On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 23:31:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:25:34 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by TonyPost by James ChristophersPost by TonyAn acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway
for
doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply
gave
me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned,
chastened
and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the
cop.
In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
It's an opinion. No better or more valid than those who are calling for
consequences.
Did you read the article? It was all about consequences, and arguments
both for and against making changes to existing penalties . . . As to
validity, the author has demonstrated over a number of articles a
fairly good knowledge of the law and its effects . . .
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently theres been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago.
Cite?
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
Sorry, I put the quoted two paragraphs in quote marks, but perhaps I
to make it clearer for you.
Post by TonyIn particular what sort of penalties have been imposed? An essential bit of the
question.
Post by Rich80105Of course,
thats only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
It is if there is no consequence.
And your cite for that?
AIrrelevant, answer the question I put.
How many people have suffered consequences for breakinbg the law, or if you
prefer something simpler, how many of the so-called 800 were convicted.
That is the only measure of value.
You can;t have it both ways, Tony. First your claim implied that there
had been no prosecutions; that appears to be wrong; now you claim that
there may have been no penalties imposed - but you have no cites for
either statement.
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105Post by TonyPost by Rich80105After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
That is what I am hoping to see, precious little of it in your responses.
What part of the Andrew Geddes article do you disagree with?
Tony, no answer from you - I presume you now agree that {a} there have
been some consequences, {b} it is not clear whther current
consequences are having the desired effect, and (b) it is not clear
that greater and better known penalties would not have an adverse
effectas regards gaining information for covid-tracing. So which do
you favour, Tony, some more dollars for the government from fines,
less net costs of imprisonment, or a higher level of deaths?
This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know it.
Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
A major concern of government is to save lives from the Covid-19
pandemic; deterrence is one aspect of that issue, but far from the
only one. We do not measure the success of a school by how many are
expelled, suspended or placed in detention. Similarly we cannot
measure success of the pandemic response by the number of offenders
fined or imprisoned. The "Team of 5 million" has been a brilliant
expression of trust and a way of passing on responsibility for common
sense behaviour to all New Zealanders - our police and other officials
cannot police all of us all the time. It is up to those who understand
what is needed to bring that to the attention of our family and
friends who may be at risk of infection if they do not act in
accordance with rules and recommendations from the health experts.
Many are upset about the adults who walked together when they should
have been within their bubble, or who let their children mingle
outside their bubble - we wonder at a parent that could put their own
family at risk in that way. Where were the responsible members of the
"team of 5 million" - these people let us down.
Then we have other examples. I have some sympathy for Tamaki for
example - he is correct that technically he did not break any laws;
but the reality is that he left Auckland after it was announced that
it was going into level 3 but before that order took effect. He went
to Rotorua and then had a meeting with 26 people; technically putting
them at some risk. It was apparently his wife that used the word
"escaped" with respect to getting out of Auckland, but Tamaki, who
purports to be a church leader, merely argued the legal position; not
being sufficiently self-aware that he was being judged on his moral
position.
So this thread is about being fair; seeing the views of others with
empathy, and recognising that we do not want the sort of authoritarian
legal hypocrisy that thinks legal sanctions are all that is needed.
The Americal prohibition era showed that simplistic over-the-top laws
that are widely flouted are inherently undesirable. The article by
Andrew Geddes illustrates exactly why your authoritarian 'legal
consequences' approach is simplistic and likely to be
counter-productive.
Currently the 'team of 5 million' is working very well; we have a very
low death toll, and economically we have come through in a very good
position. We do have idiots that see that success as indicating that
Covid is just a hoax (they somehow ignore that horror of the high
death rates elsewhere around the world), and at times the same people
then turning around and calling for much higher sanctions and claiming
that the government should be locking us down at higher levels for
longer . . . It is hard to tell whether these are just playing stupid
partisan politics (which as we saw with dirty politics ultimately
diminishes parties that are seen as promoting such behaviour, or
whether they are genuinely deranged. Like it or not, the experience of
Trump has linked such behaviours to parties of the authoritarian right
- the price of embracing and feeding the desperate, ignorant and
deranged for political purposes.
Post by TonyNow go away unless you can answer my question. What consequences have there
been. That is what deterrence is about and what this thread is about.
Nothing else except in your mind.
Post by Rich80105As Geddes said, do show your workings for your favoured solution . . .
You are asking for answers to the wrong question, Tony. The thread is
about the best response to Covid, deterrence is a side issue that
forms a small part ofthe whole, and as Geddes has pointed out, does
not have a single answer. You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want. Perhaps you realise that, just as for a
school, punishment may sometimes be the correct response, but it is
often the last resort, and signifies failure of more productive ways
of dealing with the need for others to learn, grow and become more
responsible.
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105Post by TonyPost by Rich80105Post by TonyPost by Rich80105Post by TonyPost by James ChristophersPost by TonyAfter all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar,
also
in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of
singling
people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same
breath
say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes. I believe the
time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
Post by James ChristophersSo, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.