Wednesday Write In: Shameful privileges for criminals

After watching the expose on career criminal Arthur William Taylor, featured on TV1's Sunday on June 26, I experienced a raft of emotions: anger, frustration, dismay and even shame.
I am angry because this nearly 60-year-old man has accumulated over 125 convictions, spent at least 30 years incarcerated in New Zealand prisons and has cost us taxpayers many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I feel frustrated because the introduction of liberal legislation by successive governments has created a justice system that is stacked clearly in favour of the criminal, and has done nothing to encourage offenders to take responsibility for and suffer the consequences of their criminal actions.
Our systems have clearly failed miserably with recidivist offenders such as Taylor, and I fear the failure rate will continue until some significant changes are made to current legislation.
I am utterly dismayed that Taylor's family members fail to make him accountable for his offending, and speak about him as though he is a victim and a hero. Shame on Taylor's sister, Joanne Ashby, for the message she is giving her children about their uncle's behaviour and on David Jones QC for saying Taylor applies his abilities for the assistance of others. What utter rubbish!
Taylor behaves as he does for his own gratification and to fuel his inflated ego. He is a habitual criminal and he should not be accorded any "hero" status.
I worked for the prison service for 21 years. I have managed prisoners and worked alongside prison officers and managers alike. I have the utmost respect for the complex and often thankless work that prison staff carry out within a difficult environment.
Current legislation and Department of Corrections' policies dictate what prisoners are allowed to do, although many prison staff will agree that prisoners are afforded too many rights and privileges.
Sadly, I admit to playing a part in supporting the implementation of many policies that have subsequently undermined the ability for offenders to be managed sensibly.
Now I am ashamed, and I am saying enough is enough. Why should Taylor have been allowed so many privileges whilst serving time for serious offences?
Why should Taylor's criminal wife, who has served time in jail for aiding in one of his escapes, be allowed to continue to visit him at Paremoremo?
Why should the New Zealand taxpayer continue to pay for Taylor's ongoing defence and appeal hearings when his taxable income is in the tens of thousands of dollars per year?
Thank you, TV1's Sunday programme, for making me wake up. I am finally going to contribute my time and effort into working alongside the people who are trying to effect some changes to our broken justice system.
Rae Mitchell, Napier
Art Deco distractions
Once again the Napier City Council has me shaking my head in disbelief. I am referring to the latest edition of Proudly Napier, and in particular the item on Marineland.
The council is saying that Marineland is costing it a large amount while the doors are closed, and yet business sense would suggest that even keeping the doors open would offset these costs to some degree, thereby easing the cost to ratepayers.
The NCC recently received more than 700 submissions supporting the redevelopment of Marineland into an animal sanctuary and hospital, with the penguins.
When residents are getting sick of the lack of low-cost family-orientated events and facilities, why can't Napier have both Marineland and the aquarium? They complement each other.
We are told the rates increase is so low. However, when we look around at what council wants to do (new museum, Art Deco buses and an inflatable toy for the Rugby World Cup), it leaves one to wonder how much is actually being spent on maintenance of current facilities and the priority of these.
We have been disappointed with the state of Ocean Spa, we lost the outdoor pool at the Aquatic Centre and then there's the lack of maintenance that was done on Marineland prior to closing.
Is it the legacy of this council to create new things to be remembered by, and be blinded by the Art Deco bent they seem to favour, than to maintain the city's assets to a standard that shows good business management?
S. Lyford, Napier
Compulsory EQC tax
The Earthquake Commission (EQC) collects the "earthquake tax" through insurance companies. It works well as long as people insure their properties. However, not everyone does. Since having insurance is not compulsory, there always will be a number of people not paying the EQC.
If the EQC levy was tagged to the council rates, every owner of property would contribute. It not only brings in more money into the EQC coffers but it prevents hard decisions when a disaster strikes, and uninsured families have nothing left and will need to be helped one way or another because of humanitarian considerations.
P. Duyvestyn, Hastings