ACT and crime

I've blogged before about how I believe that "three strikes" as a concept is a good idea, but not in the blunt way it has been proposed, rather by granting to REAL crimes, points so that recidivism is reflected in sentencing. For example, two murders should probably see someone in preventive detention, like three rapes. That concept has merit. My chief concern was extending it to victimless crimes.

However, when ACT MP David Garrett, who we have been reminded drunkenly linked homosexuals and pedophiles on TV, dismisses the Bill of Rights Act, you have to really wonder why the hell the man is in a so-called liberal party. Lindsay Mitchell expresses reservations about Garrett's comments, quite rightly. Now I'm willing to have a debate about three strikes being compliant with the Bill of Rights Act, but the latest dirty deal about gang insignia is sickening.

Blair Mulholland calls it "Nazi" and a dirty deal
Lindsay Mitchell says "I understand that being in government comes at a price. But it's just getting too expensive for this supporter."
Tumeke covers it well too.

David Garrett cheering on the bill that would "also ban intimidating tattoos" should scare the bejesus out of Rodney Hide. This guy should go. He is a NZ First MP in drag.

His maiden speech was about a justice revolution, and indeed there was little I could disagree with. However, he has shown himself to have little regard for individual freedom, and an intolerance of people who are "different" to him, but otherwise harmless.

If ACT proceeds to vote for a bill to ban clothing and tattoos it deserves to be utterly eviscerated internally by its members. The efforts Rodney Hide has made since 2005 to move ACT away from the conservative elements in the party and be more liberal will have been smashed up in one move.

It is right to be tough on real crime, and reoffending. It is right to take ideas LIKE three strikes, and as David Farrar wrote, the Broken Windows methodology. I'd also like, if not a repeal, a significant shift in Police efforts away from victimless crimes to genuine crimes, everything from vandalism and car conversion to violence.

It IS after all the core role of the state to discuss and implement policies that best address protecting citizens from criminals. However, in parallel is ensuring individual liberties of the innocent are not curtailed.

Sadly, not only does David Garrett not get it, but ACT seems to have sold out in the process. It is without any glee that I can say thankfully I didn't vote ACT.

An amendment for three strikes

Here's a thought.

Besides amending three strikes and you're out to being weighted to different crimes, how about excluding it when any crime does not have a specified victim?

That means:
- Consumption of drugs;
- Censorship violations that didn't involve recordings of people being victims;
- All traffic offences when no harm was caused, or likely threat;
- Blasphemy;
- Sex crimes that don't include force or minors;

Or how about simply saying it applies whenever force or fraud is applied to people's bodies or property?

Go on ACT - be the liberal party.

Three strikes?

ACT's policy of "three strikes and you're out" has instant appeal to many, as it sounds like it can keep criminals away for good. The Greens call it lynching, but then the response is mainly in reaction to the manslaughter of Pihema Cameron.

So let's stand back a bit.

What is the criminal justice system meant to do? Essentially three things:
- Change the status of an offender to someone who "wont do it again";
- Punish the offender (to be a deterrent);
- Protect society from future offending.

In that sense, the first conviction should be focused on rehabilitation. It would be refreshing to see a focus on that, a focus on the core chance to turn someone around. In that sense, the biggest disaster of the criminal justice system is to put first time offenders in prisons with recividists - where rehabilitation is tempered with learning how to be a real crim. Putting all first time criminals of a certain degree into a similar facility may address this. A second chance at rehabilitation may also be warranted, but the more frequent a re-offender the more the emphasis has to go from rehab to punishment to protection.

The degree of punishment is always with any custodial offence, but the more severe the crime the greater the punishment. Murder must always have the longest sentence for punishment, as it is the crime that deserves the greatest deterrence. However, grievous violent and sexual offences come next. Repeat offenders should get ever more stringent sentences.

Finally, it is clear that the recividist offender who has shown no interest in rehab should be locked away for extensive periods to protect society. There should be no question that someone who murders twice should never be set free. A repeat sex offender should almost certainly be kept from freedom for a substantial part of his life.

So, in the sense that "three strikes and your out" can allow the shift from rehabilitation for the first strike to preventive detention in the last, I support it. However it should not be a blunt tool. Three vandalism offences is not the same as three murders.

So I propose a "points" system. Such a system would see a convict "earning points" for offences. These would be base points for the crime itself, with additional points for the seriousness of the event. Bear in mind that being "out" should means being in prison for at least half of the remaining years of your life, with an option for renewal if it is assessed that the person concerned remains a threat.

You see, for murder it should be two strikes. For vandalism it may be fifty. For serious violent or sexual offences it could be three strikes, for lesser offences against the person four strikes. For theft it could be ten. Whatever it could be, you get the point. Graduated offences depending entirely on the basic victim impact, increased if the commission was particularly sadistic, calculated and repulsive. What? Ten strikes for burglaries? Well yes. It is better than today, when you may get a couple of years, and then another couple of years, so prison becomes a risk of the offending. You see many criminals do a number of tricks. Theft, assault, fraud or others.

So a points system might just address this. The points may add increasing sentences when you get to say 50 points and 75 points as the criminal builds up to being locked away for good. After all, they then can't say they weren't warned.

Oh and yes I assume victimless crimes are not included, such as blasphemy, drugs laws and not conducting postal services without being registered. For locking someone away for good for being a drug addict is hardly the sign of a civilised society.

Tariana Turia sympathises with taggers

So Tariana Turia has, according to the NZ Herald, described taggers "as a misunderstood subculture of artists". Showing her complete lack of understanding of private property (unsurprising really). She also said it was "about resistance". What? Against the government she is a part of? She continues saying it "is about alternative points of view. Some members of our community see it as a crime; others see it as an expression of identity". OK so everything is ok. An alternative point of view would be to vandalise a marae, there is an expression of identity. Damned post-modernist "anything is ok" nonsense.

Brian "don't believe in user pays" Rudman is upset at some of the reactions to the death of Pihema Cameron at the hands of Bruce Emery. He implies the sentence for Emery is too short, because Bailey Kurariki got more - except Kurariki's crime was premeditated. Michael Choy did nothing wrong. Cameron did, and Emery lost it in response.

Emery deserves to be punished. His response was disproportionate. Four years in prison is a heavy price to pay for someone otherwise unknown to the law. It sends a strong signal to others that retaliation for vandalism is not injuries that kill.

However, when Rudman says "Tourists talk about the friendliness of the New Zealanders they meet. But just below the surface there simmers a nasty uncharitable streak that should fill us all with a deep uneasiness. Perhaps it's always lurked there, and it's taken the anonymity of the internet to provide a conduit for it to ooze out. Whatever, it's much more scary to me than the odd tagger abroad at night." He is dead wrong.

The reaction of so many cheering on the unfortunate death of Cameron is over the top, but does not reflect a nasty uncharitable streak. Rather it is the experience of thousands of people sick of spending their time and money to pay for the likes of petty criminals and thugs who couldn't care less what their actions do to others. It could be tagging, it could be smashing fences, it could be car conversion, burglary, smashing windows or intimidating behaviour against yourself or your kids. It's the anti-social behaviour of an underclass that are seen to get relatively light sentences, and who unjustly get taxpayer funded welfare, housing, healthcare and other assistance, without any thanks. In other words, people who if it weren't for the hard work, enterprise and honesty of the average New Zealander, would have to work or die homeless, starving and sick.

Those who carry the underclass want to pay less tax, want to spend less time cleaning up the damage caused, paying higher insurance premiums and fearing those for whom the self sufficient are targets to abuse. Politicians who fail to hear this message fail to understand the deep anger, that Cameron should not have carried in such a terminal way, but what he represented - the underclass which thinks "fuck you" to those who make an honest living.

Tapu Misa in the NZ Herald sympathises with Cameron's family too. She is concerned Emery showed little emotion. Hardly surprising the man who is in shock that he went too far, that his life with his family and career are ruined, and he faces years incarcerated. Why SHOULD Pihema Cameron's life mean anything to Emery? It shouldn't mean anymore than any other anonymous criminal. We'll never really know what words were said between them, or how the boy acted with Emery, but we know Emery is paying for his mistake.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust is backing Emery. Misa claims it is racial saying "perhaps this illustrates the difference it makes when the person involved is someone McVicar can more easily empathise with - a white, middle-aged middle-class businessman". Maybe it is more a matter of a man who did nothing wrong overreacting to what was being done to his property? Certainly he shouldn't be set free - it is entirely inappropriate to allow vigilante justice when people in such circumstances could get it wrong.

However, the Standard thinks it is institutional racism, as does the Hand Mirror. Steve Pierson at the Standard thinks Bailey Kurariki was just an accomplice to a robbery "that went wrong", and says he is less culpable than Emery.

Let's be clear. In one case:
- Boy vandalises, is caught by the victim, victim chases him and stabs him, resulting in his death.

In another case.
- Boy acts as accomplice to a premeditated robbery, those participating beat the victim to death, boy shows no remorse.

They are not the same. However these are the debates that are needed about the role of the state and what the criminal justice system should do. The right to self defence is about exercising a proportionate response in the circumstances as you see them. Killing a tagger is not a proportionate response, but killing a tagger is not the same as a premeditated murder of an unprovoked victim.

National's agenda after the election

Stuff reports that after tax cuts and an increase in welfare:

"He also intends introducing at least seven big bills dealing with violent offenders, criminal gangs and youth crime, DNA testing for every person arrested for an imprisonable offence and increased police powers to protect domestic violence victims."

Yes, you read it. DNA testing for every person arrested for an imprisonable offence, whether guilty or not.

ACT's website has no recent press release on this, but it does have them from 2004 and 2002. Then ACT supported having a DNA database for all convicted criminals, any taken from suspects who are cleared should be destroyed.

I'd like to know what ACT policy is now. I know Libertarianz would categorically reject a database of DNA from people who are not convicted who did not consent to it.

You're your own sex offender

The United States sadly has far too many stories like this. Sadly too many on the conservative right is only too quick to resist any reforms to address it.

Cases of child sexual abuse are always cause for concern, when children are violated and harmed it rightfully causes outrage. The law is based on a simple precept, that those under the age of consent only engage in illegal sexual behaviour because they have been forced or persuaded by some perverted adult. It is, of course, a nonsense. The law draws a line for certainty and to protect (and deter) against such activity, but it doesn't draw a line between sexual innocence and precocity.

This is why law and order conservatives ought to think carefully before they embark on mandatory sentences, mandatory sex offenders' registers and the like.

A New Jersey girl of 15 has been arrested for taking nude photos of herself and distributing them. You see she has a cellphone with a camera, as do many (if not most) her age, and so she snapped away and forwarded them on to some of her peers. Incredibly, she has spent a weekend in jail and is charged with producing child pornography (illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material), a second-degree felony, and possession of criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony. She could face being a registered sex offender and being required to register her address for 20 years, and being screened for a whole host of employment.

She is being treated no differently than if a man twice her age had done it. Why? Well combine the understandable visceral outrage about sex offences against minors, a complete wilful blindness about the sexuality of minors (who have always shown off and experimented in fairly harmless and embarrassing ways) and zero tolerance for crime, and these things slip in.

Worse "the investigation into the incident remains open, including exploring whether charges will be filed against the minors who received the photos." Yes, you didn't even ask for it and you're a criminal!

Yes, there are problems when children are violated, yes it needs to be deterred, but this?

and it isn't just because it is in Licking Valley - I kid you not.

Destructive scum should be denied welfare

The Dominion Post reports on the sort of people who will live off the back of others, who gain great pleasure in destroying what others produce - they aren't a big focus of the criminal justice system - and the welfare system will happily pay them to live, and breed.

It's a very simple policy to stop paying criminals to live and breed. Those convicted of such an offence should be denied any claim on the welfare state, and required to pay full compensation for the damage.

While the compulsory welfare state remains, why should those who wantonly destroy what others create, get the proceeds of it all?

What a leap forward it would be if National just promised to deny welfare benefits to those convicted of property offences, for at least ten years.

What's a bet Sue Bradford would say those who did this are "disadvantaged" (as if the intellectually disabled users of this IHC workshop are not), and deserve more of your money to keep them from being so destructive.

Nudity legal all over Wellington?

The Hive notes the story that an old bylaw, that is apparently unenforceable, banning nudity for over 8 yos on the beach has been repealed by Wellington City Council. This follows the same action by Kapiti Coast District Council. I assume Lucyna at NZ Conservative wont say its because Kerry Prendergast is a heterosexual National Party member. Mind you, the old bylaw was never enforced - but the publicity in the media means that people now know they can't be arrested for mere nudity - the question is whether it is indecent exposure.

However, to be serious I don't doubt that conservatives will fear this will result in a bout of flashing, perverted showing off and the like. Certainly people ought to not fear other people at the beach, their children especially shouldn't fear others. It shouldn't be a problem, because such aggressive behaviour will remain summary offences. Most Wellingtonians living on the Miramar Peninsula know only too well that Breaker Bay is an unofficial nudist beach. What will be legal is simply going into the water naked, or sunbathing naked, essentially minding your own business. Nudity is not, per se, sexual. Indeed in some contexts it is abundantly beautiful, it leads one to look at it because it is so - it is the difference between those who see nudity and think "porn" (which admittedly the majority of teenage boys probably think), and those who see it and appreciate it for how the human form can be quite exquisite.

Now having said that I doubt if 90% of those who may be nude on a beach in New Zealand would fit that mould for me - and I expect they also aren't being nude to be admired, just to be comfortable, and rather "laissez faire".

The Dominion Post reports that the legal position is more than just beaches, but any public place in Wellington City. Nudity in a park, nudity walking down Lambton Quay. Quelle Horreur!

Now Section 27 of the Summary Offences Act says that indecent exposure is when someone "intentionally and obscenely exposes any part of his or her genitals".

Simply lying on your back in the Botanical Gardens might not be the case, but certainly showing off and drawing attention to your genitals would. Also interestingly, it means breasts are allowed - regardless - they are not genitals.

However regardless of what you think - this is the tragedy of the commons. As long as peaceful people do not initiate force (or threaten it) against each other, the law should not be concerned. Private property rights mean you can control your land, your park, your mall, your shop - but that is where it ends. The solution to concerns about nudity in public is private property rights. The solution to those who think nudity is an opportunity to threaten is the existing criminal law.

Showing off in Kapiti

Yep Kapiti Coast District Council looks set to allow nudity on the beach from Paekakariki to Otaki.

Of course it will stir up hysteria from the "liberal" left, thinking kiddies will all be flashed at, and saying it is offensive to the one-brained collective called "women", and the religious will also be upset, as individuals who find the human body an object of shame.

It will be an interesting experiment. Maybe it will all mean little difference at all, maybe those who do act in a threatening manner will be dealt with by the Police. Maybe it will be a little like parts of continental Europe where bare breasts bums and other bits are unimportant.

or maybe the bogun trash in Kapiti will ruin it, along with the handful of pervs who live there.

As the Hive says, should make for interesting times.

UPDATE: Family First NZ is slamming the move, wanting to criminalise nudity on the beaches. Now it is fair enough to want to not look at naked bodies, but I don't want to see men's fat bellies, I don't want to see combovers, I don't want to smell people with BO. I find that all offensive, I find men's penises just funny looking, and women naked are either not worth looking at or rather nice. Again, interesting to notice its priority with the naked body rather than violence.

Possibly guilty till proven innocent

Allegations of abuse of children by adults whose job involves interactions with children are serious - few would question this. They give good reason to investigate, and if there is sufficient evidence, take disciplinary action in terms of employment at the very least, and if necessary lay a complaint with the Police.

However, the flipside of child abuse is the damage caused to those accused of child abuse. Accusations are often difficult to conclusively disprove and paint a dark aura around a person, "perhaps he did it", "wonder if there are others", people don't trust their children around the accused. The abuse of an adult of the physical, emotional and intellectual power over a child makes most people shiver.

So the basic maxim of the English Common Law criminal burden of proof is that you are innocent till proven guilty. It being better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent be condemned. Sadly this fundamental principle is now being somewhat eroded in the UK.

You see, Ian Huntley, the murderer of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, had been a suspect in several sex offences. In one case he had been charged, but there had been insufficient evidence for a conviction. So he retained his job as a school caretaker. He had been, until his conviction of the killing of those two girls, innocent till proven guilty. Information about these allegations had not been retained.

So now according to the Daily Telegraph (no link), local authorities need to set up databases to contain ALL allegations of child abuse of those working with children, until either the person retires or the individual proves innocence. Suspicious till proven innocent.

The claims can be made anonymously, but there need not be a charge, let alone conviction.

Furthermore, the cases will all have to be investigated by local authority officers - yes that bastion of competence, and must find a claim is either "substantiated", "unsubstantiated", "unfounded" or "malicious". The latter two can only be found if there is evidence disproving the allegation. So the odds are that many cases will reside in the "unsubstantiated" category - neither guilty, nor innocent.

Of course this hardly helps the innocent. The innocent have a file suggesting there is an unsubstantiated claim, which naturally puts that innocent person at a disadvantage compared to one without a claim. Nice that. So you are definitely not presumed innocent.

So who wants to make a false allegation? Think of the incentives. That estranged wife or girlfriend, or the disgruntled student, can make an allegation knowing it will make the accused's life hell, and never be accountable for it - never having to appear in court to be cross examined.

Instead local government investigates allegations and unless you can prove your innocence, they remain on a file, able to be searched by employers, for the rest of your life. It appears that the UK public policy response to a horrendous crime is to erode the rights of the innocent - because after all, the safest country is the one under constant surveillance.

So it continues, until the next person not on any database murders some kids, and another way of monitoring the innocent will be found - and none of the political parties gives a damn.

Teachers can use force to protect other kids

According to the Dominion Post, Police Inspector Chris Graveson says teachers are too cautious about using force to protect children in classrooms even though they are entitled to do so.

Apparently the issue is adolescents, some of whom are being sexually aggressive and violent towards other kids. Teachers, understandably terrified of being accused of being abusers themselves, fear touching kids even to defend others. It's dead wrong.

Inspector Graveson has made it clear that teachers should intervene, which is common sense of course. He points out that if some children are restrained, there is a risk they may bruise, particularly if they remain violent. The choice is simple though - a teacher is morally obliged to protect children from their peers if violence is witnessed.

Of course with a headline "Teachers can use force on kids", the "journalist" Lane Nichols is being deliberately provocative. It is not initiating force, it is using force to defend one child from another.

Teachers, particularly male ones, have been inflicted with a feminist led hysteria against any physical contect between themselves and their pupils, on the implication that it "could" be sexual and abusive. Few deny the seriousness of teachers sexually abusing their pupils, but teachers are well aware of the risks of any such allegations. Children are long taught to report "bad touching". However it has paralysed teachers providing comfort to upset children. I recall being hugged and held by a teacher when I was 10 because I was upset as my grandfather had died. I am grateful for that, I was crying and needed that comfort - it is natural, and this is what has been lost, to a feminist hysteria that has literally thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Teachers must do the same to protect other pupils.

Of course the reaction of the eminently useless Office of the Children's Commissioner was to say "would be very surprised if it was official police policy to encourage teachers to use a level of force that would leave bruises on primary school children".

That is NOT what it was said. It is NOT encouraged, but accepted that it may be necessary if a child is resisting restraint and it is to protect other adults and children.

You see children are not always innocent.

8 years for fraud, 6 years for rape

Now I'm not privy to all the details of both cases, but if you wanted examples of how the criminal justice systems looks unfair to your average punter then check these two cases out:

- A welfare benefit fraudster is getting 8 years in prison. According to Stuff he defrauded taxpayers of NZ$3.48 million over 3 years, using 123 separate identities (yes he was determined)! An incredible amount. His flat alone contained NZ$868,000 in cash and NZ$355,000 in gold ingots, which of course is now state property (don't expect your share back though). Wayne Thomas Patterson appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court. 8 years is a hefty sentence, but much of that is deterrent.

- The Waikato Times reports that Joshua Ruatekaumatahi Baker has been sentenced 6 years in prison for repeatedly raping a girl under 16. It was a four to five hour ordeal inflicted upon the victim. He warned her to tell no one, returned two weeks later to her bedroom undoubtedly to repeat his crime when she "alerted family members". We wont know if this lowlife is a family member, but we do know this girl is traumatised and it will last longer than 6 years. We also know that Baker lacked remorse, although he wrote a letter of remorse one wonders if this was following legal advice.

6 years for rape, with an individual who is probably going to pose a threat again. 8 years for benefit fraud. Should the sentences be reversed? Should the rapist be getting the 14 years maximum for sex with someone underage? What happens to both men when they are released?

My view is that criminals should have a points system. The crime you commit earns you "points" which when they go beyond 100 puts you in long term preventative detention. Property offences would earn no more than 20, violent offences could earn up to 100. The lesson would be simple. Criminal justice gives everyone one chance to rehabilitate, if there is genuine remorse and perhaps undiagosed mental illness. Depending on the severity of the crime there may be more chances or no more.

However first and foremost, sentencing should be relative according to the crime and impact on the victim. The taxpayer is less hurt by the thieving actions of a fraudster than a girl is by a rapist.

Sorry Rodney?

Blair Mulholland reports that Rodney Hide at a recent ACT regional conference stated that "he supported making it illegal to insult cops"

Blair understandably is outraged - the Police SHOULD be accountable when people are upset due to negligence, recklessness or being bloody minded bullies.

So is this true Rodney? Does the liberal party want to make it a crime to tell a cop he's being useless? Can other ACTivists enlighten, enquire, confirm or deny? Just when I was starting to give ACT the benefit of the doubt.

I'd have no difficulties being locked up

Nobody does of course, which makes it unusual that Lesley Caudwell does, which is why after being drunk and killing another woman while driving, she is only getting 12 months home detention and losing her driving licence for four years, according to the NZ Herald.

Yes she plead guilty and yes she is looking after her cancer stricken mother, though another woman is now dead - and Lesley Caudwell appears to be an alcoholic from the story. She was driving at 100 km/h when she went through an urban intersection killing 36-year-old Tara Groenestein.

So that's nice, Lesley Caudwell fears prison, has panic attacks and bipolar disorder. She should at least have a life ban from driving, but no she has a chance, and Tara Groenestein doesn't. She can be rehabilitated, and go do it again, and Tara wont. Lesley gets a year at home, and four years getting driven around by others or catching the bus - life's hard when you recklessly take someone else's life isn't it?

The state discovers the obvious

Lindsay Mitchell blogs on a Ministry of Social Development report that denies that colonisation is responsible for domestic violence among Maori families.

The truth is more a matter of inter-generational violence (children grow up being abused or seeing abuse, so are psychologically normalised to tolerate or use violence) and economic stress increasing the propensity for violence to be unleashed.

However, neither is an excuse. It is time for the welfare state to be tough against those who commit violent offences. It is time for those convicted of serious violent and sexual offences to be denied welfare, to be denied custody of children and to not be allowed to live in the same home as children under the age of 16. Tough? Yes. How else are we to stop vile scum who beat up their partners and kids from perpetuating this disgusting cycle of wasting lives? We can't save most of those who perpetuate it - but we can stop paying for them, and we can stop them from living in the homes of children.

Meanwhile, the collectivists who pine for the golden age of pre-colonial, pre-written language, stoneage civilisation can continue to do so, and contemplate whether their myth of a violence free blessed existence can have as much credibility as the claims that European society was the same.

The state the Police want

Will de Cleene blogs on the Police Association's wishlist for government.

It's a list that should pretty much frighten anyone who believes in personal freedom.

Unsurprisingly, the Nats are cheering them on, but then some supporting the Nats think freedom means tax cuts.

Here are some of the points:

The cops want ASBOs (Anti Social Behaviour Orders), which of course exist in the UK and have for some become a badge of honour. Essentially it means being charged, convicted and sentenced without going to court for nuisance, vandalism, harassment and other actual offences. It's a good way to simply bypass the court system, and anyone who has spent a good deal of time in the UK will notice how little difference it really has made.

The cops also want compulsory DNA tests for all SUSPECTS, so even if you are not guilty, then it goes on a database. Of course if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, because after all, the state and the Police would never abuse this information would they? No. Big brother's warm embrace comforts us all. By the way the Nats like this idea.

Then there is requiring phone companies to keep a 6 month archive of all text messages - because, after all, the Police might want to read them. Imagine if NZ Post could easily copy and keep every letter you ever send in the mail, or Telecom recorded every voice conversation, and then ever email. Yes, nothing to fear though if you have nothing to hide right?

Like Will, I think on the spot domestic protection orders may be useful, because that is about protecting victims - but the rest is largely a recipe for the police to do as they please regarding innocent people. The focus of criminal justice policy should be on enforcing laws as they stand, and using punishment and rehabilitation (depending on the offence) to reduce re-offending and protecting the public from guilty people. Quite simply, the Police shouldn't set criminal justice policy - they have a view of the public that means they should have unlimited powers to do their job, and that people are guilty till proven innocent. Understandable on the job, but it isn't the basis for a free society that values personal privacy.

Idiot Savant agrees and says "It would be nice if we could get a police minister who remembered occasionally that what is convenient for the police is not necessarily desirable to society as a whole, and that police powers need to be limited and the police kept under constant scrutiny so that the rest of us can go about our business in peace." Indeed!

ACT on law and order

Gonzo Freakpower (Will De Cleene) posts on his concern with the ACT law and order (or as they call it "Crime and punishment" policy) as it seems to approve of extensive surveillance. Specifically he mentions this comment:

"It is easy - if we have the right relationship with our traditional allies and they provide us with intelligence - to observe the movement of cars and individuals without the need for kicking in doors or planting bugs and GPS locators (although, clearly, the latter technologies have their role)."

and more. Which is somewhat disturbing. The trend towards surveillance of the innocent has been increasing in the UK and the US, and should stop in NZ. Sadly ACT doesn't get this.

However, I did think Heather Roy just touched upon something important when she said this is a political initiative:

"* Disruption to the gang's 'customer market'. Prostitution reform helped this. State run gambling helps this. Banning marijuana and party pills does not help, but provides them with customers."

Yes it implies some form of legalisation of marijuana and party pills. May not be full legalisation, but it might see some liberalisation that takes attention from peaceful adult use and focuses on children and harm minimisation.

So ACT, give up on surveillance and the big brother state - but think more about how to not use the criminal justice system to deal with how people run their own lives. One step back, one step forward?

David Cameron believes in something right!

"We talk about people being 'at risk of obesity' instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it's as if these things - obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction - are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.

"Of course, circumstances - where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make - have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make."

Yes! Amazing these words from the Conservative Leader David Cameron, according to the Daily Telegraph. Just when I think that the Tories are going to disappoint again, David Cameron actually makes a play for reason. Yes, by and large you ARE responsible for your lot. Yes, your own choices are actually what is important here. Revolutionary? Well the government didn't have much to say other than "He wants to hug a hoodie", true, but it shows something else - there is a bit of a philosophical underpinning to this man.

He continues:

"There is a danger of becoming quite literally a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them - including, often, their parents. If we are going to get any where near solving some of these problems, that has to stop."

Yes THIS is the moral nihilism that is at the heart of the decay of values, and the unwillingness of all too many to take responsibility for their actions and to not set boundaries. The simplest boundary is to respect the body of others. How hard is that? Well for too many teens with knives, it's clearly outside their (im)moral compass.

Now what this means in terms of policies is another thing. He went on about tax breaks for married couples, and that was about it. However for me, this is an important breakthrough. It is the confrontation of the idea that the mistakes people make are "society's fault". What is also notable is that David Cameron said this in Glasgow East - the latest constituency facing a by-election. Glasgow East is a textbook example of the abject failure of the welfare state, and it would be fair to say that Labour has taken it for granted and failed it miserably.

Glasgow East by-election or why socialism has failed

The Glasgow East by-election is occurring because its sitting MP, David Marshall, is standing down for health reasons. It shouldn't surprise, at 67 he is already outliving the average man in his constituency.

In the 2005 election he won with 60.7% of the vote. Yes he is one of those MPs with a strong true majority. The Scottish National Party (SNP) came a distant second with 17%, the Lib Dems third with 11.8% and the Conservative Party fourth with 6.9%. You get the picture, this is heartland Labour territory. Much of the media coverage is about whether Labour might lose, as the SNP is campaigning strong calling for nanny state to help food and fuel prices. Once addicted to nanny state, always addicted, although I hope the Tories might squeeze into third place (which happened, just, in 2001).

What's actually more telling are two sets of statistics. First, those about the constituency itself. This is a part of the UK that is not middle class, it is the absolute pits of despair - funded from the loving caring generous welfare state.

UK polling report describes the seat as follows:

"This seat contains some affluent suburban areas like Mount Vernon and Bailleston, but it is mostly made up of the post-war product of slum clearances, soul(l)ess tenements and terraces thrown up in the 1950s and 1960s into which the population of Glasgow’s substandard housing were decanted. The resulting estates, lacking employment and amen(i)ties were ravaged by unemployment, hard drugs, violence and gang culture." (sic)

It is poor white Scotland, with only 1.1% of the population not European. A quarter of the population under 18 and 20% over 60. Parts of the seat have a life expectancy for men of 62 - one of the lowest in the UK and akin to Bangladesh. Good ol' NHS doing wonders isn't it?

Only 7.6% of the population are graduates and just over 50% of adults have no school qualifications at all. Good ol' state monopoly education working then?

46% live in "social housing", about the same again in owner-occupied homes. 15.6% of homes have either no private bathroom or no central heating - in Glasgow!

Fraser Nelson of the Spectator explains further: "I once had the job of signing up the good people of Glasgow East to the electoral register — at the time, regarded as an invitation to pay poll tax. Gang graffiti scars the walls, police are virtually unseen. This no-go-zone status is new, and cost billions to achieve. Houses there are in good condition, money is being spent. But it has funded a hideous social experiment, showing what happens when the horizontal ties which bind those within communities to one another are replaced with vertical ties, binding individuals to the welfare state."

You see this is the dire world of welfare, drug and despair addicted Scotland "A boy born in Camlachie is expected to live to 64.5 — the same as in Uzbekistan. In Parkhead it is 62, the same as Bangladesh. Just outside its boundaries lies Dalmarnock where the figure is 58 — lower than Sudan, Cambodia or Ghana. The lowest is Carlton, where the figure of 54 is lower than even Gambia’s equivalent"

Nelson continues, pointing out the vile levels of dependency of those there and how irrelevant they are to Labour "It is invisible because the people in this Labour stronghold are of no use to politicians, who only do battle nowadays in marginal seats. When I last visited a pub there, to research an article, I was asked if I was a missionary — church groups are about the only people who bother with such places these days. Its horrors are hidden by statistical manipulation. Official unemployment is just 6.7 per cent. But add in such factors as those claiming incapacity benefit, and it quickly emerges that a scandalous 50 per cent of the working-age population are on out-of-work benefits."

However, you might think as a Labour heartland seat, this should be easy, this sort of seat is apparently what Labour is meant to be about.

Well no.

The people of Glasgow East have been rewarded by their loyalty with Labour by being ignored. Channel 4 reported that the party has as few as three dozen active members in the seat, and that it has never actually campaigned there in recent history on a door to door basis. After all, why would you campaign when those who vote do so as zombies, ticking the same formula as they are told time and time again that only Labour represents the working man, an irony given how the majority don't actually work. The Labour Party doesn't even have a database on the seat's demographics show where it's weakest and strongest. It has taken most of them for granted. With one part of the seat excepted, poor, destitute, welfare ridden, they'll vote Labour - nobody else will bother campaigning in this seriously dire part of Glasgow.

Of course as David Cameron says, the truth is that those in this electorate have, to some extent, given up. Although you do wonder how the inquisitive bright kid in this place fairs, when he risks being beaten up for being "smart", hounded at a school where intelligence makes you a social pariah, where one parent cynically thinks he's getting "too big for his boots", and with temptations towards drugs and other mindless decadence all around. They all vote for the status quo, and get it of course - and get it from a party only too glad that it gets a guaranteed House of Commons vote so it can have power, to look after the floating voter.

You see that's where, hopefully, all that will be proven wrong. This heartland Labour seat speaks volumes about the arrogance of many on the left for those they purport to give a damn about. Labour ignores them, doesn't even have enough local members who LIKE Labour, and the other parties completely ignore them too - until now. What has Labour done for Glasgow East? Kept the benefits flowing, kept the state monopoly schools open, refurbished some housing and left law and order to the gangs.

So the failure of socialist is apparent - starkly apparent. The formula is not more money for state monopolies and welfare. Yet this seat may offer a chance for the taste of change.

I'll leave the end to Fraser Nelson from the Spectator again:

"Labour, forced for the first time to focus attention on one of its ‘safe’ welfare ghettoes, may find it has nothing to say. Is it to promise more of the same? Or blame the wicked Conservatives? It is one thing for Labour to lose the leafy suburbs which Mr Blair won over in 1997. But to be rejected in a supposed heartland like Glasgow East would plunge the party into existential crisis, and rightly so. Because after all those years in power, and all those billions spent, its main legacy has been, quite simply, the most expensive poverty in the world."

Drug addict? go on a benefit and don't get treatment

One of the arguments given for the welfare state is how caring and compassionate it is, and how mean, greedy and nasty are the people who actually would rather have their own money back, and then choose to spend it as they see fit, including charity or other acts of genuine benevolence.

The left would argue that the state is best trusted to care for those in need, and those who want tax cuts are less compassionate and moral that they.

So you may ask yourself why, according to the Dominion Post, 5270 drug and alcohol addicts can be on sickness and invalids benefits, defined as those who identify their addiction as the reason they cannot work - AND that none of them are required to engage in any form of treatment as a condition of receiving your money.

Imagine a single charity giving out money to addicts and saying "go on, come back for more every fortnight, and we don't care whether or not you go to treatment".

What is more alarming is the number has gone up so much in a short time "there are 2540 beneficiaries who have drug abuse listed as their primary reason for being unable to work - almost twice the 1297 listed in 2004."

Apparently "case managers could not force beneficiaries into treatment programmes". I would have thought if the government changed benefit eligibility so that if you refuse treatment you cease to get the benefit, it might be an effective way of incentivising them into treatment.

Work and Income deputy CE Patricia Reade has said though that "Many had other mental or physical health problems which prevented them from working, such as cirrhosis. Alcoholism in itself was not a reason to be off work." So presumably those problems should be listed shouldn't they, not alcoholism. Alcoholism if listed shouldn't be a grounds for the benefit if that is the case.

So what to do?

Now some on the conservative right may say that everyone getting the benefit who is a drug abuser should be incarcerated. That, after all, is what the war on drugs is about isn't it? It makes it a crime to ingest banned substances, so why should people get money for being an addict, and why shouldn't those receiving those benefits get a knock on the door from the cops with search warrants with pending charges? (Then for good measure, being tough on crime and all, if they find nothing, there is benefit fraud from NOT being a drug user!).

The better solution is that, while accepting these benefits exist for now, the system should use a carrot and stick approach to treatment. Addicts who are unable to work because of their addiction should only receive the benefit whilst they undertake treatment (and have been certified as having attended). Similarly, they should not receive the benefit whilst they use. That means testing. Whilst some of those receiving the benefits are no doubt trying on the system, others will be sad cases - feeling trapped and alone, and unsure what to do. Pulling the money away unless they undertake treatment is the only kind thing that can be done in those circumstances. You'll find the ones who are trying on the system will drop out, and maybe those who are in genuine need drop out after weeks and months of help (helping their families too).

You see it's how private welfare would ultimately work.

It is kinder than the mad Green idea of throwing more money at beneficiaries, kinder than Labour's "here's the money now you could seek treatment, but if you don't just see your doctor every 13 weeks and if you're still an addict, we''ll keep paying you", and kinder than the "throw you in jail for being a (drug) addict" of the "tough on crime" brigade.