Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
you are conflating separate issues
I'll admit I am confusing separate issues.
Russell is right to call me up on it. I, like some of the other Jones', find it confusing, I made a mess in the kitchen to present a conclusion that there's1. a perception of inequality.
2. blatant ideological corruption in the justice system.I slaughtered a whole zoo of creatures to catch 1 measly rat.
Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps there is total equality, and those of us who perceive the inequality and corruption are wrong. Maybe. but if something is rotten in Denmark, as indicated by the judiciary's handling of Vietch, then i see acknowledgement of the issue as the first step in rectifying the problem.
Even if a justice system is but partly ideologically corrupted, to all intents and purposes, it is still corrupt, in that it's no longer 'non corrupt'. The ideological and moral corruption, of it's not ok, unless you pay, is undeniable in my opinion.
I agree with your views on name suppression Steve, I find name suppression in NZ, at the very least, is based on a gross miscalculation of the size of the NZ population, as you said;
it seems anyone who really wants to know can find out the suppressed name anyway.
And what I was driving at with my 'in the loop' comment is that for some, finding out an identity is as easy as turning up for work, for others it may be eminently more difficult, albeit hypothetically doable. perpetuating a perception of inequality/ unfairness.
Unfortunately you've misread -- deliberately or not -- what Russell Brown wrote,
Thanks Stephen and sorry about that Russell. To be fair, I've never set out to deliberately misread anything.
:( But it happens, inadvertantly, in the haste.But, (and my apologies Emma, I never intended to go this far off topic), In the case of the gang rape trial, I do think the best way to restore balance globally, is to start at home and lead by example.
And the way the media can facilitate this is to scrutinize those members of the judiciary/ police who exploit the wording of the law to make dodgy decisions rather than adhering first and foremost to the spirit of the law.
I know Russell feels "it's not Ok", So i passionately question a decision and the decision makers that strongly undermine this sentiment.
"I gather the money he had previously paid to her in reparations -- at her request "
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.
-
I perhaps wrongly assumed a media aficianado like Russell to be in the loop. No offence intended. Simply that there is a loop. A separate entity from the greater populace and hence perceived inequality.
-
?
-
Well how about left her for dead (for a while), Only going on what the media reported, I don't know Kyle, broken back, no assistance for a few hours. He left her for dead for a few hours and then reformed?
seems to have been played off
but you're simply wrong.
regardless of whether the perception is right or wrong, the perception exists and is evident in the New Zealand netscape, to call me wrong for drawing attention to a perception held by New Zealanders whose thoughts I could link to, if you feel it necessary that I prove that I am right to draw attention to the fact, that people have voiced the opinion that 'there seems to preferential treatment accorded to those with influence', negates the necessity for your blog on that very topic not six months ago.
Where visibility seems to have been played off against the excesses of media scrutiny to afford those with wealth or access to wealth, a mildly better protected existance.
The perception may be wrong, but people do have this perception. To labour a point. And this perception is in part aggravated by the case of Tony Veitch paying off his victim, or the case of the 18 year old 'asian driver' who ignored a police flag down, crashed into a petrol station, killed a 4 year old child and avoided serving time after paying $40,000 dollars.
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/170026
How much are the various members of our families worth?
Money will always talk, but how much should our justice system let it say?I'd rather wait until he's convicted to name and shame him
I'm not interested in shame. What I'm driving at is the matter of equality, I'm quite interested in equality. It's not about what he/ she or they did, it's about honing a fairer system where everyone is accorded the same rights and privileges regardless of social status or wealth. This is what I refer to with the term ideologically corrupt.
name suppression has been ordered at the request of the victim,
An aside: In the case of the prominent entertainer, that's not what was reported, on the contrary, the victim expressed anger at being muzzled from outing the defendant. (I linked to that story here), as I recall at the time, you mentioned that it was interesting for a number of reasons.
Most importantly in that case was the fact that prominent music industry suits presented the case that name suppression was required to protect the man's livelihood.
The most humorous aspect was that that man was a musician, ie; music, that industry riddled with criminals and criminal convictions where there's a George Michael to every Cliff Richard, countless stars who have been charged with various crimes and continued to sell well. Some of whom have built careers on their infamy. Not only did the judge show ignorance of the marketing potential for music with attitude but the highest echelon's of the NZ music establishment showed similar ignorance. White bread stuff, but hardly surprising in a country where the lines between the music industry and the establishment have become so blurred.
But I digress.
The issue is one of equality and fairness. ie How many records does one need to sell to be accorded name supression, how large is the sphere of influence.
and I actually know Kristin Dunne Powell.
And I'm sure you could name or be a phone call away from naming all the name suppressed celebrities I mentioned, your station in life being more equal than say, mine, for instance.
If name suppression is to protect people's identity, then what is it to protect them from? our sympathy? our assistance? or our bullying and malevolance, what does this phenomenon say about the nature of the New Zealander and more precisely our attitudes to 'victims'? what is the primary issue here?
fairness?
privacy?
New Zealand's scorn for the victim of sex crime? the victim should feel shame for others to know they were assaulted or molested or raped? We should hide our victimhood? What message are we sending?Again I digress.
I gather the money he had previously paid to her in reparations -- at her request , remember -- did come into the mix, not so much in sentencing itself, but in the negotiation with police on what and how many charges he'd face.
In the end, he pleaded guilty to a sole count of assault and was sentenced on that basis. I suspect there was a degree of relief all round that a trial was avoided. I was more disappointed that he could still emerge and depict himself as the victim, even as he hurled around threats.
You are an "it's not OK" representative.
Are we to accept "it's not OK, unless you can afford it"?Is domestic violence OK if the victim is then financially coerced into dropping some charges?
Is this not simply another non violent means of control by the violent partner?
If you were violently assaulted, paid money to shut the fuck up and to help pay your medical bills, would you feel guilt when it came to prosecuting your attacker?Is a victim of domestic violence going to feel safer knowing that?
It's not OK, but it's OK if you pay? not corrupt? Russell?Are the judiciary the tools of the law, or are the laws the tools of the judiciary and by proxy those with influence over the judiciary.
Had the judge (who granted name suppression to the entertainer) ever met the high level music industry professional (who made the case for supression) in a social setting?
Did the jurors who aquitted Bain attend the after party just to be part of the action and soak up the atmosphere?
Did the prosecution in this British gang rape case make the decision not to prosecute, in an office? At a dinner party? Or over a 5 way with a Miss Desirée from Uraguay via Croydon?
Basically are these people, our judges, our prosecutors qualified for their fairness, their sense of justice? Their immaculate moral standing both publically and privately? Or has the establishment become so ensconced and comfortable that leeways are being made for those who can.
Overlooking the personalities and personal pressures involved in any given justice system seems wrong.
-
imobile should read 'impervious', sorry about the dictionary def, please bear with me.
-
WTF are you on about? You've made a wild assertion about the "blatant ideological corruption [of] our own justice system" and then reeled off a string of cases whose only common attribute is that they've come to your attention via trial-by-media.
You've conflated cases of interim name suppression, suppression to protect the identity of the victim, suppression at the request of the victim and a successful appeal to the Privy Council and a jury of New Zealanders. This is the sort of nonsense I prefer we avoid here.
'conflate'
–verb (used with object), -flat⋅ed, -flat⋅ing.
to fuse into one entity; merge: to conflate dissenting voices into one protest.No. simply contrasting cases whose only common attribute is money and/or influence. Where visibility seems to have been played off against the excesses of media scrutiny to afford those with wealth or access to wealth, a mildly better protected existance.
Whether or not they have or not, the seeds of indisputable doubt have been sewn in Mr Vietch's garden. The other cases? Simple queries, question marks betwixt what should be imobile nails of equality.
you've made a wild assertion about the "blatant ideological corruption [of] our own justice system"
Tony Vietch paid money and avoided prison for Violent assault and left her for dead. If he hadn't or couldn't have paid he would have gone to prison. It's just 1 case, and it's a landmark. You categorize it as non corrupt,so what price would you accept to let someone who broke your back walk free? That's not what our country is about, at least it wasn't. for a while.
is it fairness? Heading towards or veering away?
There are people trying very hard to improve the vagueness of the law, or at least it's interpretation,
Or is it more a question of the morality societal / values of those charged with administering the law? If I want to break backs and pay for it I could just go and live in China or someplace. So, not so surprised at the apparent injustice in this rape case in that old country that ours but spawn of. Because of Vietch and Bain and a number of cases that have come to my skewed attention via trial-by-media.
-
Not that I don't enjoy talking, merely that given the times we live in, is it really that much of an outrage?