Island Life: The Guilt of Clayton Weatherston
285 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
And for those who thought that the verdict might allow the media to move on, think again. Right at this moment, there are seven headlines on Granny's site that relate to the Sophie Elliot killing, six about her or Weatherston and one about the prospective repeal of the provocation defence. That's seven out of 25, which is slightly over a quarter. I don't think the saturation was quite so high before the verdict was over.
Of course, I'm hoping that this is an aberration and that we'll be spared further saturation coverage.
-
My mistake, Craig. I thought you were judging the Elliotts harshly rather than the media.
-
My mistake, Craig. I thought you were judging the Elliotts harshly rather than the media.
Well, to be fair what little I've seen/read wasn't as crass as I'd been expecting. (Damnation with faint praise, sure, but that's all I've got.) But wouldn't it have been nice if the press pack had decided that this was the time to just back off?
-
Y'know, I think this provocation defense should stay. After all, getting rid of it isn't going to change what happened in the Weatherston trial. I think it should stay till the next time it's used, which will presumably be (as it usually is) as an excuse for killing some man who fancies men. Then when the politicians jump up and down calling for the law to change pronto, I might actually think they were doing so from some position of principle, rather than just because it's popular.
Alternatively, I could be kind and blame the public instead. Maybe the politicians are thinking "oh thank goodness it's some nice young girl this time, now we can get rid of that ridiculous law without the talkback voters realising we do care about gay people too."
-
3410,
Y'know, I think this provocation defense should stay.
I'm thinking that too. Surely there are some cases where it's relevant? The fact that it's been widely abused doesn't automatically mean it should be abolished. I lean more to thinking that some judges have inappropriately allowed it.
-
3410,
... and frankly, I wouldn't trust National to get it right.
-
Y'know, I think this provocation defense should stay. After all, getting rid of it isn't going to change what happened in the Weatherston trial.
No, but it will ensure it can never happen again. The judge would've ruled it entirely inadmissible that Sophie was, according to Weatherston, a manipulative slut who made him feel sexually and physically inadequate. In a murder trial where provocation is no defence, the character of the defendant is entirely irrelevant. The defence counsel would never have been permitted to follow through that line of questioning. After all, his claims about Sophie's behaviour were only relevant inasmuch as they were meant to demonstrate that she drove him to do it.
By making provocation a matter for examination during sentencing, the farce would have been conducted away from the eyes of the media. Sentencing hearings aren't broadcast for all and sundry, and without the "bonus" of playing for the jury Weatherston's behaviour would likely have been much subdued. Judges don't take kindly to defendants who suggest that, maybe, y'ronner, I'm much, much smarter than you and you should just worship me as a form of lesser deity. No matter how subtly the defendant may make such suggestions.
There's no good reason for it to remain. Life is no longer mandatory for murder, and no matter what the provocation may have been the defendant did murder the victim based on the definitions of murder in the Crimes Act. Manslaughter implies accident, and there's no way that the Hungarian or Weatherston (pretending for a moment that Weatherston succeeded with his defence) didn't display the textbook lack of care as to whether or not the victim would live or die that is a form of the crime of murder.
-
Sigh. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. I think provocation is a nonsense defense. The thing that irks me is that so many people are jumping up and down for it to be removed now, and jumping up and down loudly enough that the politicians see some votes in doing something about it. It was just as nonsense a defence in the "homosexual panic" cases, but the voices calling for its repeal were much fewer, or quieter, or something, and didn't generate the same sense of urgency as this case has.
So although I will be glad to see the defense go, I will be extremely disappointed that it will only be because someone finally tried to use it to get away with murdering someone straight.
-
I got it, Lucy. (Hi, BTW.)
-
Perhaps we can have an in-depth feature on people who suffer from dissociative disorders that allow them to compartmentalise and rationalise distasteful behaviour.
I'm sure we'll see one in this weekend's Herald on Sunday.
Didn't have to wait until
Sunday -
By making provocation a matter for examination during sentencing, the farce would have been conducted away from the eyes of the media. Sentencing hearings aren't broadcast for all and sundry, and without the "bonus" of playing for the jury Weatherston's behaviour would likely have been much subdued.
Unfortunately, the cameras still like to turn up for sentencing.
-
By making provocation a matter for examination during sentencing, the farce would have been conducted away from the eyes of the media. Sentencing hearings aren't broadcast for all and sundry, and without the "bonus" of playing for the jury Weatherston's behaviour would likely have been much subdued.
Unfortunately, the cameras still like to turn up for sentencing.
Oh, of course. But that's only the end of a process, and the process is largely conducted behind closed doors. The reason that Weatherston's not being sentenced until mid-September is that the judge now has to go through all the victim impact statements, hear arguments by both sides as to what they think the sentence should be, etc. The activity on the 15th will certainly receive quite extensive media coverage, but don't think that they get to see everything that's gone into reaching that point.
-
So although I will be glad to see the defense go, I will be extremely disappointed that it will only be because someone finally tried to use it to get away with murdering someone straight.
Would you rather that it stuck around until some other gay person is "manslaughtered"? With such an archaic, offensive statute I'll take the victory of its demise however it happens to arrive.
As it happens I didn't think that the Weatherston trial would be much use for getting provocation revoked, when it first became apparent that it was the angle the defence were using, unless he was successful. It's only his spectacular self-destruction on the way to a murder conviction that's made the case such a potent weapon.
Also, it's not the first use of the defence in a murder that wasn't "gay panic", successful or otherwise. A recent one, and one that I consider to be more morally offensive than either the "gay panic" cases or the Weatherston case, was the woman who killed her neighbour for refusing to babysit. Why is that more offensive? Because the neighbour did absolutely nothing to insert herself into the situation, other than simply being her killer's neighbour, but was still found to have provoked her killer.
-
Late into the disucssion and not highly knowlegable, but isn't the test for provocation as a defense ” if it would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control”
In which case the Weatherston jury only had to put themselves in Weatherston's position. Decision reached in 216 seconds I'd have thought.
And which makes the recent gay killing verdicts troubling.....
-
-
@Andy
S169 Provocation
(1) Culpable homicide that would otherwise be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who caused the death did so under provocation.
(2) Anything done or said may be provocation if—
(a) In the circumstances of the case it was sufficient to deprive a person having the power of self-control of an ordinary person, but otherwise having the characteristics of the offender, of the power of self-control; and
(b) It did in fact deprive the offender of the power of self-control and thereby induced him to commit the act of homicide.On my lay reading, very not about the reasonable person.
-
In relation to that article I just posted, it seems pretty clear to me that stuff has surpassed its role as merely the messenger. When looking back over the trial, and all the dirt that was thrown at Elliot, the main consideration is that Weatherston threw that dirt in a closed off room for the benefit of 11 jurors, a judge, various administrative stuff and the gallery, and that for reasons of good taste, not a lot of what was said had to leave that room.
From where I sit now, as it is, I could now contend that I know an awful lot about Sophie Elliot, not all of it good. I didn't hear it from Clayton Weatherston, I didn't hear it from my friend who was on the jury. I heard every last slight and boast and snipe directly from stuff.co.nz.
Weatherston was 'provoked' - parents
is not a headline that should ever have been published. removing the provocation plea will not assist in dealing with this malignancy.
-
In which case the Weatherston jury only had to put themselves in Weatherston's position. Decision reached in 216 seconds I'd have thought.
Not that simple. There are numerous Court of Appeal cases on just what s169(2) means. I think it's fair to say the courts have struggled with it.
Weatherston was 'provoked' - parents
is not a headline that should ever have been published.
Agree. About as pointless as the 'but I still love him" post-trial statement the media seems to religiously get from the parents of a killer.
As a parent I can understand trying to grasp at anything to explain why your child has done something monstrous. That doesn't make it newsworthy.
I was always interested in the legal issues behind the Weatherston case, but the coverage has just got silly (not here thankfully). Can the media just move on and find someone else to vilify? Didn't the ABs just lose a test?
-
Weatherston was 'provoked' - parents
is not a headline that should ever have been published. removing the provocation plea will not assist in dealing with this malignancy.
Probably not -- but I'd also like to know who the fuck decided Weatherston was "the most hated man in New Zealand" and a "whole nation" is weeping and rending its garments over Sophie Elliot. Both seem like bullshit headline hyperbole to me, but (perhaps unfortunately) being a moron with access to a printing press isn't a crime.
-
As a parent I can understand trying to grasp at anything to explain why your child has done something monstrous. That doesn't make it newsworthy.
No more than having Sophie Elliot's parents trotted out like performing grief monkey. But if you want to talk about truly dangerous, could Nigel Latta -- who has precisely NO clinical relationship with Weatherston -- please sit down, and take a long pull on his fuckupachino.
-
I think it was Spike Milligan who, when asked by a reporter to comment on some vile and pointless issue, asked "Just because there happens to be a cancer in the public breast, do you consider it your duty to nurture it?"
-
Probably not -- but I'd also like to know who the fuck decided Weatherston was "the most hated man in New Zealand" and a "whole nation" is weeping and rending its garments over Sophie Elliot.
Amen. The "Weatherston Effect" has seen normally sane journalists and columnists writhing in indignation. We need a new public enemy and quick before the epidemic wipes the entire industry out.
-
But if you want to talk about truly dangerous, could Nigel Latta -- who has precisely NO clinical relationship with Weatherston -- please sit down, and take a long pull on his fuckupachino.
I would have pictured him to be more of a Latte drinker.
-
Okay, that was stupid. But no more so than the Dom's headline from today's paper: Officer May Face Charges After Death. Do they ever read what they write?
-
Can the media just move on and find someone else to vilify? Didn't the ABs just lose a test?
Quite. Let this thread die a graceful death and over to the sports threads with you all.
being a moron with access to a printing press isn't a crime.
Unfortunately, no.
more of a Latte drinker.
Well I liked it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.