Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Not even a statistic

124 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Just my pathetic opinion of course.

    Not even a micron of pathetic there. And you know, I think you're right -- at least Rodney's "reluctantly" wrapping his brain around this but as long as he has a media platform very people have, I hope he (and his editors at The Herald) are going to be thinking a lot harder about how he uses it.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald,

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1346 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to ,

    So how do we use science to reduce the assaults in the first place?

    Ah sorry Steven I got that completely wrong.

    The key for me is that I do NOT have the necessary knowledge. On this subject I am ignorant. I have read some general stuff from purely the sake of interest. But that in no way replaces a real deep knowledge of the field.

    There are however many genuine experts in the field, so first up, I would track them down and ask them what they believe the evidence shows will work.

    I would then enact their best ideas (probably several different at the same time) for approaches and then I would make sure we have a stable monitoring system so we can see what works and what doesn't.

    From what I have read, one thing stands out. In every study I have seen the likelyhood of committing a crime decreases with the likelyhood of being caught. There is no correlation with punishment (within the ranges of all reasonable punishments). So to me that suggests we should focus on making sure rapists are caught and convicted. We should not focus on sentencing at all. The original poster's story strongly suggests there is a real problem with the way police handle rape complaints and there statistics also suggest that there is a problem with the way our legal system handle rape cases (the later is the subject of a law commission review).

    So for me, I think, I would want to see changes to police policy and perhaps a special rape court with different rules. BUT I am NOT an expert and I would defer to real experts. This might be the wrong place to start , it may be better to start in primary school, or on TV, or on billboards, there are people with more knowledge than I who can and should make the call.

    How do we use science to solve the problem?

    We get knowledge, we get evidence (not anecdotes), we hypothesize solutions, we conduct the experiments, we observe the results, and continue the cycle.

    The hard part is conducting the experiments because these are real people we are trying things out on (but frankly it's hard to see how we could do worse) and because it requires money and change. In particular it requires change from two groups that are very resistant to change, the police and the legal system.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to ,

    there is therapeutic value for some victims of violence, when the perpetrator is given some sort of consequence.

    Oh yes, definitely. There is also a need to have sentences in line with similar violence. What I wanted to say was that increasing sentences does not reduce the criminal activity.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to ,

    I see the rehabilitation of the community; which lets get real, is a bit sick, is shared by both the offenders, victims and all shades of gray.

    While I commented on the criminality, I really want reiterate, I am not an expert in this. It really may not be the best solution to focus heavily on the crime of rape, it may well turn out to be much more productive to focus elsewhere.

    I don't have the knowledge to make an informed guess. There IS a huge problem with our culture, it will take much more than focusing on the crime only to change the culture in a way that will get us rape-free.

    But we have examples where culture can change, making things that used to be casually acceptable, completely abhorrent. Slavery, public flogging, comic sans are things that used to be common and for many people a society without them was inconceivable.

    I think it will take many different approaches, some with fail, some will do less than we hope. It will cost money, our tax dollars. It will cost political capital, yes the mean boys will tease you for caring.

    But just think about what it might mean for us to be able to say there is no rape here any more.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    In particular it requires change from two groups that are very resistant to change, the police and the legal system.

    So, how do we change these two groups?

    Our family used to watch the telly news and hear complaints about the police and the legal system and actually, to our shame, tended to sympathise with the poor hard working copper and the overloaded court system.

    Dear oh dear how a couple of incidents can change one's opinion.

    The police? Either stupid or corrupt, or most likely a combination of the two...with a large dose of arrogance to make them truly dangerous. We will NEVER trust them again. Ever.

    The Court/Justice system. A lottery. What can I say, I got a Judge with an operating bullshit detector...so many others have gone to jail innocent. Others get judges who MUST be corrupt, or members of the same peadophile ring or some damn thing because for the life of me I cannot find any justification for the sentences they hand down nor the comments they make.

    And we all know which ones I'm referring to.

    How to change this so we can have confidence in these agencies?

    Hold them up to REAL scrutiny. Hold them accountable when they get it wrong.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1346 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    Others get judges who MUST be corrupt, or members of the same peadophile ring or some damn thing because for the life of me I cannot find any justification for the sentences they hand down nor the comments they make.

    What they hand down is the status quo. If a case of similar occurrence has been handed down, A Judge will follow suit because a Lawyer could appeal if a case gets a harsher or easier determination and that's all money. A Judge can't be going "I think I'll change things today, I'm feeling generous" Some of the words they use I think can be questionable myself but that should be the Lawyers job to take up if they think the Judge is out of line. Police are the biggest gang in NZ and I feel it's almost a hive mind that exists amongst them. We are finally getting an increase in complaints about fellow Police whereas in the past everyone covered for each other. We are only just now holding Police to account for their sexism. I think we have Louise Nicholas to thank there. Progress is that she now works with the Police so that's change. Sadly it's not moving fast enough as always. One thing I notice and it hasn't really changed in my experience is, female cops are the worst. Like they have something to prove. Some real bitches.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    I think we have Louise Nicholas to thank there

    Heartbreaking to see the look on her face when the police buggered up the Roastbusters case. All those years trying to get justice, then she voluntarily enters the lions' den to try and educate....then realises nothing much has changed. Just a fleeting look...but spoke volumes.


    ."....that should be the Lawyers job to take up if they think the Judge is out of line."

    Seems to me that nobody is expected to do their job properly anymore.
    No real expectations.
    No responsibility.
    No accountability.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1346 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    Seems to me that nobody is expected to do their job properly anymore.No real expectations.No responsibility.No accountability.

    No funding. All the funding for Legal aid was slashed. No funding = no representation.
    Our rights are being systematically undermined . Our rights in the Courts are being eroded. Our Democracy is disappearing.
    I must admit ,it was refreshing to see a win for Arthur Taylor on prisoner voting rights. This from the Greens. Collins again with absolute disregard for human beings.
    And for all the Lawyers out there, it took a prisoner from a jail cell to stick it to National.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2014/07/17/in-defence-of-strong-women-and-freedom-of-speech/

    Yep, I'd go along with that Jan,

    "So many of our community organisations have been silenced by gagging clauses in their contracts, or just by the knowledge that some organisations have lost funding for doing too much advocacy."

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1346 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    comic sans

    vindication at last

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    evidence (not anecdotes)

    I have a lot of respect for the mental health advocate who told me "what we need more of is practice-based evidence, not evidence-based practice". She meant respecting what people with actual experience of mental illness say. Not just those who have read textbooks or been paid to do their jobs in the field.

    Stories are a universal human form of knowledge. Context is important, but experimental replication is not everything. Nothing personal but we do not solve social problems by asking people who know molecular chemistry, etc. And if I want to know about science, I probably won't ask a social policy analyst.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to ,

    and society is made of energy

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I can relate

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to ,

    recovering

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Sacha,

    She meant respecting what people with actual experience

    Ask a child, taken into care because of violence in the home, what they feel, what they want....

    They will talk about the anger and frustration that is always simmering, always a look away. One wrong move.....one more can of beer.

    Fear is what they feel, feeling safe is what they want.

    And they want the grown ups to sort their shit out.

    But the grown ups don't/can't/won't.

    So the child grows up to be frustrated and angry. And on we go.

    Now, the social scientists will call that anecdotal...not evidence based research..can't form a policy without data.

    More statistics.

    We have enough of those.

    How do rape survivors want to be treated? What do they need to feel able to heal?

    Ask offenders why they do it. What do they need in order to change.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1346 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Sacha,

    Nothing personal but we do not solve social problems by asking people who know molecular chemistry, etc.

    No offence taken at all. I know I'm ignorant on this.

    I understand the point about practice based evidence, it is really important to listen to patients. For me the issue with evidence as the driver is that with evidence you end up doing what actually works instead of what you want to work.

    In an issue like this with many causes and many solutions it is really easy to be drawn into an ideological solution, commit to that and then fail to notice that it isn't working. Or fail to notice that something that didn't fit your ideology is working better. That for me, is the value of evidence, it allows you to do what works and to stop doing what doesn't work.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to ,

    PS: I am aware that my small group of theatrical scenarios are just that,

    Rape on the stage, comic musical theatre from the 50s. Repopularised by the now outed dirty old man Rolf Harris in the 70s.

    http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiMADERA.html

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1346 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    Rape on the stage, comic musical theatre from the 50s. Repopularised by the now outed dirty old man Rolf Harris in the 70s.

    I guess there was a kind of inevitability at work there, as Harris essentially reworked the fag-end of vaudeville and the music hall tradition into a TV career. There were still a few "lightning sketch artists" around in my distant childhood, who'd emerge from retirement to enliven small-town variety shows. Then suddenly there was this doofus on TV acting like he'd invented it.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

  • Daniel Wilton, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    Ask offenders why they do it. What do they need in order to change

    I would hazard a guess that most young men do not actually know what rape is, both the legal definition and (sorry to put my foot in my mouth here) those who victims definition.

    Before I sat on that jury of the rape trial. I knew what theft was, what drink driving was, what was deemed to be assault but I had never been taught the legal definitions surrounding sexual violence.

    After the recent Cunliffe apology, someone said in the pub that they weren't a rapist or an abuser. So I asked them how they knew that? I asked whether or not they could confirm that they had consent from all of their previous sexual partners. I noticed a few guys in the group move uncomfortably in their seats before some tried to move on to the next point.

    There needs to be more conversation about this topic in schools, and teaching people how to respect each other and how not to become someone's rapist

    Wellington • Since Jan 2009 • 54 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart,

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/10304939/Father-jailed-for-raping-daughter

    "Defence lawyer Steven Zindel argued there was little or no impact on the 4 year old victim and there was no coercion.

    "There's not the coercion, I know that is because she is young. There is also no immediate effect on her."

    WTF! I thought Rosemary was a little hard on the legal profession, but no, she's right.

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Angela Hart,

    “Defence lawyer Steven Zindel argued there was little or no impact on the 4 year old victim and there was no coercion.

    “There’s not the coercion, I know that is because she is young. There is also no immediate effect on her.”

    WTF! I thought Rosemary was a little hard on the legal profession, but no, she’s right.

    That’s on the same wavelength as that case where the defence lawyer Keith Jefferies said the victim should have “kept her legs closed”. The kind of guy who says "do as I say, not as I do".

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5443 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh,

    Um, so, Rodney Hide's latest column... this does seem to be quite an interesting evolution, at least in his public persona. And he starts with a combination of three words that is most rare in our political "leaders":

    I was wrong

    And he doesn't seem to be blaming Cunliffe for his ignorance, either.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    “Defence lawyer Steven Zindel argued there was little or no impact on the 4 year old victim and there was no coercion.

    “There’s not the coercion, I know that is because she is young. There is also no immediate effect on her.”

    WTF! I thought Rosemary was a little hard on the legal profession, but no, she’s right.

    That’s on the same wavelength as that case where the defence lawyer Keith Jefferies said the victim should have “kept her legs closed”. The kind of guy who says ”do as I say, not as I do”.

    To me this is why the way we try rape cases must change. Because as it stands lawyers are obliged to pollute the court with this crap to protect their client.

    With a different structure it might be possible for lawyers to defend the facts of the case without resorting to the behaviour that results in reasonably minded people to consider them to be scum (mostly they aren't scum, they just know behaving like scum helps their client).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.