1. Predetermination
The Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor,
Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, has published a short report, entitled
Using
evidence to build a better justice system: The challenge of rising
prison costs. It was written by the Science Advisor to the
Justice Sector, Associate Professor Ian Lambie, assisted by Sir Peter
Gluckman. Later, on April 7th 2018, Lisa Owen's "Newshub Nation"
programme hosted
a panel discussion about that report. Both the report and the
panelists exhibited the same predetermination,
ignorance and stupidity. It is selective in its use of evidence
and its main purpose is obviously to stabilise or reduce the costs
of prisons. It does not question the Feminist ideology of New Zealand
to see if that ideology is partly responsible for the perceived problems
it is dealing with.
The predetermination concerned what issues
to take account of, whose views to take account of and what sections
of society to show concern for. The report contains a section
entitled "Maori considerations" and the panel had one participant
from a Maori organisation. So both the report and the make-up of the
panel took special account of the views of Maoris and showed special
concern for the Maori section of society, but both the report and
the make-up of the panel ignored the views of men's organisations
and the male section of society. In other words,
both the report and the panel were primarily political in nature --
as, indeed, are the universities.
It is all very well having people called "Science Advisors"
and writing reports which claim to be based on evidence, but if you
restrict your evidence-gathering to domains which you have predetermined
to be relevant, then your conclusions are only going to be as valid
as your original assumptions.
The report ignores entirely the highly relevant report, Sentencing
in New Zealand: a statistical analysis, by Sue Triggs
(Ministry of Justice, 1999), which states:
-
... the results of the multivariate modelling show that
females are more likely than males to receive
community service, community programme or no sentence and less
likely to receive a prison sentence, periodic detention or a monetary
penalty. Thus, gender differences in sentencing persist
even after taking account of differences in the type and seriousness
of the offence committed (e.g. the average seriousness of offences
committed by women is lower than for men) and in the extent of
previous offending (e.g. women have fewer previous convictions
on average; section 3.1). Indeed, gender is the amongst the most
significant variables influencing the probability of receiving
a community service sentence or a monetary penalty. (Triggs p.
123)
-
The use of imprisonment did not differ
between ethnic groups, once other factors had been taken
into account (such as the differences between ethnic groups in
the type and seriousness of offences committed and in the extent
of previous offending; section 3.1). (Triggs p. 124)
2. Concealed Evidence
The Ministry of Justice contains many people who we taxpayers pay
and allow to pervert as much policy as possible to fit the Feminist
Agenda. Consequently, the above research, which I originally found on
the Ministry's website many years ago, has been effectively removed
from that website and not replaced by any update!
See the correspondence below:
|
3. Specifics
As can be seen from Triggs' research report cited above, there are
grounds to think that:-
-
high prison costs might be caused, in part, by discrimination
against men in sentencing; and that
-
the widespread feeling that discrimination against Maoris is one
of the causes is a product of the dominant Left-Wing ideology, rather
than a fact based on evidence.
Sir Peter Gluckman's study claims that crime rates are decreasing
(p. 4 and p. 14), yet it also contradicts itself by stating (p. 14)
that "Most victimisations (around two-thirds) are not reported
to authorities." The latter statement implies that the Government
cannot possibly know whether crime rates are decreasing, increasing
or remaining the same! The reference to "two-thirds" must
be only an estimate, which could be completely wrong. My personal experience
is that the Police sometimes do not follow up reports of crimes -- sometimes
they say they are too busy and sometimes they just do nothing, without
explanation. I also have the experience that the Police, lawyers and
judges (like Sir Peter Gluckman, Associate Professor Ian Lambie and
Lisa Owen) are biased against men. Therefore many people (expecially
men) may not bother reporting crimes to the Police.
Maori children and to a lesser extent Pacific Islands children
are more likely than children from other ethnic groups to live with
only one parent. Some 41 percent of Maori children lived in sole-parent
families in 1996. This compares with 29 percent of Pacific Islands
children, 17 percent of European children and 12 percent of Asian
children.
The Feminist Auckland University and the Feminist Government are
ignoring family structure, because it was the Feminists who sold the
line that women needed to be liberated from the so-called patriarchal
institution of marriage (i.e. from men), and it was Feminists who
facilitated this epidemic of family breakdown by:
-
legitimising de facto relationships – thus undermining
the mutual commitment of marriage;
-
making divorce and separation easier to get;
-
making sure that the mother is more likely to end up with the
custody of the children; and
-
making sure that the wife or female partner ends up with at
least half of the assets.
Sir Peter Gluckman's study favours (p. 5) "early intervention
and prevention of crime." However, I happen to know that one
Police Officer who was appointed to Police National Headquarters to
work on crime prevention was the then Senior Sergeant Alasdair Macmillan.
He was a supporter of the White Ribbon campaign, which claims to combat
violence against women, but is silent about violence against men.
The Kapiti Observer, on November 27, 2008, reported the following:
"Senior Sergeant Alasdair Macmillan said the New Zealand
Police were committed to ensuring women's and children's safety."
Obviously, anyone like that, or anyone trained by him, would be likely
to intervene early in any situation on the side of women and children
and would be no help to potential male victims whatsoever! They would
also send strong signals to women and children that they could do whatever
they liked to men, because the Police were simply not interested in
violence against men (and, indeed, that has been my experience on more
than one occasion). I would think that this would tend to dissuade men
from reporting crime to the Police and encourage them to resort to retaliation,
because they could not rely on the Police to help them.
Sir Peter Gluckman's study refers snidely to "penal populism"
-- i.e. a Right-Wing preference for more severe sentences -- and argues
for a greater emphasis on rehabilitation, pointing to prison's role
as a school for professional criminals. However, he fails even to consider
capital punishment and "life-means-life" sentences, which
would certainly prevent recidivism and also prevent inmates treating
prison as a crime school -- at least for those particular prisoners!
I am not arguing myself for any particular penal policy, but it is completely
ludicrous for a study to claim to be "scientific"
(I have studied the Philosophy of Science, by the way!), while not considering
all the options!!
It is vital to understand that New Zealand is
by no means a sane society, but an indoctrinated, totalitarian Feminist
Matriarchy -- and it is getting worse!
|
