It’s worked too. Where ever I see his name it’s a surprise and a “wait, who?” moment. Happily it’s only very occasionally.
5 Likes
A sentence like this can also be interpreted as a signal of lack of confidence in the parole system, as well as an elevation of isolation and revenge over rehabilitation as the function of prison. It is not as barbaric as the death penalty, but I thought most enlightened societies were evolving beyond this.
2 Likes
I’d like to add my voice to the other New Zealander’s asking you to remove his name from the post @xeni It’s an unwritten convention here to just call him “the shooter” or “the terrorist”.
Kia ora 
8 Likes
I envy any society that has a small enough number of such individuals that it can use such general terms without causing confusion.
I can’t even say something like “the Kenosha, Wisconsin shooter from earlier this week” without further specification.
10 Likes
Is there really a problem if you confuse one fuckwit with a different fuckwit?
Edit: if you talk about the victims you don’t have to remember which fuckwit it was.
It can be problematic because then you end up saying stuff like
“I thought the fuckwit shooter in Kenosha wasn’t charged with any crime?”
“No, that was the fuckwit shooter in Kenosha who had a badge, the other fuckwit is still facing extradition from Illinois.”
4 Likes
"Has the fuckwit who shot Jacob Blake been charged with any crime?”
“Not yet.”
Talk about the victims instead. They’re the important ones.
4 Likes
I get the what you’re trying to say, but we can’t address the source of the problem without any discussion whatsoever of the specific crimes, the motivations underlying them or the social forces enabling them.
For example, the United States has been home to a violent and growing White Nationalist movement. By focusing only on the victims and making no mention of the perpetrators, we allow society to ignore how this threat is a growing danger to our society. Mike Pence did this just last night by talking about a cop who was a victim of deadly violence at a “Black Lives Matter” rally—while conveniently omitting the fact that he was gunned down by Right-Wing Militia freaks and not the protesters.
7 Likes
Fair enough. Good luck with that approach - it doesn’t appear to be working, but maybe if you just try it a bit harder?
1 Like
Racist lynchings used to be a popular pastime in parts of the United States (they arguably still are, but at least not in the same form). It wasn’t until the public was forced to confront the crimes—i.e. “this is Emmett Till, this is what was done to him, these are the bigots who did it and why”—that we started to see society end its tacit acceptance of the practice.
Exposing the problem doesn’t always make it go away, but few if any problems are solved by ignoring them.
7 Likes
Well said. It appears that many people still believe that punishment is a viable way for changing behavior (both in kids and in adults), despite ample evidence to the contrary.
You can read the judges decision @Taniwha linked above, it explains that retribution is one part of the reasoning, as is prevention and deterrence, although the judge noted that those terrorist fuckwits are so deep up their own assholes they wouldn’t be deterred much by a prison sentence anyway.
A more powerful deterrence might be a shooter who publicly speaks out against the ideology he once held, explaining how he regrets his actions and his hate, and working towards a society where this can’t happen again. I understand that this is can’t be achieved with every individual, but that outcome at least needs to be possible. However, if the shooter ever reaches that insight, keeping him in prison beyond that point would be entirely pointless.
1 Like
In 2010, New Zealand passed the “Sentencing and Parole Reform Act”, the contents of which suggest that isolation and revenge are politically popular positions, just as they are in my own country.
1 Like
I’ve got into trouble for saying that here before. Apparently reporting and free speech will save the world and I don’t understand. You’re right, they’re wrong. Protocols have been developed over years relating to suicide hotspots and young people and now are being rolled out into active shooter/mass killing situations. Media in many countries are seeing it as both vital media ethics essential to prevent violence spreading.
Catering to people’s basest rubbernecking curiosity serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the race to the bottom.
2 Likes
Well said. This is what we call, here, the peace process. It’s messy, and it doesn’t allow people the swift satisfaction of revenge.
As pointed out above of course if you want to reform people and believe they are deformable, prison is the last place you’d go for it. Locked up with a bunch of criminals! Stigmatised for life, recidivism is almost inevitable.
1 Like
The countries with the lowest recidivism rates are the ones that don’t pretend that life prison sentences are a deterrent. People suck.
2 Likes
He can’t re-offend because he isn’t getting out. And as an Aussie, I think that is a fine solution. I know plenty of (more or less) non-criminal people who will never change their ways. I don’t expect better of a mass murderer.
1 Like
Indeed, that may be true for any one individual, provided they don’t find a means to escape. It is not a very good strategy for a society that strives to prevent crime.
Yes, me too. It’s just so very hard to figure out who they are, because often change happens where we least expect it.
Also, with that attitude we tendto miss the small changes that are taking place and will eventually compound, and we fail to support people where they might need it to succeed with change.
It’s often not the individual’s lack of capacity for change that inhibits change, but more the surrounding culture, environment, the “system”. If we change that, change is much more likely.
1 Like
I’m glad NZ doesn’t have the death penalty.
I am also satisfied that this particular fuckwit will never see the outside of a prison, regardless of how much personal growth he undergoes in the coming decades.
I don’t see these positions as incompatible.
2 Likes
Holy shit. I have no words.
Everyone, literally everyone should read that. Anyone who questions the level of hatred that racism, bigotry, and religious zealotry are capable of need only read this document and know the answer.
Further, anyone who has ever wondered if the most evil must be mentally disabled in some way need only read this document to see that no, evil is, genuinely, often just evil. Without excuse or mitigation.
5 Likes
Neither was Charles Manson, but I’m glad that he – as well as all the redeemable murderers – had the chance to periodically come before a parole board and make a case that he had changed. The philosophy that you can sort people into irreparably good and irreparably bad has no place in civilized society.
1 Like
