No, I wasn't suggesting a statute of limitations on any criminal behaviour. Far from it. What I was suggesting is that when we're younger we may (or may not) be prone to errors that we wouldn't make if we had a few grey hairs. In short, we learn from our mistakes.
But there's a difference between wilfully breaking the law and engaging in consensual group sex. Just ask Debbie Gerbich's husband. I'd hate to think he could be labelled as someone who preyed on vulnerable women. Even Howard Broad now knows that watching a bestiality movie is unacceptable behaviour. Whether he knew that 20 years ago is a moot point.
Sigh, I do appreciate the distinction between accused and acquitted
You wouldn't have guessed! I made the perfectly reasonable point that being a prostitute was not the best call to make as a serving police officer and I understand she was hauled over the coals for it. Maybe she was young and will learn from her error. She shouldn't be judged.
I think ron fails to understand just how personally affecting these trials are to perfectly normal, successful women.
And to perfectly normal, successful men.
based on a technicality, our horror is unjustified.
Being acquitted on the basis of insufficient evidence, if that's what you're referring to, isn't a technicality - it's one of the main tenets of our justice system, and rightly so.
I doubt that many women want to come onto a public forum using their full name and interact with people with this kind of "logic" god forbid we might get emotional
Yes, KM, being a prostitute demands a slap on the wrist but sleeping with one is unforgivable.
It's all the same evidence
No, I don't think it was the same evidence. Rickards didn't have a previous conviction. He wasn't involved with the Mt Maunganui case. He apparently had his leg in plaster at the time he was alleged to have committed rape (in the last case) whereas the two other accused admitted they'd had sex with the accuser.
Do we want to put Louise through giving evidence for a second/third/fourth time
We're talking about one extra trial. And if Shipton's and Schollum's prior convictions had been admitted, presumably that would have increased the likelihood of conviction - I doubt that Louise would have been opposed to that.
I take your point about why the Dewar trial wasn't the first held. Your comments are similar to those of Auckland Uni Law Lecturer Peter Sankoff, who back in March explained that Shipton and Schollum had not been protected by the law - as some had suggested.
He explained that: "The law already allows prior convictions of the sort at issue in this case to be admitted when it makes sense to do so.So why wasn’t the evidence admitted? Simple. If Schollum and Shipton were the only two offenders on trial, this evidence would have come in. But they weren’t. The third member of the defence, Rickards, had not been convicted in the earlier trial. The Court of Appeal decided that admitting this evidence would prejudice him - not Schollum and Shipton, as the newspapers have suggested. The worry is that Rickards would be tainted by association - not an unreasonable fear. Those prior guilty verdicts are powerful evidence, and Rickards - with no prior convictions - had reason to worry about “guilt by association” if he was sitting in the dock with two guys with rape priors".
Of course, this begs the question: Why weren't Schollum and Shipton tried on their own?
soooo.... you're defending the alleged rapes based on the guys age, and inability to think things thru?
Che, no, I'm not. I'm simply saying that it wasn't great judgement and, to quote our esteemed PM, it's not a hanging offence. Clearly, you disagree.
does this mean that you'd forgive a 23-24 year old who raped your own daughter? or son, for that matter
Well, I'd like to think I'm forgiving but that's another matter. You seem to be confusing at least three different issues. One is consensual group sex, one is alleged rape and the other is actual rape. Louise's then flatmate also engaged in group sex with Shipton et al. She has not suggested that she was raped. Debbie Gerbich also said that she had group sex with Shipton et al, but has not suggested that she was raped. This information may or may not relevant to the latest case.
your statement also suggests that you acted in a similar way when you were that age
Does it? I think you're straining credibility with such a "suggestion". Try to keep to the topic.
Secondly, isn't it the judges job to rule that inadmissable evidence is... well, inadmissable?
I thought so, too. I also thought that if evidence was inadmissible the Judge would tell jurors to disregard it. Why was Dewar allowed to even testify at the second trial if his evidence had been compromised?
if you really think Clint Rickards has shown the judgement and good character required to be reinstated as Assistant Police Commissioner and Auckland City Commander
No, I don't think he showed great judgment at the time. But given that the guy was 23 or 24 at the time, I guess many of us can say the same thing, maybe even you, too, Craig! But I would hate to think that you would be hung, drawn and quoted based on something you said (or did) 20 years ago.
A policewoman was recently censured because she was moonlighting as a prostitute. Again, not great judgment but the woman was apparently allowed to remain in the force. By the same logic, the guy who was yesterday acquitted of strangling a prostitute should also be allowed to remain in the force.
And I know one thing: Clint Rickards not only must not be our most senior policeman, he should not be in the force at all.
Aren't you confusing Howard Broad with Rickards? And what about Rob Pope - who's been accused of perjury and falsifying affidavits in the pursuit of Scott Watson? Presumably you want him out of the foce, too.
The abusers have great big holes inside them where they themselves have never been filled to the brim with love. They can't share, they are possessive & territorial, they are terminally self-oriented. NZ men do not want to face up to this.
With respect, the issue doesn't concern just men. That is the problem with asking women invasive questions when they go to hospital - many acts of abuse will be overlooked because they will have been committed by women.