Convicted paedophile takes Corrections to court for taking his toupee

[Nismonath5]

So, here's a pretty weird story going on in New Zealand at the moment!

A little backstory first. Meet Phillip John Smith.

In 1996, he was imprisoned for killing the father of a boy he molested. He was also convicted of molesting the boy over a three-year period.

Smith stabbed the 35-year-old man 19 times as he tried to protect his son, who was 13. Smith was sentenced in April 1996 to two-and-a-half years in prison for extorting money from an Auckland businessman the previous year. Smith amassed 20 convictions in the five years before being sentenced for extortion and being found guilty of murder, aggravated robbery and six sexual offences. Among those offences were fraud, possession of a firearm, assault with a blunt instrument, common assault, attempted arson, cultivating cannabis, making a false statement to police, theft and escaping custody.

Now, I'm of the mindset to think he should have been given a shotgun shell to the head all those years ago, but that's a debate for another time. Let's fast forward to November 2014. He actually managed to get out on parole, and on that very same day, he skipped the country under the name Phillip John Traynor, fleeing to Chile.

Now, the rest of the story I'll sum up real quick. There was a huge search, and eventually he was caught and sent back to New Zealand. Along the way, they confiscated his toupee, revealing to all the nation that... surprise, surprise, he's actually bald!

That rather irritated him, and he ended up taking corrections to cort. Representing himself in court earlier this month, Smith said the days after he was returned to custody were among the lowest in his life because New Zealand newspapers ran pictures of him appearing bald on their front pages.

In all honesty, I reckon this is totally ridiculous. After all he's done, he shouldn't be allowed to choose what food they give him, let alone get upset about being exposed to the nation as a bald head. But hey, this is the New Zealand justice system we're talking about....

 

[TenEightyOne]

Now, I'm of the mindset to think he should have been given a shotgun shell to the head all those years ago, but that's a debate for another time.

You're right. This is technically another time... so why do you think state-sponsored murder's okay? Remember that "this is the New Zealand justice system we're talking about", you don't see that he has a right to complain (which we'll get to in a moment) but the same system should be able to kill people (presumably on a graded level of decision)?

That rather irritated him, and he ended up taking corrections to cort. Representing himself in court earlier this month, Smith said the days after he was returned to custody were among the lowest in his life because New Zealand newspapers ran pictures of him appearing bald on their front pages.

This begs an interesting question; should convicted criminals be refused the right to be heard by a judge? I'm not going to defend Smith, he seems a vile, odious creature who should be kept away from the public for whole-life... but when should a person lose the right to judgement? Or life?

In all honesty, I reckon this is totally ridiculous.

I tend to agree, that doesn't negate the other questions though.

 

[Nismonath5]

should convicted criminals be refused the right to be heard by a judge?

It's not that he has no right to complain, it's that he's complaining over something that should really be the least of anyone's worries. I mean, if he was being genuinely abused or neglected, I can sort of understand, but this is all over a toupee... it's a complete and total waste of taxpayers' money (so far I understand the ordeal's cost us around $30k. Over a freakin' twenty dollar toupee.)

As for if state sponsered murder's okay, I'd be fine with it if it were only reserved for the worst of the worst, like him. The media labels him a paedophile, but when you look at articles on him you see he's also dealt in drugs, fraud, murder, theft, evading custody...

In fact there aren't many walks of criminal life he hasn't dipped his fingers into, and noone does such things on accident. He's a scheming, witty figure, who's managed to nearly get away, why would you even give him the chance to slip away again?

 

[Danoff]

so why do you think state-sponsored murder's okay?

It would be murder if it were the killing of an innocent person.

 

[Roo]

Convicted paedophile

This isn't a thing any more than a convicted heterosexual is.

Now, I'm of the mindset to think he should have been given a shotgun shell to the head all those years ago

Had New Zealand had the death penalty and had he been sentenced to it, it's not inconceivable that he would still be alive and in jail 21 years later, what with appeals and suchlike. The level of evidence you need and the cost to the taxpayer in legal fees would make it cheaper to jail him for life without parole.

That rather irritated him, and he ended up taking corrections to cort. Representing himself in court earlier this month, Smith said the days after he was returned to custody were among the lowest in his life because New Zealand newspapers ran pictures of him appearing bald on their front pages.

In all honesty, I reckon this is totally ridiculous. After all he's done, he shouldn't be allowed to choose what food they give him, let alone get upset about being exposed to the nation as a bald head.

If you're willing to remove someone's rights for a "good" reason, it doesn't take much to remove someone's rights for a "bad" one. He should be allowed to take Corrections to court, because once you set a precedent that one person isn't allowed to, where do you stop?

Edit: forgot to mention - I imagine his case will be thrown out quite quickly. The cost to the taxpayer is minimal when compared to protecting the rights of everyone.

 

[Danoff]

The level of evidence you need and the cost to the taxpayer in legal fees would make it cheaper to jail him for life without parole.

While this is true and a good point, there is a counterpoint which is that the death penalty encourages pleading guilty and accepting life in prison in lieu of a long drawn out trial to come to the same result. In short, it can be effectively used as a carrot to end a trail.

 

[Obelisk]

Not to turn this into a discussion on the death penalty...

Spoiler

I feel like he should've been hit harder with the initial sentence. Pedophilia and first degree murder doesn't fly in a U.S. court. Nor does it fly in our jails - Sex offenders, especially pedos, are marked for death and killed by other inmates. It's a major issue everywhere in the States.

The fact that this guy is throwing a fit over hair is just utterly dumb. People like him really shouldn't get parole to begin with.

 

[UKMikey]

While this is true and a good point, there is a counterpoint which is that the death penalty encourages pleading guilty and accepting life in prison in lieu of a long drawn out trial to come to the same result. In short, it can be effectively used as a carrot to end a trail.

I'd be interested to see the net saving in states with death penalties due to this. Something tells me the number of cases in which the accused pleaded guilty because of the possibility of being executed is in the minority.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-death-penalty-costs-snap-20161101-story.html

 

[Roo]

Pedophilia and first degree murder

Again, only one of these is a crime. Child molestation (in UK law termed "Rape of a child", "Sexual assault of a child" etc.) is a crime. Paedophilia isn't.

The fact that this guy is throwing a fit over hair is just utterly dumb.

Narcissism is not unusual in murders and child abusers. It wouldn't surprise me if Smith found people knowing he was bald to be much more severe than what he did in the 90s.

 

[Imari]

I'd be interested to see the net saving in states with death penalties due to this. Something tells me the number of cases in which the accused pleaded guilty because of the possibility of being executed is in the minority.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-death-penalty-costs-snap-20161101-story.html

And you either risk getting it wrong and executing a few innocent people, or you push the bar for the death penalty even higher, which costs more.

I think there are valid arguments for the death penalty never being viable in a just legal system, regardless of how good it might make some people feel to see others die.

 

[UKMikey]

And you either risk getting it wrong and executing a few innocent people, or you push the bar for the death penalty even higher, which costs more.

I think there are valid arguments for the death penalty never being viable in a just legal system, regardless of how good it might make some people feel to see others die.

Revenge ain't cheap from the looks of things and I was pretty sceptical regarding any economic advantage so was surprised to hear that that's how they're pushing Prop 66 which shortens the appeal period.

 

[Obelisk]

Paedophilia isn't.

It's treated a lot worse over here. Every country is different.

 

[Danoff]

I'd be interested to see the net saving in states with death penalties due to this. Something tells me the number of cases in which the accused pleaded guilty because of the possibility of being executed is in the minority.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-death-penalty-costs-snap-20161101-story.html

California makes everything expensive.

It'd be hard to calculate. Even harder to calculate is the cost of attorneys that want to make a name for themselves by getting the death penalty when the accused was willing to plead guilty for life in prison in exchange for avoiding the death penalty.

Holmes had also offered to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life without parole, which would have removed the need for the six-month trial that cost Colorado taxpayers more than $5 million. After that plea offer was rejected, Holmes pleaded not guity by reason of insanity.

The above is a great example of how the death penalty can save $$$$ as long as the attorneys involved understand how it's supposed to work. That attorney should be fired. The death penalty should only ever be used in cases where the accused is absolutely slam-dunk guilty of horrendous offenses and unwilling to plea bargain (in other words... very rare). The money lost due to lengthy appeals on a few example cases will pale in comparison to the savings from avoiding lengthy trials.

My wife was livid when she heard they were not going to accept Holmes's plea bargain.

Edit:

Another thought on the death penalty (this thread is about the death penalty right?). California has got to be the main place where organizations will line up to throw money at fighting death penalty cases just for the purpose of making it difficult. If they can get it abolished in CA because they make it expensive, that will only encourage more money to be thrown at defending these guys.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

How the hell did he get parole in the first place

 

[UKMikey]

The above is a great example of how the death penalty can save $$$$ as long as the attorneys involved understand how it's supposed to work. That attorney should be fired. The death penalty should only ever be used in cases where the accused is absolutely slam-dunk guilty of horrendous offenses and unwilling to plea bargain (in other words... very rare). The money lost due to lengthy appeals on a few example cases will pale in comparison to the savings from avoiding lengthy trials.

That's great to hear that the DP only saves money in a very rare amount of cases. It seems like it would be difficult to legislate for it or for keeping it on that basis.

How much money does it save overall in states which don't make everything expensive?

 

[Danoff]

That's great to hear that the DP only saves money in a very rare amount of cases. It seems like it would be difficult to legislate for it or for keeping it on that basis.

Read my post again. It should only COST money in very rare cases.

 

[Famine]

It's treated a lot worse over here. Every country is different.

You miss @Roo's point.

You're confusing the state of paedophilia - sexual attraction towards children - with the crimes associated with acting on that state. One cannot be a 'convicted paedophile' because that is not a crime for which you can be convicted. One can only be convicted of rape or sexual assault of a child, or making, distributing, possessing or viewing of indecent images of children.

 

[UKMikey]

Read my post again. It should only COST money in very rare cases.

I did read it. Doesn't it say it should only be USED in a very rare amount of cases and in those cases it would save money on a lengthy trial process and incarceration?

 

[Danoff]

I did read it. Doesn't it say it should only be USED in a very rare amount of cases and in those cases it would save money on a lengthy trial process?

That's not what it says. And I think we should take this discussion to the death penalty thread.

 

[Obelisk]

You miss @Roo's point.

You're confusing the state of paedophilia - sexual attraction towards children - with the crimes associated with acting on that state. One cannot be a 'convicted paedophile' because that is not a crime for which you can be convicted. One can only be convicted of rape or sexual assault of a child, or making, distributing, possessing or viewing of indecent images of children.

Fair enough. My bad, @Roo.

 

[eran0004]

If corrections had the right to confiscate his toupee he'll lose in court.
If they didn't have the right, he'll win.

What is the big deal exactly?

 

[Danoff]

What is the big deal exactly?

People don't like the idea of convicted criminals, especially those convicted of raping children, having any remaining rights. I sympathize with that sentiment in this case. We confiscate the clothing of incarcerated individuals, what's the difference with a hair piece? Are they allowed to keep press-on nails? jewelry?

 

[eran0004]

People don't like the idea of convicted criminals, especially those convicted of raping children, having any remaining rights. I sympathize with that sentiment in this case. We confiscate the clothing of incarcerated individuals, what's the difference with a hair piece? Are they allowed to keep press-on nails? jewelry?

Prisoners do have a lot of rights actually. And they should, as they are a vulnerable group. Cruelty does not belong in a civilized society.

 

[Danoff]

Prisoners do have a lot of rights actually. And they should, as they are a vulnerable group. Cruelty does not belong in a civilized society.

Vulnerability does not confer rights. Ants are a vulnerable group, they don't get rights. Cruelty has nothing really to do with rights either. Criminals have only the rights we deem appropriate according to social convention - which only runs afoul of morality when their lost rights are not proportional to their crime. Those rights generally do not include the right to accessorize in prison.

Disproportionate to our crime!

 

[Carbonox]

A kiddy molester slash cold-blooded killer doesn't sound like a very vulnerable person, no matter how it's looked at.

 

[Imari]

The money lost due to lengthy appeals on a few example cases will pale in comparison to the savings from avoiding lengthy trials.

I'd have thought that the number of death sentences handed out would be very low, even more so if you're only handing them out in rare cases.

Which would probably mean that you don't have enough cases for the law of averages to kick in properly and whether it's cheaper or not would be down to dumb luck on whether you got a lot of appealable cases or not.

A kiddy molester slash cold-blooded killer doesn't sound like a very vulnerable person, no matter how it's looked at.

Someone who is locked up and basically at the whim of the justice system and their gaolers is inherently vulnerable. That's the point of gaols, to keep prisoners vulnerable so that any disobedience can be dealt with swiftly and with force.

There's not anything wrong with prisoners being vulnerable, they're in that state for a reason. But they are vulnerable, by design.

Prisoners do have a lot of rights actually. And they should, as they are a vulnerable group. Cruelty does not belong in a civilized society.

I'm with Danoff. Being vulnerable gets you nothing in and of itself, particularly when your state of vulnerability is a specific response to you violating the rights of others.

And cruelty absolutely does belong in a civilised society. Unusual or excessive cruelty does not. The law is cruel to criminals for many reasons depending on your view of what the law is designed to achieve, but it does so for good purpose and the cruelty meted out is carefully judged to achieve the effect desired without being excessive.

Even outside the law there are situations where cruelty is appropriate in what many would deem a civilised society. I'm sure if you think about it, you'll realise how many minor cruelties you come across on a daily basis yet dismiss because they're a commonplace.

 

[eran0004]

Vulnerability does not confer rights. Ants are a vulnerable group, they don't get rights. Cruelty has nothing really to do with rights either. Criminals have only the rights we deem appropriate according to social convention - which only runs afoul of morality when their lost rights are not proportional to their crime. Those rights generally do not include the right to accessorize in prison.

Disproportionate to our crime!

Vulnerable groups need their rights more.

 

[Danoff]

I'd have thought that the number of death sentences handed out would be very low, even more so if you're only handing them out in rare cases.

Which would probably mean that you don't have enough cases for the law of averages to kick in properly and whether it's cheaper or not would be down to dumb luck on whether you got a lot of appealable cases or not.

Cases where the death sentence is handed out are examples where savings from a plea bargain did not occur.

Vulnerable groups need their rights more.

I'm more of an equal rights kind of person.

 

[eran0004]

I'm more of an equal rights kind of person.

And how does a difference in need make a difference in equality?

 

[Danoff]

And how does a difference in need make a difference in equality?

ie: it doesn't matter how much you need it, you have the rights you have. You're the one that posted this:

Prisoners do have a lot of rights actually. And they should, as they are a vulnerable group.

Justification of the existence of rights based on need.