Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: If we only had time

155 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 7 Newer→ Last

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    As for the semantics, a "justification" as you put it isn't an automatic way out of prosecution.

    And nor is not being around when the crime was committed and having nothing do with it at all. You can be completely and totally innocent and still have to go through a trial.

    I think we're still defining what "fine" is.

    I believe that the Otago University longitudinal study looked at it, and found that children who were smacked, but only lightly, were statistically less likely to engage in risky behaviours like smoking or underage drinking or engage in early sexual experiences, or end up in trouble with the law, etc. that those who were violently assaulted as children, or even those who were never smacked.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Ian MacKay,

    Matthew:

    --enclose whatever you're quoting.--

    I get it! Thanks

    Bleheim • Since Nov 2006 • 498 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Yes, we seem to sadly have to revisit this debate nationally.

    No, it doesn't need to be highlighted above the complexity and volume of information we are waiting to recieve from new leaders as an election looms.

    Jeremy: I get where you're coming from, but I don't really think that should be the primary consideration here. On a slight tangent, I don't know if, with 20/20 hindsight, Clark did herself any favours airily dismissing the EFB as a 'Beltway issue' 'real people' didn't care about. First, I think politicians should be very careful about arrogant presuming to have special access to the minds of 'real people' (as opposed to "surreal' ones, I guess).

    In the end, people will decides for themselves what is relevant or irrelevant. I may well think they're utter numpties, but I don't recall the section in the Electoral Act that places an IQ qualification on being an elector. And despite what certain people may think, I don't quite buy the whole Frankfurt School meme that electors are tame bitches of the media-lobbyist complex.

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

  • Matthew Poole,

    Ian, nearly right. It's not -- if you want __italics :)

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    D'oh!

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Jeremy Eade,

    " Seriously, what is a time out other than using the psychological trigger of physical isolation and emotional withdrawal to sanction misconduct and re-enforce desirable behaviour? "

    You're such a liberal Craig. Remember we are setting up logic boundaries for "hardwiring fantastic but sometimes crazy" kids so they can hang out with the other apes enjoyably later in life..

    We need some sort of punishment effect and it's not a nice feeling for the kid, but the kid was about to unload mayhem everywhere on everyone so we remove them from that state of mind .

    .....and mental abuse (or it's opposite "niceness") can de defined and it's not acceptable.

    auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 1112 posts Report Reply

  • Jeremy Eade,

    "In the end, people will decides for themselves what is relevant or irrelevant"

    So how long did N.Z take to make sensible sexual law based on natural law and was this wait justified for those who died sexual criminals before 1984?

    The debate needs to be fueled with education and biological facts.Let's get our politics on buddy.

    People will decides for themselves ?People should be deciding with facts , not violent gut feeling.

    auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 1112 posts Report Reply

  • Ian MacKay,

    __We need some sort of punishment effect and it's not a nice feeling for the kid, but the kid was about to unload mayhem everywhere on everyone so we remove them from that state of mind__ .

    Actually "time out" is not supposed to be a punishment as much as a chance to cool down. Probably it would be better for we the parents to take time out as so often we are the ones who lost our cool and over-react. And hit out in frustration!!

    Bleheim • Since Nov 2006 • 498 posts Report Reply

  • Jeremy Eade,

    "Actually "time out" is not supposed to be a punishment as much as a chance to cool down."

    sure, good point.

    auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 1112 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Graeme said:

    I do think deliberately timing the referendum to ensure a low turnout is anti-democratic (as some here have suggested). And if it's held other than at the election, I've stated that that will have been at the option (and expense) of the Government, and not because of force of circumstance.

    Arranging the referendum to guarantee its failure is anti-democratic for certain.

    My concern is that we should seperate CIRs from other signficant electoral events to ensure that they are fully and adequately considered and do not divert attention from the other matters/events.

    The fact that this issue, or any potential CIR issue, might leak through to a general election is not reason enough to combine them. I'm sure they could and there's no reason they shouldn't - I think Labour's win in 1987 was influenced by the USS Buchanan and the Homosexual Law Reform Act for instance.

    I also think the expense alone should not be a factor.

    I really doubt that this would happen, here particularly. First, generally, the spending limit for those wanting to campaign on the referendum is $50,000. And in the specific instance, the "no" camp knows it's going to win. Thirdly, whether the referendum happens at the election or not, it is going to be an election issue.

    I don't. We may simple disagree on this. I had some minor involvement in the Next Step campaign (Nicky Hagar and others led this) in the mid-90s. It failed, for all sorts of reasons, but the goal was clearly to have an impact on the general election. So far CIRs haven't but I've little doubt that this one would and, regardless of what I think about the issue, I wonder about the merits of any one issue overwhelming all other matters in an election. It potentially plays into the hands of smaller, single issue parties and could distort the make up of parliament.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    We need some sort of punishment effect and it's not a nice feeling for the kid, but the kid was about to unload mayhem everywhere on everyone so we remove them from that state of mind .

    I'm not actually disagreeing with you here, but a 'time out' is a pretty useful and low-key exploitation of a pretty basic fear children have of being isolated. 'Violence"? I'd say so, but certainly not on a par with chaining your least favourite youngling to a radiator, or chucking 'em in a closet every time they wet the bed.

    The debate needs to be fueled with education and biological facts.Let's get our politics on buddy.

    People will decides for themselves ?People should be deciding with facts , not violent gut feeling.

    "People" shouldn't be making some decisions, in my view, regardless of how dispassionately they arrive at their conclusions. I'm going to be a very unhappy camper if Winston First slithers past five percent of the party vote, for example. But after I've finished cursing the unremitting imbecility of man, and crying unto heaven "Why didn't you go with the cockroaches if you're so damn smart" I'll take a deep breath and accept that in a democracy the numbers don't lie.

    I don't want to be unfair to you, Jeremy, but just because you're not confident of winning an argument doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. To be blunt, I really think you give the likes of Bob McCroskie way too much credit and the rest of the great unwashed far too little.

    Myself, I wouldn't lose any sleep if the CIRA was repealed. If all politics is theatre, then non-binding citizen-initiated referenda are mimes -- sublinely pointless and stupid

    But -- with apologies for drifting back to the original post -- I still think GE nicely fingered the essentially bogus nature of Clark's logistical argument against having this question put on E-Day. I understand the campaign realpolitik in play, but that shouldn't be the deciding factor even if it will be.

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

  • Sam F,

    If all politics is theatre, then non-binding citizen-initiated referenda are mimes -- sublimely pointless and stupid

    Nice!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1611 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    But -- with apologies for drifting back to the original post -- I still think GE nicely fingered the essentially bogus nature of Clark's logistical argument against having this question put on E-Day.

    I was thinking of whining about how this post is already at four pages of comments, while some of my more considered pieces languish with far fewer, but I think you've hit it.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Susan Snowdon,

    I believe that the Otago University longitudinal study looked at it, and found that children who were smacked, but only lightly, were statistically less likely to engage in risky behaviours like smoking or underage drinking or engage in early sexual experiences, or end up in trouble with the law, etc. that those who were violently assaulted as children, or even those who were never smacked.

    But this doesn't prove cause and effect. Violent parents and non-smacking parents may be different in other ways to 'light/occasional' smackers. e.g. in terms of parenting/personality style. I think there are studies showing differences in outcome between authoritarian, laissez-fair, and (I can't remember the other one), possibly authoritative, family types. So smacking, or not, or abuse, actually reflects something else that's happening within the family dynamic.

    Since Mar 2008 • 110 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    According to the PM in Parliament five minutes ago, the Ministry of Justice has advised that based on the 1999 experience, holding a referendum at the same time as the election would lead to voter confusion and disruption of the count. Instead, they're advising that it be held by postal ballot sometime next year.

    I've already OIAd the advice.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Oh, also: a referendum would cost $10 million no matter when it is held, so the financial argument Graeme relies upon is simply bogus.

    Apparently they could have done it, but would have needed to have started in April. The childbeaters were simply too late.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Beat me too it, I/S. She also said there wasn't much if any cost differential between the two options.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    And then you beat me to that too.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Apparently they could have done it, but would have needed to have started in April.

    This simply has to be false. We've had competently run snap elections on much much less than 7 months notice.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    This simply has to be false. We've had competently run snap elections on much much less than 7 months notice.

    Yes, but the Chief Electoral Office is funded for that capability, and you'll note that the last two were in election year, when preparations for an election were already well-advanced. So I don't really find it that unbelievable at all.

    It will be interesting to see the actual advice and see what they have to say about the logistics.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Nick D'Angelo,

    Wow - this thread is a bit of an indictment on the mental abilities of PAS readers, isn't it?

    Okay, that may be inflammatory but I'm kinda inflamed my self. I could only take the first page of comments before leaping in with this:

    How can you stand for Democracy when you think it's okay to finangle this Petition because you don't like what the Petition strands for? I don't agree with the Petition's proposition either BUT what's the point of having referendum legislation if you want to bury referendum's you don't agree with?

    So what if you think the people behind this petition lied and tricked people into signing? If people feel they were lied and tricked into signing it they certainly won't vote for it at the referendum will they?

    If 350,000 people sign a petition saying they want a referendum on lifting the minimum wage to $20 an hour would you dismiss that petition too? Would you say they were just the poor looking after their own interests?

    Honestly, shame on anyone who thinks this referendum doesn't deserve to see the light of day, or that it's okay to try and scuttle it by moving it to next year. And shame on anyone who thinks that NZ voters can't deal with the burden of trying to vote in a Parliament and make a decision on the referendum. If you don't think our brains are able to cope then maybe we should only give voting rights to Smart People (ie people who think like you).

    Simon Laan • Since May 2008 • 162 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    It will be interesting to see the actual advice and see what they have to say about the logistics.

    It will be interesting to see if the response provides you with anything you want to know.

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 144 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Dave: well, I've phoned the Chief Electoral Office as well, so hopefully I'll get a straight answer out of them.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I'm not actually disagreeing with you here, but a 'time out' is a pretty useful and low-key exploitation of a pretty basic fear children have of being isolated.

    I don't know how other people use time out, but I use it to give a child (or occasionally, myself) space from other people and a chance to let the adrenalin stop pumping and to have a wee break for a couple of minutes. I had a good friend who occasionally had problems with groups of people who put himself in time out fairly often, though it seemed to coincide with his cigarette breaks, and I'm sure is one of the reasons he found it so difficult to give up smoking.

    I refereed an ice hockey game in which a kid was too hyped up the other day, and was taking runs at other kids and getting agro. I sent him to the bench for a few minutes, told him to calm down, and he came back out and played much better afterwards.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    Kiwi Party Leader and CIR Petition organiser Larry Baldock said he was outraged at the Prime Ministers arrogance in declaring in Parliament today that the referendum on the Anti-smacking law would not be held until 2009.

    "Hiding behind Ministry of Justice advice is cowardly. She should tell the truth and admit that it is her intention to do all she can to avoid this referendum at the election for her own political reasons," said Mr Baldock.

    "No matter what she does this is an election issue that will not go away. I promise all those who put their trust in me as they signed the petition that our voice will not be drowned out!

    "The reasons given by the PM in response to John Key's question are ridiculous. In 1999 the voting was delayed due to a referendum being held at the same time. This was because they tried to count the election results and the referendum simultaneously. The review conducted after that election recommended that the problem could be solved by simply counting the referendum after the ballot papers.

    "Suggesting there might need to be more polling booths is incredible. The same number of people will be voting as those completing a simple question on one more piece of paper for the referendum.

    Will there be additional costs of handling the referendum at the election? Of course, but they are the necessary and worthy costs of preserving our democracy. Any costs to the taxpayer have really been caused by the 113 MP's that voted for a law that was clearly opposed by 80% of the population, and not by those seeking the referendum.

    "If our officials cannot handle this extra organisation then we must conclude that Labour have really stuffed this country up in the last 9 years by appointing more incompetent people than we imagined.

    "As soon as the Referendum is officially approved by the Clerk of the House I will be calling on the hundreds of thousands who signed the petition and the remaining 1.5 million Kiwis who wanted to have their say in a referendum at this election, to join me in protesting the anti-democratic dictatorial behavior of the Prime Minister and this government by taking to the streets", said the Kiwi Party leader.

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 144 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.