Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
-
Thanks for the heads up about any lack of clarity there Craig,
I wasn't referring to Kirsten Dunst-Powell, I was hazarding a guess at possible inferences of the message the Vietch judgment may send to people involved in future violent episodes, in response to;Let's also hope that others have taken a message that reporting abuse should always be the first avenue to try.
Weigh it up, should I report the abuse? Or should I blackmail the attacker to pay me? Either message could be inferred.
Specifically thinking in relation to violent crime and heaven forbid, our smacking legislation, ie, not so much the Vietch case itself as the precedent and message that has been sent by the ruling.
"I'm sorry for beating you yesterday son, here's your candy"
"I said $1000 compensation daddy!"Thanks for the song Sofie. I just couldn't find a better word in that case Craig.
You're also assuming that an ordinary "joe bloggs' who assaulted their partner wouldn't get a similar treatment. Conviction without jail time and alcohol/violence treatment would be a common sentence for a first time conviction.
There's no evidence that the payment of money led to him getting any better deal in the courts than he would have got if he hadn't paid the $150,000. Your assumption is that the prosecution team, and the judge, aren't sufficiently onto it to treat each case on it's merits. The penalty applied wouldn't be unusual in a domestic violence case.
He broke Kirsten's back Kyle, it's millimetres away from permanent paralysis or death. Most of the charges were dropped, it's not your average domestic violence case. One of the primary purposes of the compensation was to avoid the New Zealand legal system. If that's what NZ is going for, then it can only be classed as an unmitigated success.
-
I expect to hear you have been lobbying the Government on such issues if your concern is that black and white. Good luck.:)
Thanks, but as you know it's no longer my home, merely my homeland, So the degree of relevance to my own life is minimal. I just wished to voice my concerns based on my own (mis)interpretations of what I've read (however inaccurate these may be). If there are legitimate concerns there, I certainly trust you and the team know best how to handle it Sofie. If there are no concerns, then again, it's simply one man's faulty perception.
My only avenue of interaction with NZ is Public Address and I do wholeheartedly value the forum Russell and Co., Ltd provide.
We are doing the best we can so far eh?
You're doing pretty damned well... but there's always room for improvement ; ) Good day to you.
-
Kyle, as I said on the previous page,
I find the subtext deeply worrying. It set a precedent that can be exploited by either member of a domestic dispute and does nothing to address the violence. (page 9.)
I guess you missed that, No worries I've written a lot, but I think that clearly sums up my feeling about the dangers of such a precedent.
It was my understanding that we don't have anti violence laws in New Zealand to protect people's rights to negotiate post violence payouts, correct me if I'm wrong, but we have anti violence laws to prevent violence, no?
In China, yes, if I commit a crime, I can payout and get preferential treatment, and as I'm in a higher socio economic position I'm comforted by that thought. I will be accorded preferential treatment because I can afford to pay more and will certainly avoid prison, those poorer than me? Well, they will rot in prison.
Likewise there are many countries where we can just pay for the right to engage in violent crime, I'm disappointed that New Zealand has joined this list. And feel that the NZ justice system that I was brought up to believe in, has been ideologically corrupted by money. But obviously I am an idealist.
You're also assuming that an ordinary "joe bloggs' who assaulted their partner wouldn't get a similar treatment.
Few ordinary "joe bloggs" who assault their partners can afford $150,000 Kyle.
I appreciate what you're saying Sofie,
but I'm not convinced by this;
Let's also hope that others have taken a message that reporting abuse should always be the first avenue to try.
Weigh it up, should I report the abuse? Or should I blackmail the attacker to pay me? Either message could be inferred.
For Vietch, with his history of domestic violence, and high income, he's set himself up as a classic target for provocation by a gold digging partner and the law has set a solid precedent for such a scenario to occur.
To those without the means, different series of outcomes altogether.
What is being done to address the violence?(not insignificant in this case)
FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
Compensation was given and accepted from both parties.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on our respective perceptions of the purpose of justice.
I am saddened that you would think the Judge should have dealt with it differently
In this case, as I understand it was in negotiations with police that the charges were dropped, so it's complicated, hence my referral simply to the 'judiciary' in most of my posts, I don't see any single figure of guilt in the justice system, not this judge nor that, this officer nor that. Merely emerging trends.
I feel I've said my piece here on this topic. I'm in no way insinuating that the New Zealand justice system is corrupt to the bone, merely that there is in ideological corruption emerging; a conflict between how much freedom money can buy against the essential purpose of some laws. Simply, I think as a democracy, we should be better than that.
-
Hi Stephen, how are you? I've never read Whaleoil, Just the newspapers and what Russell said;
"Well, he didn't think about it, clearly. He was very drunk and went down an alley with a couple of young women to get a blow job in the middle of the night, and appears to have drunkenly believed their friend was joining in too. It's pretty gross."
equality
Quite. But, wha????Even if right now Kirsten Dunne-Powel is the only victim of domestic violence in New Zealand who has taken the money over the pressing of charges (which I doubt), the message it sends to the wealthy is "It is OK to break someone's back, it'll just cost a little".
A person committed an indecent assault, was caught, charged, and convicted for it. Your point is what, exactly?
I liked the sci-fiesque "virtual offender, kind of fits with leisure themed baseballesque three strikes.
-
To me they are guilty Sacha, because I believe in a society where we shouldn't be able to just buy the right to engage in criminal activity. ie. equality.
http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/cross-dressing-man-sentenced-after-indecent-assault/5/16975
-
In answer to your initial question there Sacha,
Chris, you admit you do not know the details and yet you are convinced the judge got it wrong. Why is that?
I don't know all the details, but I do know that the musician was wasted enough to do that, admitted he did it because he was wasted and didn't remember it the next day.
I'm no teetotaler but I strongly feel that someone who commits this kind of crime while intoxicated without recall, should be sentenced to some alcohol/ drug counseling, at the very least.
$5000 does nothing to ensure we don't see a repeat of this action by either the musician or any other citizen who can afford $5000 to do exactly the same thing. Is our increasingly capitalist justice system designed to prevent crime, keep the peace, protect the community, or simply to ensure that victims receive adequate compensation and criminal tendencies remain unaddressed?
Why are judges guilty until you are "convinced" they're innocent?
Why are the judges in the three cases I mentioned on page 9 guilty of sowing a perception of inequality and distrust in the legal system?
Because their sentences were not consistent with sentences for similar crimes handed to people in lower socio-economic demographics. Why they did this I can only hazard a guess.
-
I haven't veered Sacha. Quote what you need to, I'll respond. Don't throw horses at me man. If you have a question, contextualize it. I'm happy to engage in discourse. At no point have I said (all) judges are guilty of anything, that just seems intentionally inflammatory. Lets keep it above the table now shall we.
-
Quote me saying "I'm convinced the judge got it wrong" or words to that effect Sacha and I'll answer your question. Right now I can't recall the excerpt to which you refer, As far as I recall, any referral I've made to the musician's thing has been merely to make the case that it has sown a sense of inequality in the populace as evident with simple Google search of "name suppressed musician"
If you can't find it, I'll assist you, I'm convinced the judge got it wrong in sentencing someone to pay $5000, for being wasted enough to shove a dick in a girls face without also sentencing him to some kind of drug and alcohol counselling and community service.
Why would a Judge flout the law ...I would have to know the law and be prepared to argue in a courtroom to try and prove that sort of accusation
I didn't say they are flouting the law, I said, and I quote;
"taking quite dramatic liberties with the laws,"
and in particular sentencing.
It's an accusation, but not an accusation of crime, their sentences have not violated any official protocol or law, it would not go to court.
it would not go unnoticed and ignored by anyone else dealing with the case.
And so we are noticing that after pleading guilty to crime with a maximum 2 year prison sentence, the defendent was discharged and granted name suppression and ordered to pay $5000.
if you play you pay.
We are noticing the scales of justice swung by a princely $150,000 in the Vietch case.
Are we trying to dissuade people from violence or start a compensation black market?
And we recall the $40,000 4 year old killed by the deported 'asian driver',
Which is an indictment of the value we place on human life, and the faith we have in our own justice system to punish and or rehabilitate the offender.
In it's way, it speaks quite clearly, especially to those of us who can't afford to commit these kinds of crimes.
To recall Spock's last words: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
-
Yes, outside the court system. : s
I agree with you Steven that publishing sex offenders names isn't always in society's best interest.
I think the main interest of society is that the justice system is fair, efficient and non-selective.
I don't think my issue is with the law as much as with those members of the judiciary who seem to be taking quite dramatic liberties with the laws, conferring a sense inconsistency on the average citizen, undermining the laws reason for being and subsequently cultivating a feeling of no confidence in the system from victims and potential victims.