There'll be tumbleweeds blowing through here soon - n0thing to keep the readers away like having a dry piece of historiography as your only post for 36 hours.
Anyway, normal service is resumed with a tough-on-crime post. I watched 3News' usual emotion-laden blather passing for reportage about Some-ridiculous-crim-kid-name Broughton's sentencing last night (Stuff's story here), and wondered how his earlier victim Zara Schofield must feel about the fact that he's essentially been let off for his attack on her.
How else could you describe our practice of giving concurrent sentences? This little weasel got a minimum 12.5 years for murdering Karen Aim. Zara Schofield gets to sit there and watch how the mere 6 years he got for failing in his attempt to murder her (incompetence rewarded, how very NZ) is made concurrent with the longer sentence, ie the only sentence he'll actually serve is the one he got for Karen Aim.
I feel like we've let Zara Schofield down. Stupid-name Broughton, a broken thing that's obviously lost or simply never had whatever it is that makes us human, should be serving a sentence for her before he even starts serving the one he got for Karen Aim - giving him concurrent sentences is simply a message to Schofield that she doesn't count, and a message to Broughton that the last crime for which you get caught is the only one for which you'll be punished.
October 25 in history
4 hours ago