Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
But if it's who should be hauled away for the night because a couple were scrapping, neither's injured, and the cops got called, the default position should not be to drag away the male just because he's the male.
You're assuming that the person is being taken away to be arrested. The police will only do that if there is some evidence of a crime committed - eg, bruising or bleeding or something. If it's just a domestic argument, yelling etc, that's not a crime. The police would tend to try and negotiate one of the two parties to go stay somewhere else for the night to cool off.
I don't know how often that happens, or when it does happen, what percentage are men/women.
-
There's very solid empirical evidence that domestic violence isn't even close to a one-way street.
Assuming the stats are right that it's about 50:50 on who starts it, and more than one study has said that it's around that level, it's not unreasonable to believe that quite a few DV incidents that end up with him spending the night behind bars start with her hitting him.Do you have links for that?
-
a little light bashing can get out of hand
A truly wonderful Rowan Atkinson clip before Mr Bean turned him into half the comedian he was. The whole video that it's from is great, there's a truly wonderful skit where he's welcoming people into hell. Highly recommended.
-
20K to the victims of a serious assult may go a long way to making some victims feel a bit better and have some meaning to the offender, having to pay it off.
This surely is going to lead to rich offenders getting to move on with the signature of a cheque, and poor offenders spending a couple of decades repaying their debt through hard slog.
I think there's already enough benefits in the justice system for being rich - teams of top lawyers, researchers etc - without helping them out at the other end as well.
-
These days, though, you can insert "male" in place of "offender". Plenty of anecdotes out there from guys who spent a night in the cells after being attacked by their female partner. It's going to take another big culture change before "offender" is the appropriate word to use.
Yes. It would be fair that it's probably the police as an organisation moving into the 1970s about 20 years late. Female assaults male, or domestic violence between same sex partners is still very hit/miss as to whether its dealt with well.
-
$100K to snap my spine repeatedly? No thanks. Anyone who thinks this is overblown, well, put your hands up. Would you take $100K to have your back broken in four places?
Having read 8 pages of comments, I'm not sure how I feel about telling her what she should have done in the situation she found herself in.
Personally I've never been in a situation ever like what she was in, and I'm unlikely to in my life. Lucky me.
People have said that society has an interest in him facing criminal proceedings. Yes that's true it does. But is that her responsibility? I'm often amazed at what some women go through to try and prevent a violent person from doing what they did to them, to someone else.
Personally, no, if I was offered that deal before having my back broken, I wouldn't take it, probably most people wouldn't. But she wasn't offered that before the assault, she was offered it afterwards. Maybe she feels comfortable and didn't want more? Maybe she's happy with what he's done since with counselling and his life, I don't know. I'd imagine that she probably could have gotten more - I read someone that he earns over $400K, an income that she could have wrecked with a few words.
I have no sympathy for him. I was interested in what he had to say until he said "I have no excuses, except..."
Her? She was assaulted by her recent boyfriend and had her back broken. If she's been further screwed afterwards by some hush deal, and coerced into being quiet, then that'll piss me off more. If she's happy with what she got, and happy not to complain to the police, up to her.
I hope the police take a good look at it and see if they can get a conviction, with her assistance or not.
After what she's been through, I can't see it part of her job to do anything further if she doesn't want to.
-
the reason why action can be taken without a complaint for domestic violence is around issues of intimidation of the victim, isn't it?
That's part of it. It was a change in police policy in the early 1990s to always arrest the offender (where it was immediately clear who the offender was) when they attend a domestic violence situation.
It's not the only reason for it though:
'Old Style' police officers were typically less likely to arrest in such an incident, younger, 'new style' police officers were more likely. The police was going through a culture of change that was taking time to make it through to the older cops. It removed that as a problem, by telling police they always had to arrest the offender, even if the victim wasn't going to complain.
More importantly though it was a practical purpose. It got the offender out of the house for 24 hours at least, it gave them an opportunity to get Victim Support, Womens Refuge, family, neighbours, friends etc involved. And yes, the removal of the possible intimidation of the offender was a big part of that.
I suspect it lead to more prosecutions, but probably less prosections as a percentage of arrests. It's still hard to prosecute when the only witness won't give evidence.
-
I think your daughter is now too educated to post in the Herald's My Views sections on Law and Order. Sign her up for PAS instead.
-
Gee, Paul, perhaps Crosby/Textor are otherwise engaged deploying the jaws of life to remove Clark's foot from her mouth - again.
Yeah, seriously Craig. I thought the Key/railway shares was at best a 50/50 split for Labour in terms of points scored. She looked silly on TV last night with this 'Key on holiday' stuff. My lefty girlfriend and I were both telling her to shut up and give the media some real news to talk about.
-
Shep, I see it as straightforwardly one law for the rich who can pay their way out, preserving their name and their career, and another for the poor.
Possibly. It really depends whether the lack of complaint from his ex related to the money, or if that was incidental to the lack of complaint. She might have decided that independently, or if we knew what was going on in her head, we might say that she was coerced, by the money or other means.
Two laws have always worked in NZ, the lower classes get no inch, while the old school tie gets diversion.
I see a major payout as a better penalty than going to prison. IMHO community services and fines should be extended to the vast majority of prisoners, with some notable exceptions.
That's a bit of a contradiction isn't it? The lower classes get no inch, but fines should be extended? Fines are easy peasy for rich people, but impossible for poor people.