ACT Leader Doesn't Know What Burglary Is
Date : 6th September 2014
The Party Leader’s Debate on TV One last night, revealed a fatal flaw in ACT’s policy on three strikes for burglary. http://tvnz.co.nz/vote-2014-news/child-poverty-burglary-light-up-minor-leaders-debate-6073899, comments Kim Workman, spokesperson for Rethinking Crime and Punishment.
“ACT leader Jamie Whyte made it clear that burglary was a dreadful crime because it promoted a sense of invasion when an
offender entered somebody’s residential dwelling. Under questioning from Mike Hosking he insisted that breaking into a
business premise was not a burglary.”
“Burglary in New Zealand comprises any breaking and entering of a building with intent to commit an offence. It includes
any building or structure of any description, whether permanent or temporary; and includes a ship, tent, caravan, or
houseboat; and also includes any enclosed yard or any closed cave or closed tunnel.”
“He then went on to claim that in the UK similar legislation reduced burglary by 30%, because it acted as a deterrent.
Rethinking has already exposed that claim as a myth.”http://blog.rethinking.org.nz/2014/05/caught-in-theact-negligible-impact-of.html”
It is clear that Jamie Whyte thinks that the policy only relates to dwellings. This policy has been so poorly researched
by ACT, that they would be well advised to withdraw it and come up with a less crazy idea.
ends