Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘justice’

Justice and compassion in a time of tragedy

Posted by on March 10th, 2011

I can’t get out of my head  the case of Cornelius Arie Smith-Voorkamp the guy with Aspergers who was caught stealing light fittings from houses in Christchurch. This has been dealt with on other blogs, far more articulately than I could, but it is still in my thoughts.

I am appalled at the thought of looters in Christchurch, at a time of such utter devastation and tragedy. It seems such a callous crime, and in most of the reported cases it appears to be so. I don’t blame anyone for having a strong reaction to the news. But as ever in matters of justice, it pays to step back, look at each case on its own and hear all the facts and background.

From what I have read, callous is not a word that can be attributed to Arie Smith.  As I read the words of his sister in the link above I instantly thought of people I know on the autistic spectrum, some much younger, some older, and I realised how easily they could end up in a situation like this.  Arie’s family have acknowledged his wrong-doing and accepted his arrest. But this is a mini-tragedy amidst a much larger tragic situtation, and one that deserves a little understanding.

I don’t know what the circumstances are that saw him covered in bruises. But I do know that it disturbs me deeply, and I want it investigated. I also truly hope Judith Collins regrets her statement made in the wake of looting incidents. She was playing to the crowd of course, and I don’t think was refering directly to Arie, but it was not the calm words of leader in our community.

Overall as a society, even in times of unimaginable tragedy and extraordinary emotion we need think before we act, ask why someone might act in a way we do not like or understand and, when faced with a situation such as this, operate with compassion and understanding. At a practical level we also need to help people learn more about Autism and Aspergers. Here is a place to start.


The 3 strikes rhetoric

Posted by on May 19th, 2010

Last night Parliament debated the National/ACT government’s 3 strikes legislation. There were some exceptional contributions to the debate, some passionate contributions, and some that were downright embarrassing. It was telling that nobody from the National Party, other than Judith Collins, rose to speak in favour of the Bill. Clearly they’ve been pushed into supporting it by ACT.

The contributions from Judith Collins were disappointingly nasty. She chose to resort to cheap slogans suggesting Labour didn’t care about victims, condoned the actions of violent criminals, and had done nothing in 9 years in government. It’s sad that this is what debate on law and order in New Zealand has become. I don’t agree with much of what National proposes in the law and order area, but I won’t suggest that they don’t care about victims or that they condone violent offending. We disagree, but that doesn’t mean we have to resort to childish name calling.

I passionately believe that we need to spend as much time focusing on the causes of crime as we do on punishment after the fact. When I argued this during the debate National MP Sandra Goudie said it was a joke. I don’t think there is anything funny about saying we’re better off trying to prevent someone from being raped or murdered in the first place rather than spending all of our time talking about how to punish the offender after the event.

If we’re really serious about focusing on victims, perhaps we could consider how to make sure we have less of them in the future. We can’t keep ignoring the links between poverty, mental health problems, victimisation, alienation and criminal offending. We already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world. Do we really think that New Zealanders are twice as criminally inclined as Australians? One thing I’m certain of – if we keep doing more of the same, we’ll get more of the same.


The War on P

Posted by on May 27th, 2009

‘P’. It’s amazing one letter can strike so much fear into our communities. But it does and rightly so. ‘P’ (pure methamphetamine to anyone who doesn’t read the Herald) is a nasty nasty substance. It is incredibly addictive, utterly destructive to individuals, their families, their communities and fuels criminal activity among users and suppliers alike. It’s evil.

The Herald and John Key have noticed the fear ‘P’ arouses. Hence their “War-on-P” campaign culminating in Key’s announcement through the Herald on Tuesday that he is considering banning pseudoephedrine. I expect that wasn’t quite the first thing the scientific community was expecting Professor Peter Gluckman to get to work on but, hey, that’s what Key wants.

What I found bizarre about Key going after pseudoephedrine – a substance that brings relief to hundreds of thousands of responsible users – is that just a month ago Key was advocating the exact opposite position with regard to alcohol.

His exact words on Newstalk ZB were: “I think you’ve got to be very careful you don’t get in a situation where you simply whack up the price of booze and everybody gets affected because some, particularly young people, are going out on benders”.

So it’s OK to penalise pseudoephedrine users but not OK to penalise alcohol users. I don’t get it. Both are legal. Both are controlled to some extent. Both have benefits and dangers. Actually, if you think about it, pseudoephedrine helps boost productivity by helping people suffering a cold or the flu get back to work sooner. I don’t think anyone could claim alcohol makes you more productive.

I won’t try to argue that the physical and psychological effects of P as a substance aren’t far greater than those of alcohol. But as far as their respective impacts on our community and economy go, the two aren’t even in the same ballpark. All substance abuse in New Zealand is estimated to cost $6.3 billion each year. Over $5 billion of that is due to alcohol abuse. That leaves just $1.3 billion to all other substances – cannabis, amphetamines (including P), opiates, party pills, the lot.

The prevalence of amphetamine use in New Zealand peaked in 2001 at 5% of the population, but has since decreased to 3.4%. Crystalline methamphetamine peaked at the same time at 0.9%, but has remained relatively stable ever since.

Alcohol causes far more destruction, crime, work absenteeism and family violence than all other drugs. Yet for some reason it’s OK for politicians to go after P but we get incredibly uncomfortable when it comes to alcohol. Why?

The only reason I can think of is that there is no safe level of P use. But then there is no safe level of tobacco use either, and John Key’s in no rush to take the next logical step in tobacco control by banning powerwalls.

I like a drink as much as most people. But I’m prepared to admit that with the freedom to enjoy alcohol comes the responsibility to face up to its less palatable effects. When will the debate about drug and alcohol control start to sensibly reflect the real level of damage substance abuse does to our community and when will Key stop giving mixed messages?


Nats plan to restrict trial by jury

Posted by on May 17th, 2009

I watched Simon Power on Q+A this morning outline his plans to restrict trial by jury. I have talked about this with other members of the Labour Justice team and I am surprised. Power is one of the more pleasant and reasonable Nats to deal with. But what he said about changing criminal process worried me. There is a lot that can be done about improving access to justice in NZ. We started some of this work in Government but there is a heap more to do.

Funding for community law centres is still under threat – they get money from the interest on solictors’ trust accounts, and because interest rates are way down, they have been under real difficulties, despite assurances from Power. The public defender scheme that we piloted needs to be strengthened and supported as an alternative to legal aid. And legal aid itself needs to be kept under review, both to ensure that rates are realistic and that the right mix of specialty lawyers operates, especially in provincial centres.

It might not make for such attractive headlines, but if Simon started with these issues I might be more convinced he was keen to make it easier for New Zealanders to get in front of a court speedily and with proper legal advice.