And those who obscenely harvest the grief of the victims of crime, the Sensible Sentencing Lynch mob, are at it again with this advert in the daily Newspapers…
…why have we allowed social policy to become so warped by anger?
Why are the victims of crime given such amplification to be able to mutate social policy into this agenda of suffering?
It’s almost as if NZers mouths water when they consider the punishment dirty filthy criminals should be forced to endure.
As if vengeance against them will somehow bring balance to the everyday hostility and insecurities modern day consumer culture with its narcissistic millennial selfie sidekick implodes upon us with every waking second.
If anyone, ANYONE, hurt my family or friends I’d want 5 minutes alone with them so I could take to them with a baseball bat. That’s not special, that’s just human nature. That’s why we ask a neutral judge to decide what should happen to a guilty person so that Justice with mercy triumphs over simple vengeance.
While I certainly believe the victims of crime should share their experience and speak directly to the person who has harmed them, I don’t believe their desires for the most punitive action possible should shape public policy that we must all live by because the counterproductive desires to have someone suffer for your suffering while human and understandable, shouldn’t, can not and will not build a civil society.
We have been led like the sleepy hobbits we is when it comes to tough on crime bullshit.
The mainstream media whip up crime hysteria (despite serious crime plummeting) and that hysteria is played by groups like the Sensible Sentencing Lynch Mob and is then harvested by peacock politicians who strut around with puffed up chests screaming ‘something must be done’.
If you thought the meth contamination hysteria was the only hysteria we’ve been led by, think again.
The get tough on crime hysteria is us at our worst.
So conditioned are the sleepy hobbits of muddle Nu Zilind to hate prisoners, we’ll continue with counterproductive law and order policy even if it’s creating more damage than good, so how on earth do you get an electorate so twisted with spite to do the right thing?
Why you play those petty consumers of bitterness with parlour tricks and theatre so you can finally do good and you don’t feel ashamed or dishonest by playing them because they are as damaged emotionally as the prisoners we feed into the grinder of our private prison industry.
Dumping 3 strikes is smart politics and Andrew Little is the smartest player of smart politics. The man who has touched gold with every portfolio handed to him just screwed this one up and tripped did he? The man who timed walking away and catapulting Jacinda into the leadership was outflanked by NZ First was he?
By publicly dumping a law that was only rhetoric and theatre in the first place (it’s only impacted 20 prisoners) Labour…
- gives NZ First oxygen at a time when Labour desperately requires their coalition partners to survive
- blunts National’s law and order attack which they will be playing all year with new tough on crime members bills.
- Allows the perception to the petty consumers of bitterness that Labour have had to back down on prison reform when the actual process will continue. Liberal twitter and NGOs on twitter will lambast Little and scream at the injustice which will convince the petty consumers of bitterness in muddle Nu Zilind that Labour must have changed their position to outrage the Twitterratti in such a way.
Little loses the battle so he can win the war.