Monday, 6 March 2006

Namana a challenge to both prohibitionists and welfarists

NEWSTALK ZB: Rachealle Namana has now finished her six-year sentence for the brutal manslaughter of her stepsister's 23-month-old baby Lillybing in 2001. She has told a Sunday paper prison was not as hard some people make out, saying she enjoyed drugs and porn in her cell...

Two points to make here:
  1. If drugs can't even be prohibited from prisons, how on earth do prohibitionists seriously exect them to be prohibited from society? Face it, the more you try to ban them, the more profits you guarantee to criminals and corrupt policemen.
  2. When Libertarianz started all those years ago, we said it was wrong that we were all forced to pay no-hopers to breed. When the Domestic Purposes Benefit was first introduced in 1975, 17,000 women received the benefit. There are now 111,000 women receiving DPB. A typical DPB beneficiary with one child has an income of around $18 -20,000. It is not a 'safety net,' it is a hammock -- a hammock that costs taxpayers over $2 billion a year and just dehumanises the children it claims to protect, turning them into a meal-ticket for the irresponsible. Forced welfare is not benevolence. Namana is undoubtedly among the worst human beings in this country -- the DPB helped her to become that; prison taught her she had no need to change. Lindsay Mitchell reminds us just how disgusting this no-hoper really is.
LINKS: Killer of Lillybing out, and not reformed - Newstalk ZB
Rachealle Namana - Lindsay Mitchell

Politics-NZ, New Zealand,
Victimless Crimes


  1. Tania Witaka was far worse, but this is where Labour's claim that it is tough on crime is meaningless. Few actions are more morally reprehensible than the neglect and torture of children - but hey, it gets less attention than drug laws, tax laws or bus drivers who got caught with their girlfriends when they were 16.

    I dealt with Corrections in 1999 when it wanted to regulate cellphone operators to have the right to listen in on phone calls close to prisons to help them find the phones. Why can the state not run prisons that truly enforce restrictions on freedom?

  2. Robert Winefield6 Mar 2006, 12:36:00

    "Corrections Association president Bevan Hanlon says contraband like drugs and cell phones is easy to hide now that random searches are deemed a breach of prisoner rights.

    He says new technology would help, but it all comes back to how much the government wants to spend."

    How about not spend the money and just abolish the absurd idea that random searches are a breach of prisoner rights.

    About the only rights a prisoner has in jail is the right to life and the right to not to be tortured. Privacy and property rights don't exist for someone jailed for breaking someone else's rights!!


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.