The article below is one that I have written for a newspaper column and one that I think I need to put on my blog as the column is in a small local newspaper.
A week ago I would have written about scamming and New Zealanders failure and/or resistance to listening to advice on scamming. $448 million scammed per year. It’s hard to believe.
However, the non-accidental death of the six month old Serenity in Ngaruawahia, a small township just north of Hamilton, changed all that.
This article is aimed at highlighting the appalling statistics of domestic violence and child abuse in NZ. On a per capita basis we are at the worst end of the scale. Today I have read that there are 120,000 plus reports of domestic violence situations each year. This is up from 50,000 plus in 2005. Clearly some of this increase is from better reporting of domestic violence each year, which is great, but some is from increased violence in our communities.
There are also over 100,000 interventions by Government agencies in domestic violent situations each year. This is 300 per day. Even though many of these interventions concern the same family groupings it is still a disgraceful statistic in a civilised society. The Police deal with 5,000 to 6,000 child abuse situations each year, ranging from very young children like little Serenity, to teenage children. Recently I heard about a 15 year old belted by his father. The young lad thought he had deserved it because he had “pissed off” his father. He was assured by school staff that no parent had this right. The young lad’s reaction shows how this behaviour becomes inter-generational.
Crimestoppers provides a great vehicle to bring this domestic violence and child abuse to the surface. Family and neighbours know what is going on and need to take effective action. It is about looking after another human being. We feel compelled to do it as a nation by sending the military offshore to protect the vulnerable. If you know it is going on and do nothing and someone is killed you can’t say that it wasn’t your responsibility. Children look to adults for love and guidance and they trust adults, particularly family. What we see in these situations is that the child’s trust is totally misplaced as they are injured and sometimes killed by those who are meant to love and cherish them.
My plea to the community is to have absolutely nil tolerance to this behaviour. Do something about it when you know about it. You are not a “nark”. What a stupid, immature word. A moron painted this on the fence of someone trying to do something positive about Serenity’s death. I would suggest that some young victims would be still alive if someone had spoken up.
As a community let us do something about this abuse – ring the Police or if this is too difficult for whatever reason, then provide the information to Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 and we will get the message to the Police. Don’t be intimidated by anyone. Do what is right.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
DRUG LAW RECOMMENDATION
Today it has been interesting to listen to and read the various commentaries about the so called "softening the approach to drugs" being recommended by the Law Commission to the Select Committee. Tonight I heard the Deputy Law Commissioner attempting to explain the recommendation to Larry Williams, the well known ZB radio host. He certainly did not manage to convince him of the new approach, nor that it was not about softening the approach to drugs. I was driving and was very tempted to phone in to provide my input. I could identify where Williams was coming from but had had the advantage of having just attended a presentation at the US Embassy. I have not read the Law Commission's report so I do not know whether it accurately reflects what I heard at the presentation.
I had attended a presentation made by Judge (Retired) Peggy Hora, who has been intimately involved with the development of drug courts in the US. I can assure you, she certainly did not come across as a "softy" or easy on crime. She came across as a pragmatic person who wanted the justice system, in regards dealing with drug crime, to be more successful than it has been. As she pointed out, sending a small time user (not dealer) of drugs to jail did not change anything. They did their time and were out reoffending almost straight away. Reason: the crude intervention taken, putting the person in jail, did not deal with the problem.
The idea of drug courts in the US and elsewhere is to remove the conflict from the court room, defence against prosecutor, and look for a solution which has a change of stopping the person reoffending. In other words an intervention that works. So all those involved in the court system, the Judge, lawyers, police, parole officer, and agencies dealing with addictions attempt to find a solution which meets that required by the Justice system and lessens the chance of reoffending. The situations that this process relates to are small time users who have an addiction problem. This makes up many of the cases that come before the courts. It does not apply to dealers who are making money out of drug crime - they get, as one would expect, the full weight of the law. Dealing in my view is any selling of drugs, no matter how big/small.
Jailing a person with an addiction problem does not appear to achieve anything in regards stopping reoffending. The addiction needs to be dealt with. In simple terms, the accused is asked whether they wish to go through this drug court process. If they elect not to, then they go through the normal criminal justice system and take their chances. Once they elect to go through the system their addiction is assessed and an appropriate program is put in place to help them overcome the addition. Their progress is monitored closely by all the court officials including the Judge. This includes regular screening for drug use. There are ten critical aspects that must occur in the process for success and no compromise can be made.
The Judge pointed out that for an addict this is a tough process. For many to be successful they have to change their whole life including, in many cases, disassociating themselves from their former friends and associates because this would put them back in the environment of drug taking.
The results achieved are very encouraging with the reoffending rate being halved as a result of this process and millions of dollars have been saved. In addition the individual is rehabilitated back into society to become a person who contributes to that society. This has to be a better solution than people going in and out of jail, with nothing being done about their addiction.
One point that the Judge made was that the majority of crime is cause by addition to both legal and illegal substances. She did not the damage that alcohol causes.
If what the Law Commission has recommended is aligned to what I understand the Judge was saying and the Police believe it is workable, afterall they have to deal with street level drug activity, then there is merit in looking at the proposal.
I had attended a presentation made by Judge (Retired) Peggy Hora, who has been intimately involved with the development of drug courts in the US. I can assure you, she certainly did not come across as a "softy" or easy on crime. She came across as a pragmatic person who wanted the justice system, in regards dealing with drug crime, to be more successful than it has been. As she pointed out, sending a small time user (not dealer) of drugs to jail did not change anything. They did their time and were out reoffending almost straight away. Reason: the crude intervention taken, putting the person in jail, did not deal with the problem.
The idea of drug courts in the US and elsewhere is to remove the conflict from the court room, defence against prosecutor, and look for a solution which has a change of stopping the person reoffending. In other words an intervention that works. So all those involved in the court system, the Judge, lawyers, police, parole officer, and agencies dealing with addictions attempt to find a solution which meets that required by the Justice system and lessens the chance of reoffending. The situations that this process relates to are small time users who have an addiction problem. This makes up many of the cases that come before the courts. It does not apply to dealers who are making money out of drug crime - they get, as one would expect, the full weight of the law. Dealing in my view is any selling of drugs, no matter how big/small.
Jailing a person with an addiction problem does not appear to achieve anything in regards stopping reoffending. The addiction needs to be dealt with. In simple terms, the accused is asked whether they wish to go through this drug court process. If they elect not to, then they go through the normal criminal justice system and take their chances. Once they elect to go through the system their addiction is assessed and an appropriate program is put in place to help them overcome the addition. Their progress is monitored closely by all the court officials including the Judge. This includes regular screening for drug use. There are ten critical aspects that must occur in the process for success and no compromise can be made.
The Judge pointed out that for an addict this is a tough process. For many to be successful they have to change their whole life including, in many cases, disassociating themselves from their former friends and associates because this would put them back in the environment of drug taking.
The results achieved are very encouraging with the reoffending rate being halved as a result of this process and millions of dollars have been saved. In addition the individual is rehabilitated back into society to become a person who contributes to that society. This has to be a better solution than people going in and out of jail, with nothing being done about their addiction.
One point that the Judge made was that the majority of crime is cause by addition to both legal and illegal substances. She did not the damage that alcohol causes.
If what the Law Commission has recommended is aligned to what I understand the Judge was saying and the Police believe it is workable, afterall they have to deal with street level drug activity, then there is merit in looking at the proposal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)