and it would stop the cycle of violation where the state is creating a significant amount of alienation with the policing of this particular issue.

(and pot doesnt sedate as such anyway, at least not in moderation…..)

How much damage is being done with the current crime promoting bogus legal status and double standards and why, is there no green party connection between nz’s youth crime and the social injustice of pot enforcemetn and hypocrisy (the partys own controversial policy, duh).

Once again the greens are avoiding mentioning cannabis at teh expense of finding a real solution to a social/environmental situation.

in my view criminalisation is the self-fullfulling policy. the abuse of civil/human rights and due process etc and falsely implemented ‘harm minimisation’, has a price to pay, and the chickens are coming home to roost, and have been for several decades now.

but the overriding political/media/justice world view (c.f. flat earth society) is that drugs cause moral breakdown and crime. Never consider for a moment that a bad dysfunctional law is a catalyst for social damage (earth is actually round, Labour, National and greens…).

are you as intellectually dishonest as those big parties, greens? your not going to get the cannabis albatross from around your neck by pretending it aint there…

like silly helen and her dumb-ass ministers, and all the get-tough parties, youll never have the youth solution frog and russel, if you dont do a proper systems analysis of what is fucking them up and making bad behavour teh normal expectation.

values are upside down in this country. wrongful and corrupt cannabis regime is at the heart of that.

Only those serving terms of longer than 3 years can’t vote (that’s not very many of them).

If National’s solution to youth crime will just produce stronger young thugs then surely Labour’s solution will just produce smarter young thugs.

The seeds are sown in infancy, whether it’s genius or thuggery. It is easy to unleash genius or thuggery in a three year old but it takes an increasingly concerted and sustained effort to achieve the same results as the child grows older. But as with all things it is easier to teach bad habits than good ones since bad behaviour tends to follow the path of least resistance.

> Support and fund initiatives that create positive school and societal violence-free cultures, e.g. QPEC (Quality Public Education Coalition) Values in Schools Programme, GSE’s Eliminating Violence Programme, the Peace Foundation’s Cool Schools Programme, and the PPTA’s Safe Schools Programme for queer students, whanau/family, and teachers.

I think this is the most important thing we can do. If kids learn they can get away with bullying when in school, then outside school they’re going to feel they’re bulletproof and can get away with anything.

Surely you did not expect me to agree with this?

Lets have a look at one or two of your points.

1. The best thing you can do for victims is to take away the chance that they may become victims in the first place, I cannot and will not agree with the Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff theory.

2. Restitution must be immediate (I do like the bit about family trusts) if the crims are on a benefit then too bad, the buggers must pay and pay immediatley

3. NO STATE COMPENSATION, this does not work and we all know that the crims will never pay it back or be made to pay it back under a socialist government.

4 Counseling is a waste of time, victims want justice and most want revenge, no amount of PC counseling would ease my anger or grief if a member of my family was murdered by some low life, I would want the killer in prison for the rest of his life without the chance of parole or better still he should be swinging from the hangman’s noose.

5 Again state compensation is not the way to go, why the hell should I pay for the crimes of some low life scum?, the only thing I want to pay for in his case is his long and extremely arduous prison sentence.

So will try again, just quoting a bit more Green policy:

2. Righting wrongs and compensating victims of crime
While the Green Party has worked hard to strengthen victims’ rights in the criminal justice system, appropriate compensation and restoration for complainants is still inadequate and the need for reform is overdue. The Green Party wants to strengthen the rights of victims and will:
1. Hold an inquiry into the role of victims in the criminal justice system, and into what support systems exist for victims of serious crime.
2. Support provisions to deduct unpaid restitution and court fines through the IRD or Income Support and close loopholes to ensure that family or other trusts will cease to be a way of avoiding liability. When offenders receive Income Support (or are of limited means) they should be given a choice to either pay off fines or provide restitution in some other way.
3. Research the viability of state-awarded compensation for victims as well as provision for some offenders, when deemed appropriate, to be required to recompense the state for at least part of the compensation outlay.
4. Provide counselling and compensation for victims, preferably paid for by the offender, where they have the ability to do so.
5. Research the viability of state-awarded compensation for victims where the offender must pay it back to the state.

Surely you can’t disagree with this.

BB, there is more, including these specific Green Party policy points re victims’ rights:

2. Righting wrongs and compensating victims of crime
While the Green Party has worked hard to strengthen victims’ rights in the criminal justice system, appropriate compensation and restoration for complainants is still inadequate and the need for reform is overdue. The Green Party wants to strengthen the rights of victims and will:
1. Hold an inquiry into the role of victims in the criminal justice system, and into what support systems exist for victims of serious crime.
2. Support provisions to deduct unpaid restitution and court fines through the IRD or Income Support and close loopholes to ensure that family or other trusts will cease to be a way of avoiding liability. When offenders receive Income Support (or are of limited means) they should be given a choice to either pay off fines or provide restitution in some other way.
3. Research the viability of state-awarded compensation for victims as well as provision for some offenders, when deemed appropriate, to be required to recompense the state for at least part of the compensation outlay.
4. Provide counselling and compensation for victims, preferably paid for by the offender, where they have the ability to do so.
5. Research the viability of state-awarded compensation for victims where the offender must pay it back to the state.

Make the offender pay: now surely you would support that BB.

this is so strongly reminiscent of Ruth Richardson’s bashing of under age mums on benefits back in 1991…just goes to show that National still don’t seem to have learned anything in the past 17 years.

I mean really, how much beating round the ears will it take to make them understand that the Rogernomics/Ruthanasia didn’t work?

oh wait…from the point of view of the millionaire backers exposed in the Hollow Men those policies did work……

John Key’s whole approach here strikes me as exceptionally mean-spirited and petty.