Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
Wow that judge sounds shitty.
Drunk, high on meth, multiple incidents leading up to the killing and multiple past charges.
Gave her a measly 7 years and then knocked 3 years off for bullshit - reduction for a guilty plea and for her "personal" circumstances. And eligble for parole at any time.
I don't care about her personal circumstances, and the sentence should definitely be longer in this case, but I think that there should always be a reduction for a guilty plea. Not only does it show remorse because you're admitting you did the wrong thing, but it saves the government from a lengthy and costly court case.
Pleading guilty doesn't mean you feel remorse, it just means you know you're screwed and that fighting won't help/will make worse.
But it does help prevent costly courtcases which is why they offer deals/lighter sentences in exchange for guilty pleas.
Definitely true, but if you plead not guilty then you definitely don't have any remorse. That's why judges should always have discretion with sentencing rather than mandatory minimums, so they can determine if there's remorse. They should definitely be listening to victim and family impact statements as well though.
It is not likely to be the judges' fault. The terms will be laid out in law and precedent, including the discount. It will also be partly about what charges the prosecution brought them up on. The judge can't (and shouldn't be able to) just say it doesn't feel long enough so they added 10 years. While it seems counterintuitive, judges should not have large amounts of individual judgement, and things like this should always be set out in a framework that all judges follow. Otherwise you get significant differences between judges (a book that talks about this is "Noise: A flaw in human judgement").
If we think that this should have a longer jail term, then that should be set out in law, not something an individual judge decides.
It's crazy to me that impaired driving isn't punished MUCH more harshly than it is. Here in the US it's not uncommon to just get like probation or a couple weekends of community service. Drunk driving is no different than if someone has a gun and starts randomly shooting it around on a crowded street. Regardless of whether or not a bullet hits anyone, that person is still definitely going to prison for some meaningful amount of time. Drunk driving is exactly the same thing, and should be treated just as harshly.
I've thought about this myself, repeat drink driving should be a short period of incarceration, because clearly nothing else is going to stop them.