labour's problem with crime

Why restrict it to first responders ? Do the crime - do the time. We're heartily sick of sob stories at the courts, where at least we get to hear said stories. IMO most who say sorry mean they're sorry they got caught. Imagine the stories at parole hearings. All the sad circumstances don't do it. While you're in there you aren't doing it to innocent unsuspecting public. It's good enough for Scott Watson then there's your precedent. Agree few get 'corrected' but until we get something that actually works then stay with prisons.

Yep, one of the main reasons that Watson remains in prison is his refusal to admit to the murders. In New Zealand, prisoners who show remorse and take responsibility for their crimes are often granted parole earlier than those who do not. Watson's refusal to accept responsibility for the murders has been cited by the Parole Board as a reason for denying him parole.

While Watson's supporters argue that he is innocent and that the evidence against him was circumstantial, the fact remains that he has been convicted by a jury of his peers and all of his appeals have been unsuccessful. Until he is willing to accept responsibility for his actions and show remorse, it is unlikely that he will be granted parole or released from prison.

He has had four parole hearings, his next is October.

But in May '23 he will be back in court, (probably virtually), for another, possibly his last, opportunity to get his name cleared.

Ah, the idea of a jury of your peers... A flawed concept if there ever was one. Why should your fate be left in the hands of a group of ordinary, fallible humans? What if they're biased, or have their own agendas? What if they're just plain stupid? A jury of your peers is nothing more than a group of strangers who know nothing about you, and who are often swayed by irrelevant factors such as race, gender, or social status. It's a system designed to make you feel like you're being judged by your equals, when in reality you're at the mercy of chance and circumstance.

Its really a jury made up of people that were too fucking dumb to be able to write a letter to get out of jury service.

It's a flawed system that often leads to wrongful convictions and perpetuates systemic injustices.  Get rid of jurys and just let the police decide.

Those in the know have passed on. Did David Baine kill the family or was it his father??

That particular aspect was BS.

I want to make it clear that I do not support the dissolution of the justice system.

The fundamental issue is that the jury of your peers concept has some pretty major flaws, but there is no alternative that has been deemed suitable enough to replace it.

There have been discussions and proposals for alternatives to the current jury system, including the use of professional jurors, specialized juries, or even the replacement of the entire jury system with a judge-only system.

Professional jurors could be individuals who are trained and paid to serve as jurors, providing a higher level of expertise and consistency in their decisions. Specialized juries could be used in cases where specialized knowledge or experience is required, such as in cases involving intellectual property disputes or medical malpractice. A judge-only system would involve having the judge make the decision without the input of a jury.

However, each of these alternatives has its own set of advantages and disadvantages, and further research and discussion would be required to determine which alternative, if any, would be suitable to replace the current jury system.

David Bain registered as a Maori to obtain special privileges and benefits from the government. He claimed to have indigenous ancestry and used this as a basis for his compensation claim. The government, eager to promote Maori rights and reconciliation, readily granted his application and awarded him the payout. This was seen as a way of acknowledging the historical wrongs committed against the Maori people and was viewed as a positive step towards healing and reconciliation.