I write in support of Chester Borrows' comments regarding the benefits of restorative justice.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust states it is there for the victims of crime, but I disagree. Creating a climate of fear and resentment does not help people affected by crime move on.
Isn't it a more positive approach to work through your grief and anger in a safe supportive environment than hold on to those feelings that may well intensify and have on-going consequences.
We provide a very good restorative justice service in Whanganui, Marton, Taihape and the Waimarino. Victim feedback confirms this.
However, I acknowledge it is not for everyone. Sometimes it is too soon and too raw for victims to face the perpetrator.
Contrary to the Sensible Sentencing Trust's view, the restorative justice process is victim-centred and definitely not a soft option.
Genuine motivation to make changes and acceptance of the harm done, on the part of the offender, is assessed by professional facilitators before the process goes any further.
More restorative justice is just one part of the sentencing process and the normal range of sentencing options are considered by the court each time, together with an acknowledgement that a restorative conference has taken place.
I wish Chester all the best in his new role and look forward to the findings from this advisory group. It is long overdue.
JENNY SAYWOOD, Restorative Justice Whanganui
Religion is cruel
The opening gambit of Mr Haakma's "philosophical positions" letter (July 10) is incorrect in claiming that secular humanism is a religion.
Derived from Graeco-Roman stoicism, its position relative to religion was summed up by Seneca: "The common people believe it; the wise regard it as false; rulers find it convenient."
Among other influences of the Renaissance, stoicism was influential in the growth of humanism which denies belief in the supernatural and argues for the enhancement of human reason based on observation of the real world leading to the collection of evidence supporting or denying an hypothesis.
The alert reader will have now seen the fallacy of Mr Haakma's assertion that - in the realm of science - neutrality is a myth.
Lamark's hypothesis that the environment could effect change in evolutionary development within a generation could not withstand the cognate Darwinian evidence for a slower path of evolutionary change, which was borne out by the rediscovery of Mendel's work on genes and work on DNA.
However, recent work on epigenetic micro-biology is showing that while Darwin was not wrong, neither was Lamark as far wrong as he had earlier been held to be.
And this is the problem with Mr Haakma's position regarding science.
Scientists are aware of the difficulties that confront them in arriving at "truth", and they have built into their systems the means and rules that lessen the problems inherent in all human endeavour and bring ever greater certainty to their conclusions.
And this is the ultimate difference between religion and science. The various versions of "living gods" that have their origins of both dogma and doctrine in long past myth cannot and will not brook the questioning of their belief-based assertions from which their priesthoods draw their "evidence" - which it is not.
The distinction is amusingly drawn from the anecdote of the physicist asked to comment on Pope Pius XII's ex-cathedra statement that the virgin Mary ascended bodily to heaven.
The cautious response of the scientist was that, as he wasn't there to observe the event he couldn't comment, but he was positive that at 30,000 feet she would have passed out. Right.
For that sort of reason, most of the world trusts science on a myriad of day-to-day matters, and more and more often votes against the deeply conservative and often cruel options of religion.
RUSS HAY, Whanganui
Not alt-right
In the Chronicle on July 21 there was an NZ Herald clip - "Immigration minister: Alt-right duo best ignored".
Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway shows that he does not like free speech. He pours scorn on Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux "who have stirred debate on free speech in New Zealand before they have even arrived".
Why does Lees-Galloway fear free speech?
I have spent many hours watching Stefan and Lauren's docos and debates.They are both objective in what they say - I have never seen them say anything that is not clearly the objective truth.
If Lees-Galloway calls them alt-right, then he is clearly far-left.
WILLIAM PARTRIDGE, Hunterville
