Up Front: All Together Now
291 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Arriving late here after a blissful internet free week at Awaroa.
generally speaking, no prostitute would, without the inducement of money, have sex with the clients
er, no. At least one of my friends decided that seeing as she enjoyed anonymous sex so much she might as well get paid for it (now that it is legal).
-
Dinah are you sure this isn't just a matter of your friend feeling free to talk openly about her part time job?
All of the credible stats and those in the know seem to point to no increase in sex workers due to the legal status, but a hell of a lot more empowerment.
-
i.e. no ALL. As in, "in some of the other cases, but not all". Big difference. In the case of the "prominent entertainer", Defence Counsel Ron Mansfield asked for it and the judge granted it.
And, knowing some of the details of the case, I'm not totally surprised that suppression was granted.
There are unusual elements to that case; not least the abandonment of the original rape charge, and the police subsequently trying to talk the complainant (by her own account) out of making a complaint at all.
-
And, knowing some of the details of the case, I'm not totally surprised that suppression was granted.
And not knowing some of the details of the cases, I'm left with a sense of inequality about the degrees of transparency offered by that system. I take your word for it Russell, perhaps I am judging the defendant (whose name and pseudonym I know despite living 6000 km away) more harshly than I would if I knew what you know now. but without knowing what you know (except of course the suppressed defendant's name), is that a what Ron Mansfield was aiming for? Did the judge really make the best decision?
As for hiding victimhood. What might the consequences of public discloser be?
Perhaps a A wake up call as to how widespread sex crime is in New Zealand.
Thats a hell of a lot of questions. My answer is that name suppression protects people from ignorant judgment.
It does, but doesn't it also play a role in perpetuating ignorant judgment. Aren't I (not knowing the details Russell is privy to) ignorantly judging? Isn't a better way to alleviate ignorant judgment, focus on better education? Better considered judgments by the courts?
I don't have many answers, just questions, sorry Steven. As I see it, ignorant judgment is just a facet of humanity. I feel focusing on the smallest common denominator (ignorant judgment) at the expense of fairness, justice and equality can hold no lasting benefits for our justice system. In that muso case we have a guilty plea, a court decision rendered in part for the benefit of the defendant and subsequently an unhappy plaintiff.
Does this kind of handling of cases make me (as a rape victim), more confident that the courts will give me a fair hearing and my attacker a fair trial? It doesn't. So then why should I take the issue before the courts? As I (like many others) haven't, then how are people safer? And how are people less ignorant? Personally I'm far more afraid of rape than ignorant judgment, I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from there Steven.
As a bit of background there, my attackers were also high or wasted (akin to our favorite musician), and I think Steve Parkes addressed this issue well in the closing paragraphs of his blog. Which I can't link to now, because it's been 'suppressed' here, but the link is above.
Finally;
The man admitted a charge of inducing an indecent act but was discharged without conviction and given permanent name suppression on the grounds that naming him would affect his record and concert ticket sales. The charge carried a maximum jail term of two years.
If we all know who this guy is, then surely the acid test would be, have ticket sales been affected?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3085484/Teen-victim-slams-musicians-name-suppression
-
Found a proxy, It was in fact Charles R's response that I was referring to above;
I've been many times blacked out drunk, but never once have I grabbed a girl and put my dick on her face. That's something internal to a person's constitution, not to be simply blamed on the drink.
in reply to what Steve said;
It is not its role to protect the accused from the wider repercussions of their own behaviour.
http://www.parkesweb.com/2009/12/celebrity-justice-broken-clocks-hidden_25.html
-
What might the consequences for the victim be? and how high would the anxiety of contemplating those consequences be?
That's difficult. The anxiety is obviously high for any victim of crime, trial or no trial. I have no issue with suppression of victim's identities, In fact I'd feel more comfortable if it applied to all victims, and I see no reason why it shouldn't. I think as long as victims like myself are afraid of the courts, then the main consequence is conveniently invisible crime, and perpetrators continuing their lives. Things don't get much worse than that.
I've read the law and it was quite specific in terms of why suppression should be given, in the case of the musician, there is very little connection between that law as it was written and intended and what the judge ordered.
Most interestingly in that article for me;
The man admitted a charge of inducing an indecent act but was discharged without conviction and given permanent name suppression on the grounds that naming him would affect his record and concert ticket sales.
is the use of the passive voice; "was discharged...given". Had the nameless, faceless judge who 'discharged...gave" this judgment, been subject to the same media scrutiny as the victim and defendant, I think we might start to see some different results.
In a hypothetical future, where things are changed, perhaps the system is fairer and the judgments more compassionate to the victim, it's impossible to know, Steven.
currently suppression of a defendant's name (in trial) does nothing to assert the maxim 'innocent until proven guilty'. Suppression of someone's identity who has plead guilty of a crime, does nothing to assert the importance of individual social responsibility.
Personally I think the name suppression law is not as big a problem as how randomly it's being dealt out. The judge's are almost being ascribed the role of fortune tellers, which seems to go far beyond any reasonable human expectation.
For me the issue isn't name suppression or this or that case, merely that 1,2 I listed above; the perception of inequality and the ideological corruption.
Beyond that, I'm just another politically convenient non-statistic.
-
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. -
Had the nameless, faceless judge who 'discharged...gave" this judgment, been subject to the same media scrutiny as the victim and defendant, I think we might start to see some different results.
The Judge aint nameless, faceless.The Judge has decided the "scrutiny" from media and other such situations warranted name suppression because of this individual case( remembering they are individual). To lump a Judges decision into "just name and shame and damn the consequence" (which that blowhole wants and has done), is the exact different result that leads to victimisation, (that is human nature) and /or discrimination. ( Veitch case was a perfect example of the public taking different sides)
I would like to believe that experts in their field have the authority to decide, and that decision is reasoned appropriately for each individual case in the courtroom. Just as one cannot see the wood for the trees, if you look harder, there is probably another reason for the suppression. These people (our Judges) should know their job. The judge is not nameless or faceless. They are not hiding, just doing their job.IMHO -
Hey Chris,
those members of the judiciary who seem to be taking quite dramatic liberties with the laws,
If that was so,it would not go unnoticed and ignored by anyone else dealing with the case. It may be your opinion and we hear this all the time by many radio hosts call ins.Why would a Judge flout the law because it took their fancy on the day?
I would have to know the law and be prepared to argue in a courtroom to try and prove that sort of accusation or I would shut up. -
@ Just Thinking - My friend is frighteningly honest about her life. If she had been 'on the game' before the law change she would have told me. She was quite excited to realise that being a prostitute was rewarding financially and that the sex was better than the quickies she had been having. And no it wasn't a part time job, just temporary.
-
I've raced through 9 pages of comments and now that the conversation seems to have veered off somewhat I think I'm done. But I do have to ask Angus or someone with a better memory than mine, just where did the idea that the young woman in question had had fantasies about being a "dirty whore" come from? I can only recall reference to a fantasy of having group sex (possibly with irishmen)? How does this equal "dirty whore" fantasy?
-
Chris, you admit you do not know the details and yet you are convinced the judge got it wrong. Why is that?
-
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."
-
Chris, you're twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing. Read your own words on this page.
Why are judges guilty until you are "convinced" they're innocent?
-
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.
-
Dinah, thanks.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
Do you actually KNOW all that, or do you just think you know? By know, do you mean "I've been reading the comments on WhaleOil's blog"? Or do you mean, I actually truly know. Reason I ask is that I thought (a) aspects of the details of the case been suppressed, and (b) Russell Brown implies up-thread that there is more to the case than has been reported.
These points would lead me myself to suspect that I don't know ANY of the things that I thought I knew about it. How do you fare? Perhaps a bit less of the standing in judgment about things, perhaps?
I believe in a society where we shouldn't be able to just buy the right to engage in criminal activity. ie. equality.
Quite. But, wha????
cross dressing man sentenced after indecent assault
A person committed an indecent assault, was caught, charged, and convicted for it. Your point is what, exactly?
-
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.
-
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".
I think you're simplifying the situation a great deal.
You've also made the victim into a passive agent in the whole story. Kirsten doesn't appear to be completely helpless, and was involved in the legal process which led to Veitch's conviction and sentence. She was also involved in the private negotiation to accept a payout from him before it become public. Right or wrong, it was her back, her life, and to blame it on 'rich getting away with violence through paying out money' seems to be further disempowering the victim of the crime who probably got to make some empowering decisions as part of the process. She's now out of the relationship, he's been getting treatment for his violence problem, that's a good result from a domestic violence case, lots of them turn out way worse.
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.
-
it'll just cost a little".
The Veitch case was a high profile media circus that both sides allowed such an abhorrant situation to become such a public display of sadly what carries on even as we chat here. From the Police to the courtroom past the papers and the TV, we got a more open view of domestic violence that is rife and common in NZ. For that, I am saddened that you would think the Judge should have dealt with it differently. Perhaps though, spare a thought that at least it was dealt with eventually and perhaps, just maybe Veitch wont ever do that again.A longer sentence is not a guarantee that to be the case. For you, $150k + may be just a little. For me, Compensation was given and accepted from both parties. Maybe one could allow Dunne Powell the grace of being compensated as she saw fit. naming and shaming was a nasty piece of work by the MSM. Let's also hope that others have taken a message that reporting abuse should always be the first avenue to try.
More jail time is not necessarily the answer Chris no matter how much you think it may be.That is why we put trust in a legal system and have a Judge preside.Oh, and I should have been onto "What would Kyle think"?
And there he is . Look up ^ ;) -
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.
-
Simply, I think as a democracy, we should be better than that.
That is why we vote and should be aware of our local MP's and use them to voice your opinion or concern, regarding individual situations. Democracy does not make the human race better. Humans can, and choose whether or not to try.I think an understanding that laws try to rehabilitate, and a firm grip on education, must be good, but shades of grey will always exist making each case different to the next from the last. Surely somewhere in the middle is an ideal balance. Our system is specific to NZ not compared to other countries, We are doing the best we can so far eh? I expect to hear you have been lobbying the Government on such issues if your concern is that black and white. Good luck.:)
-
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.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.