Monday, June 16, 2008

Topless bar owner says courts 'too soft' on crims

The topless bar in Manurewa that Colleen Brown wanted shut down has been robbed at gunpoint the second such incident in the area in the last two weeks. Luckily, this time no one was hurt or killed but it does add weight to the police call for armed response in some parts of the country. The sad fact of life in New Zealand is that it is more violent and dangerous than it was even ten years ago. People I speak to are fed up with the violence carried out by a few and want action. For starters we need more police on our streets. New Zealand is under resourced when compared to Australia, US, England and Scotland. If it means paying the police more so be it. The first priority of any government is the protection of its citizens and their property.

Not so long ago the Helen Clark made the comment that we live in a benign environment. Clearly she has never been to some of the places in our community that are anything but benign.

1 comment:

Kevin Owen said...

Stiffer laws, more jails do not deter crime

Stiffer laws, more jails do nothing to deter crime and can be seen to make things worse. More Crime, leads to more police which leads to more jails which cultivates more criminals, leading to more crime, more police more jails etc.

If we produce more criminals than we rehabilitate, we are on a downward spiral. If we turn that around and rehabilitate more criminals than we create, only then can the tide of rising crime and violence turn. The figures speak for themselves. The 85 percent re-offending rate makes a mockery of current psychiatric-oriented rehabilitation methods, demonstrating that, for all intents and purposes, there is in fact no such thing as criminal rehabilitation practised by these so called experts.

We continue to blame the criminal for the rise in crime and violence. How can they rehabilitate themselves, when the so call experts [psychiatrists, psychologists, criminologists and sociologists etc] who the tax payer has forked out a fortune to - and most criminals have visited endlessly to get some help – are only able to produce an 85% re-offending rate. With statistics like that, one might think that they had a hidden agenda to produce more criminals and crime.

If you put criminals in charge of crime, one would expect more crime. Are the above really experts? Experts get results, which is something they have failed to do. Many are unable to help themselves let alone others (I refer to the higher than normal suicide rate among those professionals).

If a factory produced a product that had an 85% defect rate, it would be closed down. What does our government do? It throws more money at this dead horse. It didn't work in the first place and has shown not to work now. We have been conditioned to accept a failure rate [85%] that couldn't go any higher if we worked at increasing it!

Real rehabilitation seems to be a thing of the past in the schools of crime [prisons]. Is it because there is no way to rehabilitate the criminal, once he/she has learnt the trade, or is it that those in charge of rehabilitation, have failed miserably to do anything about the problem?

I would go with the latter. Criminals can be rehabilitated and are being rehabilitateted. It’s about time we demanded results and accountability for our bucks.

My website covers many successful programs, with pilots and statistics that could turn crime, literacy and drug problems on their head: http://www.rehabnz.co.nz

If we continue to follow the same path as we are today and pour more money into failed programs, without accountability, things can only get worse. The existing system has shown that over a period of thirty years, with Ministers of Corrections and Police screaming every election year that things are improving because statistics show a miserable two half percent decline in some areas of crime, no one believes this spin anymore. Let’s hope the current Minister of Corrections, Hon Phill Goff is able to do something constructive about our dangerous environment [crime, violence, drugs etc] or will he just be seen as another ‘has been’ - like the Corrections Ministers before him - with an increase in crime over the period they reigned. He has the power, but will he use it wisely?