|
|
Post by Lux on Mar 31, 2008 18:58:19 GMT 12
National Party leader John Key wants to hit every person convicted of a crime with a 'crim tax' - a levy of $50. The money would go into a fund to be shared among all those that criminals hurt in a victim compensation team.
Kevin McNeil's mother Lois Dear was murdered at a Tokoroa school two years ago and he is still unhappy with his treatment by the justice system.
"The costs keep going on no matter what you do," says McNeil. "Plus the costs of a life which was mum you can never replace that."
McNeil is right behind National's plan to create a fund for victims of serious crime, saying: "Any movement towards victim rights is great because there are too many offenders' rights out there."
Key: "The reality is we are not going to have a sliding scale based on offence. I think it's more logical to say what is a reasonable cost to bear and is likely to be paid by most people."
National's other proposals include the creation of a victim services centre to run the compensation scheme and assist victim support, upgrading the victim notification register and reviewing the Victim Rights Act to ensure their rights are better protected.
The Labour Government announced earlier this month it would look at a State-funded compensation scheme for victims and says National's $50 fee should be seen as a gimmick. Labour says the scheme would raise around $5 million, which would barely cover the cost of running it.
Lawyer Barry Hart says it is not the right answer and misses the crucial point.
"Issues between the offender and the victim should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and the judge is the best person to determine that," says Hart.
Have to say I agree with Barry Hart on this one.
Discussion:
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Mar 31, 2008 20:57:42 GMT 12
IS it just me or or others find Key ot be pretty clueless as a politician.
i agree with Barry Hart to.But the harsh reality is that for some crimes no amount of money could compensate for the loss,of life,sense of security etc.....
|
|
|
|
Post by maire on Apr 1, 2008 5:42:34 GMT 12
No it's not just you Lolly. There is something about him that has never rang true. Lol I'm not just saying that as a leftie either, it's the fact that he is so obviously a replica of Dunny Brush and another tool for the BRT. He seems to have a routine and it goes like .....  ooops  did I say that  |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 1, 2008 9:04:16 GMT 12
Yup exactly Ems......I am not happy iwith the labour government but there is no way i would vte for Mr ummmmmmmmm urhhhhhhhhhh i dont know..
|
|
|
|
Post by maire on Apr 1, 2008 10:39:41 GMT 12
National need to Bring Back Bill maybe?
Re the $50 crim tax, it's highly unlikely the majority of criminals
would pay up. There are also many different types of crime and criminal and
I can see a convicted habitual dic driver, who may be a well respected member of the community,
not being impressed about paying another tax.
So yes I agree with Barry Hart as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by wak on Apr 1, 2008 18:50:14 GMT 12
Hey. At least it is a start.
Lots of labor voters have a mentel block when it comes to john keys. Maire, the convicted habital dic driver would not be meant to be impressed with the $50 crim tax. And as for being a respected member of the community...? habitual drunk drivers are a menace to society, they kill and maim multitudes of innocent people, so bugger them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Apr 1, 2008 19:53:32 GMT 12
Its an ill thought out start in my opinion, I'm more inclined to go with case by case accountability, fining someone $50 for cold blooded murder for example is a bloody insult to say the least, monetary compensation can only work if it has impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by maire on Apr 1, 2008 20:25:42 GMT 12
Hey. At least it is a start. Lots of labor voters have a mentel block when it comes to john keys. Maire, the convicted habital dic driver would not be meant to be impressed with the $50 crim tax. And as for being a respected member of the community...? habitual drunk drivers are a menace to society, they kill and maim multitudes of innocent people, so bugger them! I should have been more explicit with a few items in my post, but erring on the side of caution, is a habit for me while online. The dic driver I had in mind, is a respected elderly member of the community, he is also an alcoholic who refuses to accept his 'illness' and has kept on driving and getting caught over the limit. To my knowledge, he hasn't ever been so drunk that he was out of control when he was driving and has never been involved in an accident. I'm not making light of his offences, but I know he is not the type who would consider himself a common criminal. There are degrees of criminals out there and JoKey, in his lack of experience and knowledge, wants to lump them together in one basket. As we have seen in the last few days with Millie Elder, that is not the case, it seems the higher profile you have, the lower the chances you are labelled a criminal. |
|
|
|
Post by wak on Apr 2, 2008 18:08:49 GMT 12
i understand what you are all saying but imho, a crim tax that is used to help fund VICTIM help is a good thing.
i accept that there are certainly degrees of criminalness (lol is that a word?), but i do think that a flat $50 crim surcharge is actully much more likely to be paid by the dic driver than a murderer (for example) being levied a $300 fee for being at the higher end of the offending scale.
im just wondering what your thoughts are on this issue regarding a crim levy to pay towards a victim fund, do you think it should be scaled according to the level of the crime, or do you just think its a bad idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Apr 2, 2008 18:12:54 GMT 12
i understand what you are all saying but imho, a crim tax that is used to help fund VICTIM help is a good thing. i accept that there are certainly degrees of criminalness (lol is that a word?), but i do think that a flat $50 crim surcharge is actully much more likely to be paid by the dic driver than a murderer (for example) being levied a $300 fee for being at the higher end of the offending scale. im just wondering what your thoughts are on this issue regarding a crim levy to pay towards a victim fund, do you think it should be scaled according to the level of the crime, or do you just think its a bad idea? Wak, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I'd like to see the logistics of it, but in principle: yep, I'm for it. I am always disgusted when crims get paid out or settlements when in prison. Yes, I agree that prisons should be subject to certain standards, but I think any settlement monies should be given to the victims and/or their families. If the families/victims don't want it, then the money should go into a Fund for victims. Just my ten cents worth ...  |
|
