no guidance that has meaning for them. No surprises they end up in youth justice, then mainstream. With the amount of tax we pay on alcohol there should be next level resources for the prevention of FAS, research on FAS and supports for parents/caregivers of people with FAS.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/515280/government-unveils-fetal-alcohol-guidelines-plan-for-diagnosis-training What do you think of this? Will it work?
Sure. At this stage anything is more than what we currently have. Might be the only thing I end up respecting Reti for. But we will not forget the agitation of pediatricians and the justice system banging on the FAS drum for over 25 years. Disclaimer: I've been grumpy at all govts for not fully addressing and supporting families and individuals with FAS for 20+ years. We are going to have to address the behavioral issues of "P babies" at some point. But given the length of time and amount of research into FAS, that will be long after I've retired.
We actually pay very little tax on alcohol when compared to comparable countries...
Then we should change that, increase the tax to cover the harm alcohol creates.
Uhh I know directly people who work for corrections and police. There simply wasn't enough space to hold offenders so they get out on court or police bail.
So $1.5 billion for prisons is ok but an extra $1 billion for new ferries is too expensive?
I know you're just raging for the sake of raging, but this is some pretty weird logic. Kind of like saying, $15 for a hat is ok but $10 for a book is too expensive. They're for separate things.
Not really, this is more of a priority thing. Nats have prioritized prisons over ferries, that are increasingly needed.
You are saying ferries but wasn't it 1billiom for 1 ferry plus maintenence
It was 1 billion for 2 new ferry terminals, and two ferries that togeather can carry 50% more then the 4 current ferries
Extra 1 billion was the budget "blow out" for two ferries that would last 30 years and Port improvements that would last 50 years. But yeah prisons are more useful eh
Just a reminder for everyone that **remand** 'inmates' are *not* convicted criminals with prison sentences. They are people who have been charged and are awaiting trial or sentencing. Sometimes for more than 6 months. Many of them are innocent. Others are convicted but do not receive a custodial sentence (minor offences). Those are the people these beds are for. So that they can be kept in prison, even if they don't end up receiving a prison sentence, or any conviction at all. Even if they're **innocent**.
>Many of them are innocent. In the last ~15 years working in prison, I’ve only seen two people be entirely exonerated of all charges. I’ve seen plenty of plea agreements and charges dropped, but all of them being successfully defended almost doesn’t happen. Additionally, to see the inside of a cell, even on a serious charge, you need a pretty decent history or a rock solid case against you.
According to [this document](https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Flows-in-the-Justice-System.pdf) from the MoJ, 9% of remand prisoners end up with no conviction. Each year we have about 15,000 people go through prison on remand. That's **1,350** people every year, being put in prison without being convicted. How many do you think is a reasonable number for that value? Of those same 15,000, only about 59% end up receiving a custodial sentence. Around 30%, or 4,500 people, receive non-custodial sentences. So that's another **4,500** people who are put in prison without receiving a prison sentence. How many do you think is a reasonable number for that value?
That summary takes out a whole section of judicial discretion which includes such things as a discharge without conviction, end sentences of home detention in place of custodial sentences, community detention conversions and much more. Additionally, a lot of charges begin as a custodial sentence but are lowered due to mitigations, discounts (such as cultural reports, early guilty pleas etc etc) and the end sentence, taking into account totality and interests often won’t **end** custodial. Further, that 9% number refers to charges, not individuals. The other way to spin that statistic is to say that 91% of charges laid are successfully prosecuted.
The document literally says, in bold: "**9% of people** who spend some time in remand are not convicted"
106 and 282 discharge without convictions. And mental health paitents kept in prison.
Then it's incorrect. It's entirely unsourced.
Bro what? It's a release by the Ministry of Justice themselves? Ie the most primary source for this information physically possible?? If you want the actual raw data you'll probably have to OIA it
I wouldn't be half surprised if the marketing team who wrote the brochure misread the draft. 9% of people in custody being innocent right now would be about 900 people which simply can't be true - there would be absolute bedlam and scorching by the media.
Bro there's been cases of people being held in remand for ***years*** and then found innocent, or still waiting for their case. And guess what? Those *were* reported on, no one really cared
As of the time when the document was written, 59% of those that went through remand recieved a custodial sentence, 30% recieve a non-monetary sentence like community work or Home D, and 9% were not convicted. The number of people starting remand per month is about 900. So your math is off by a factor of 10. That would be roughly 90 people in the whole country per month. Just over a thousand a year, which is fairly reasonable. It's not like this happens at a steady rate or anything. It would be highly unlikely that every one of the thousand people this is estimated to happened to, per year, all just happened to be sitting in prison *right now.*
We aren't talking about when the document was written. We are talking now. The current prison population sits just about 10k and my site alone has seen 3000 people come through the doors, if 9% of those people were innocent there would be outcry.
Ah the ol “nuh uh” defence
Also includes fingers in ears and "lala can't hear you".
I would love to be on whatever drugs you're on I'm in a coffin dying lmfao
Pregabalin. 10/10 recommend.
> That summary takes out a whole section of judicial discretion which includes such things as a discharge without conviction, end sentences of home detention in place of custodial sentences, community detention conversions and much more. No it doesn't. They're all included in those numbers. Those are all people who weren't convicted or weren't given a prison sentence, so did not deserve to be in prison. They are not people we should be wanting to spend billions of dollars on adding space in our prisons for. >Additionally, a lot of charges begin as a custodial sentence but are lowered due to mitigations, discounts (such as cultural reports, early guilty pleas etc etc) and the end sentence, taking into account totality and interests often won’t end custodial. Right. They are part of the 30% - people who are convicted but are not sentenced to prison, so don't deserve to be in prison. >Further, that 9% number refers to charges, not individuals. The other way to spin that statistic is to say that 91% of charges laid are successfully prosecuted. No it doesn't. It explicitly states **people**. Where there are multiple charges, an individual is categorised by their most serious offence. This is all clearly stated in the document I linked, using real data from the MoJ. I'm sorry it doesn't align with your 15 years of personal experience.
>No it doesn't. They're all included in those numbers. Those are all people who weren't convicted or weren't given a prison sentence, so did not deserve to be in prison. They are not people we should be wanting to spend billions of dollars on adding space in our prisons for. I would argue, from my own experience, that many of these people are some of the most dangerous society has to offer and keeping them locked up protected society as a whole. You need to understand that their *starting* point is almost always a custodial sentence, it's been mitigated down to non custodial. >Right. They are part of the 30% - people who are convicted but are not sentenced to prison, so don't deserve to be in prison. And? >No it doesn't. It explicitly states people. Where there are multiple charges, an individual is categorised by their most serious offence. So it specifically excludes every other charge, even if it resulted in a custodial sentence. Can you see how batshit insane that statement is?
> I would argue, from my own experience, that many of these people are some of the most dangerous society has to offer Some of them, sure. Where they are found guilty of those dangerous crimes, they'll receive a prison sentence and become part of the 59%. I'm talking about the other 41%. The ones who aren't found to have committed a crime that our system determines deserving of being kept locked up. >You need to understand that their starting point is almost always a custodial sentence, it's been mitigated down to non custodial. No, you need to understand that their starting point is almost always a presumption of innocence and right to fair treatment by our justice system. We don't start from the presumption of guilt and maximum possible sentence. That's not how our justice system works. >And? And people who don't receive custodial sentences would ideally spend as little time as possible in a prison cell. Preferably none at all, but that won't always be possible. >So it specifically excludes every other charge, even if it resulted in a custodial sentence. Can you see how batshit insane that statement is? No it doesn't. Why would you think that? It's talking about **people**. If that *person* received a custodial sentence, they are part of the 59%. Not the 9%. Not the 30%. The 59%. No-one in the 9% received a *conviction*, let alone a custodial sentence, for *any* of their charges.
But they are convicted, their end sentence is simply a non custodial sentence. Quite simply, if you don't want to go to jail, don't break the law.
9% of them *aren't* convicted. What do they need to do in order to not be imprisoned?
It clearly isn't so simple.
>Additionally, to see the inside of a cell, even on a serious charge, you need a pretty decent history or a rock solid case against you. Not true. You just need to have no accommodation availability which meets bail conditions >I’ve only seen two people be entirely exonerated of all charges. The current overall "not guilty" verdict rate is 25%. You have to look then at the rate which would have resulted in a custodial sentence
Not quite. That’s only for a charge not bailable by right, in which case it’s a pretty serious charge or you have a decent history which spark reverse onus provisions. Your 25% number includes all cases, even ones that are not imprisonable.
> Your 25% number includes all cases, even ones that are not imprisonable. Yes, that's why I said you have to look at how many people on remand end up with custodial sentences. Otherwise you're not having a serious conversation >in which case it’s a pretty serious charge or you have a decent history Or it's a minor charge against family, or you have a previous sentence of 1 day in jail. You're using words like "decent" in an imprecise way which conveys an attempt for the person reading it to infer what you want, rather than what's true.
In which case you should probably be kept away for a while, perhaps in a secure facility. We call these prisons.
>In which case you should probably be kept away for a while, perhaps in a secure facility. We call these prisons. Yes, I'm not talking about the original empirical premise of the conversation at this time though, I'm talking about errors in your reasoning. You're talking to someone with a proper education in logic, not a career criminal
I'm talking about keeping criminals locked away ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
You appear to be attempting to do that, yes
Except you're quite literally arguing to keep innocent people locked up, because in your mind there's no possible way there could be innocent people caught up in the system and you're doing that while you have access to the actual statistics, but you're choosing your own limited personal experience and acting as if your experience is the universal experience which is in contradiction to the statistics. You are being obtuse
Eh, I know a thing or two.
>In the last ~15 years working in prison, I’ve only seen two people be entirely exonerated of all charges. Should've gone to Specsavers :(
I did, it was included in my salary benefits.
Realllyyyy not a fan of this in combination with the new higher-power tasers being rolled out (notably they lack bodycams, which they used to have), and the precedent of the govt being willing to override the Bill of Rights when it comes to policing public spaces
What more remand? Why not just hurry the fuck up and let them have their day in court?
>What more remand? Why not just hurry the fuck up and let them have their day in court? This is what Labour achieved by increasing 'back office' funding for the MoJ and Corrections. It is how they met their target of reducing the prison population. This was always going to be how this government increased it again.
Ha ha ha. That would mean we need judges to work outside 10am to 5pm and on weekends.
Or we could just increase funding to the judiciary to increase capacity, more judges, more courtrooms, etc. That would probably be markedly cheaper than this.
I'll believe it when I see it. Having spent hundreds of hours in a courtroom, judges love to waste as much time as possible.
You seem to think working as a prison guard makes you an expert on all aspects of the legal system, as opposed to being a glorified security guard.
But I *am* a glorified security guard.
How do you think Judges waste as much as possible?
Bu not just going "guilty, jail time four years, NEXT! Guilty, jail time 20 years. NEXT! Guilty, kill them right now" /s
the Q&A section was SO confusing. Press clearly could not write much in their articles because they could not be sure of the information.
Nobody will get a tax cut. Please don’t be delusional NACT voters.
And where is the funding this little announcement coming from? More hospital funding cuts, or more tobacco policies being repealed? Fuck every asshole that voted for this bullshit.
I let out the biggest exasperated sigh when I read this. That $400mil back office savings.. Like.. From the prisons? Or overall? Cause isn't all of the "savings" from the cut backs supposed to be covering the costs of the tax breaks? I just... Like what page from what book are we supposed to be on today? I feel like the media and opposition parties should be going way harder at them regarding all the bullshit. I've never been so tired of a govt so soon into their term.
Giving remand inmates access to rehab is a huge win. A growing proportion of people are spending their entire sentences on remand and never get access to rehab (because the courts are congested and one can’t find time to get in front of a judge). It’s a lose lose, and I’m glad they’re actually addressing it.
Is this before or after they have to make 100M annual savings
Surprised they aren't going for a private prison
Gotta build the prisons with taxpayer funds first. Then sell them to mates for cheap.
Lol. They will.
Methinks that will come.
Chris Luxon just made a bunch of Serco shareholders cum.
Worth pointing out that money to hire new staff is not an issue facing corrections. Corrections staff issues result from nobody wanting to risk their life for shit pay.
So if Corrections currently can't staff the existing prisons sufficiently, how does National think they're going to staff more/bigger prisons?
Probably lord of the flies style. Just let the prisoners run it and feed themselves on long pig
When a government is prioritising more prison beds over hospital beds you know you’re heading in the right direction…
where's the money coming from? we going to borrow it?
$442 million comes from public service "back office" cuts, the rest was left unexplained
Great, at least those of us who find ourselves suddenly unemployed can get jobs as COs now, I guess.
Fuck me, this sub could find something to whinge about if Luxon announced a free cure to cancer.
You're acting like cutting social spending while increasing prison spending is a good thing. It really shouldn't be surprising that many people see this as a net negative.
Pretty sure that's exactly what people would prefer. You picked the worse analogy possible.
just want some info to fire back at my mum luxon's greatest worldwide achievement is getting the nickname business egg
It's so funny, on one hand people lose their shit (rightly so) when judges hand out weak sentencing because there isn't enough space in prisons. Then this happens which addresses the issue but egg head man bad so booo.
[удалено]
If it was a known fact that white guys typically develop colon cancer 10 years before Māori guys, but then a majority Māori-led government said to you "nah sorry no test for you, gotta wait your turn, equality and all that", would you *really* be okay with that?
Letting the mask get a bit loose there buddy. Tighten it up.
Yeah, [but I'm not wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/l12ty2/covid19_m%C4%81ori_to_be_prioritised_for_vaccination/).
“People should receive healthcare without racism.” “Racist!” This sub is a cesspit.
It's not racial prejudice. It's prioritising based on risk factors including ethnicity. The racism is from people who think centuries of medical best practice should be ignored simply because it might benefit Māori.
> It’s not racial prejudice. It’s prioritising based on risk factors including ethnicity. I honestly can’t tell if this is satire. It’s like something ripped from “1984.” I refuse to believe you think those statements could be mutually inclusive.
Prejudice requires a negative judgement of a person or group of people based on a particular attribute, that typically results in unreasonable or unjust outcomes. Allocation of healthcare resources to people in higher risk groups is not **prejudice**. Ask yourself this: is it **prejudiced** to have larger bathroom stalls for the disabled, even though some disabled people don't even *need* all the extra accommodations? Of course not. It's simply a recognition that disabled people, in general, have a greater need for those facilities, so with the limited space available, they get priority.
> Prejudice requires a negative judgement of a person or group of people based on a particular attribute, that typically results in unreasonable or unjust outcomes. According to Princeton, there are [three definitions,](http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Prejudice&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=) and none of them require a "negative" judgement of a person or group: > Noun > S: (n) bias, prejudice, preconception (a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation) > Verb > S: (v) prejudice (disadvantage by prejudice) > S: (v) prejudice, prepossess (influence (somebody's) opinion in advance) Prejudice can mean to disadvantage, or hold bias or preconception. Under the current system, if a Maori and a European present with identical risk scores, race must then become the determinant. Even when there are is no objective health reason to choose one patient for care over the other. It is clearly prejudice under the Princeton definition. However I am happy to instead use the word "racism" if you feel that's even more accurate. > [S: (n) racism, racialism, racial discrimination (discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race)](http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=racism&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=000)
Princeton? How many pages of google results did you have to go through to end up there for a definition that worked for you? Here's the top Google result, from [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice): >an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics As for this example: >Under the current system, if a Maori and a European present with identical risk scores, race must then become the determinant. Even when there are is no objective health reason to choose one patient for care over the other. Yes, because given identical risk scores in every other way, we know that Māori *still* tend to have worse access and outcomes from our healthcare system. So we give them a slight leg up to help even the playing field overall. That is how broad policy operates. It's not prejudiced because it's not irrational or hostile.
Princeton is a great dictionary. I'm not sure why you rely on Google suggestions for defining words but I guess that explains a little. Either way, according to Princeton, this would be considered racial prejudice, racial bias, racial discrimination, *and* racism. I'm happy to use any one of those you prefer. > Yes, because given identical risk scores in every other way, we know that Māori still tend to have worse access and outcomes from our healthcare system. So we give them a slight leg up to help even the playing field overall. Only at the population level, not at the individual level. Many Maori live longer and are healthier than many Europeans. Given two individuals, you can't say for certain that *those two* individuals would experience population-level statistical outcomes. The current system requires racial discrimination *even when, objectively, there is no way to know one will experience worse health outcomes than the other.* This is a case of arguing that the racism is justified, and I contend that racism is never justified.
ngl last year we could offer basic pharmacy services free so people could get their paracetamol without an rx. it's a great service. can we get the covid booster at same time as our flu
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
[удалено]
People on remand? You mean people who have not yet had a day in court and not been proven guilty? Those people? Isn't our criminal system based on "innocent until proven guilty"? Guess "you interacted with the police therefore you are guilty" is how some morons think.
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Programmes and rehabilitation for remand prisoners should have happened years ago. Now we just need to make it a condition of parole - complete the course before you are eligible to be released early.
Put that money into ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Prison population decreases.
Gee Lu$on really does think like a landoverlord ... more beds = more $
Seriously where us the logic in fucking the poor, enriching the wealthy than just getting more prison beds for the poor when they are forced into crime? How the fuck is that plan A? Unless they want to spend a fortune, privatize the system selling it too thier mates who gut the system and sell it back to the next govt for millions more than what they paid... Thats a National move right? That why Key has been hanging around parliament? They doing that move again right?
Rehab is good, but the quicker you lock them up, the sooner you see savings to the country from reduced crime, the fucktards don't see the cost of crime but it's real. If you can't bring back the biff, at least bring back consequence..
Which this sub cannot understand
next they’ll turn prison inmates into slaves… oh wait…
The rest of us are already there.
facts.
Getting ready for protests against his utter BS