Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
3] increasing the term to 4 years, so the Govt can govern and not switch to election mode in Year 3
Agreed.
4] setting a fixed election date, with the official campaign season (vis a vis any EFA) starting 6 months prior. This would not negate a Govt calling a snap election.
Not so fast there Mikaere... just look to your west and see the risks associated with fixed-terms...
@Kyle, NSW has a fixed term, Australian federal government does not - neither does Western Australia where recently the Labour government recently called an election early and... lost).
-
@Chris Diack,
Arranging for someone to lodge a frivilous complaint for the purpose of then claiming persecution is, frankly, silly. On this, I think the media's conclusion seems pretty reasonable. You might want to moderate your mock-indignation in this instance.
Oh and can I also suggest attacking Val Sim 'cause she's the official with responsibility is simply foul; you do understand that officials don't get to pick and choose which Executive instructions they're tasked with don't you?
-
My concern with this approach is that it potentially fundamentally changes the system of criminal law. The basics require an act and a motivation, taking DNA alters this equation to include all previous acts.
I understand the appeal, and although on the surface it seems comparatively fair that someone found guilty of a rape might then be prosecuted for otherwise unsolved rapes, but what is proposed is far beyond this.
Therefore, I have three objections. First, the threshold is too low. An arrest is too arbitrary and individual protections against false arrest not nearly strong enough. Secondly, I would want far more qualified and experienced legal minds to examine the full impact of this apparently fundamental jurisprudential shift. Thirdly, where does this end. Let's not get too Gattaca too soon, but this is a step towards a far more pervasive (invasive?) state.
Consider, for example, the possibility that having been arrested, but not charged, for receiving stolen goods, you have a DNA sample taken. Is it a stretch to imagine that the next time the Police discover a pawn shop in your neighbourhood has not kept a proper register, you get a knock on your door?
-
If the police need a Guthrie card to identify anyone except a victim, they apply to a District Court Judge for a warrant. In accepting a Guthrie Card the police certify it will be used solely for the investigation.
I wonder what that actually means? I wonder how often it's occurred? Anyone?
-
Lockwood as Speaker won't be a disaster and it'll get him out of the Ministry but ordinarily Speakers are former Leaders or Shadow Leaders of the House or Whips... The right were fond of challenging Wilson, who'd not been a Leader of the House or a Whip but yet they'll appoint Lockwood? The one likely outcome is that Cullen will have a blast.
-
3) And whatever happens, please dump requiring agents to put their residential addresses on material and hoardings. Can't see what public service or genuine disclosure is served there.
I agree. An individual should be contactable, and their authenticity verifiable, but requiring their home address is unecessary.
-
So what was the upshot? I got the usual party material in the post, but there were no mysterious leaflets muttering dark warnings about the Green Party or immigrants. There were fewer third-party newspaper advertisements. And there may have been a chilling of advocacy from people or groups uncertain about the application of the law.
On the ground for the week just prior to this election, I struggled to see really significant differences from the 2002 election (the last for which I was in the country). Two that might be positive however, are the much stronger focus on parties "authorising" stuff which, while certainly onerous, probably meant a tighter focus and tighter budgets.
-
So the devil will be in the details. DNA is just too damn useful for the police to ignore it and people arrested constitute a particular proportion of the population. I have never been arrested for eg. and neither can I think offhand of anyone I know who has been.
I agree the matter's not simple and that there's arguments in favour, but I remain concerned about the potential that the sampling breaches pretty fundamental principals of natural justice. It was for this reason I noted National's approach - to counter Craig's criticisms of Goff. Arrests might not be lightly made, but they don't determine guilt and precede even a charge. That hoary old presumption of innocence seems compromised to me.
Paul: In June this year, I wrote a PAR piece excoriating the Criminal Procedure Bill -- which passed with both National and Labour's support for various provisions I found severely rank. Canning deposisitons hearings, majority verdicts, weakening the concept of double jeopardy. sigh...
The link's not working Craig. However, I wasn't arguing that Labour wasn't pretty tough on criminal justice, they are, but I don't think a party proposing three strikes or life meaning life can hope to claim the moral high ground.
__It's called the heel prick test. We've been storing blood from every newborn dried on a card since the 1970s.__
i've heard there is a *very* strong lobby to not use the heel prick for criminal proceedings. wish i could remember where i heard it though.
They do that here in Australia, at least NSW, too. I'd be interested to hear the arguments. I'd've thought the fact that they are provided only to do genetic screening, that they are taken without informed consent __of the individua__l and that the individual in question could not possibly have mens rea or actus reus might be sufficient?
-
But I'm quite happy to know people who actually think due process, the presumption of innocence, some curbs on police powers and all that wet liberal crap is a bloody good thing.
Craig, National propose to introduce legislation enabling the Police to take DNA from people arrested for an imprisonable crime; merely arrested... I don't know that they even limit it to charged. That's as close to a Police State as I think NZ's come. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
I don't think it matters that you know people who're fond of the presumption of innocence, this proposal is so offensive to the most banal of legal principles, it can't make it past the Bill of Rights. The days of judicial activism may well be about to return.
-
Perhaps this is the National way Craig, but I doubt Labour would even consider such behaviour ;)
I'd like to think Labour will not ever repeat the mistakes of the mid-90s. The conflagration of the Lange/Palmer/Moore leadership might've burned a little too long, but it burned completely out. I see Goff's election to the leadership as confirmation of this. If Labour's factions were still in charge, then the apparently stronger left faction would have blocked Goff. That they didn't says two things; firstly they can see beyond increasingly irrelevant social arrangements and secondly that Goff is the best person for the job.