Island Life: The Guilt of Clayton Weatherston
285 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
What if we don't like either option, Stewart? Perhaps we'd like to watch the evening news without being dragged into a dungeon and recounted the horrors of a brutal murder, day after day after day.
As someone else said - the TV coverage is ratings driven. If people don't watch it, ratings drop, ad $$ fall, TV gets the message, things change.
If people insist on watching it so they'll have something to rail against, ratings don't drop, nothing changes.Of course it makes no difference whether the switch is on or off if you don't have a Neilsen box in your lounge, so you're left with letters to the editor, the channel and the BSA.
-
I have a tv set: I subscribe to Sky (it's the only way I can get MaoriTv.)
I almost NEVER watch tv news - I go to the net, and check out stuff I want to read/learn/view there.And, there *is* always an off switch if you dont have these alternatives. I think most viewers agree much of commercial tv is shit- there is no longer a tv licence fee, so why the moaning?
-
But has her name actually been smeared? I mean, does anyone here actually think she's a provocative slut who deserved to be murdered?
Everyone I've talked to about this seems to have horrified by Weatherston's claims about Elliot and seen right through them.
I'm sure this is true for the vast majority of people but someone at work did come out with the old "I'm not saying she deserved it, but...." line.
-
Nice to see you Islander, where have you been? Not jury duty I hope. Seems you were 100% right about this one. missed you.
"I'm not saying she deserved it, but...." line.
check his/her bag for lunch knife.
-
The Criminal Procedures (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 is what you're looking for.
Is the person fit to plead? Do they understand the charges? If not then they may end up in hospital.
If fit to plead then they face trial.
If acquitted due to insanity they would then be placed in hospital (as opposed to prison) until such time as they were no longer insane. This is where it gets tricky; a person could be found not guilty by reason of insanity, be hospitalised, become well and be discharged into the community. They may not be a risk but it doesn't help the victim's family...
-
I also bumped into Otago's dean of law, Prof. Mark Henagan and had a good yarn to him about the case. He expects Weatherston will get at least 20 years.
It's nice to know that a learned legal mind has similar expectations to my own. Looking at past sentencing I've been predicting about 20. The Lundy case is about the closest we've got in terms of violence portrayed, and from memory he got 21 years. With a starting point of 17 years, and absolutely no mitigating factors, just aggravating ones - no guilty plea, no remorse, mutilation as well as murder, etc - I'll be stunned if it's under 20. Might even get 21, though I would imagine that would be appealed and possibly overturned.
-
For the debate over the "provocation defence": The maximum sentence for manslaughter is the same as for murder.
For those who think a defence lawyer should always go as hard as possible: Weatherspoon will get a longer sentence having run this defence, and run it the way he did, and failed, than if he had plead guilty to murder and feigned remorse and only raised all of this garbage in sentencing.
I will be interested to see what sentence the Hungarian gets.
-
I think the key thing here is choice. Do we have a reasonable expectation that we should be able to consume news without hearing every gory detail?
Somehow its the gratuitous nature of the reporting that gets to me. It's the fact that news has become "reality tv", and overdramatised, and yes it's about ratings, and what sells advertising, and what makes those adverts effective (having been horrified by the news, the advertising offers us comfort - buy my product and feel better about the world).
-
Also, interesting article in the Times on Mary Lamb, who spent time in an asylum after murdering her parents, was released into her brother's care and was home quite soon after.
-
Meanwhile, I do hope all the people outraged by what the Elliot family went through during the trial are going to be writing to TVNZ and asking why Close Up didn't just leave them alone. (Didn't have the heart to surf over to Three, but my heart hurts watch John Campbell working at 2% of his potential.)
OTOH, Close Up gets kudos for absolving me of any obligation to take "criminal psychologist" Nigel Latta -- who just happens to have a show to cross-promote under the guise of news when he's a parenting expert. Don't know about anyone else, but I found this running the gamut from Asinine to Banal. You have to be seriously fucked up to stab and slash another human being over two hundred times? Fancy...
-
For those who think a defence lawyer should always go as hard as possible: Weatherspoon will get a longer sentence having run this defence, and run it the way he did, and failed, than if he had plead guilty to murder and feigned remorse and only raised all of this garbage in sentencing.
That's really good to know. thanks for posting that Logan.
-
The point I wanted to make by mentioning Colin Bouwer by name and link before was that he only got 13 years non parole. For cold, calculated, premeditated murder. And sure he didn't mutilate his wife's body, but he made her thoroughly ill and go through unnecessary surgery along the way.
Oh wait. Just found the Sentencing Act 2002. He would have been up for at least 17 (lengthy planning), but was convicted in 2001.
-
What's the maximum sentence that can be imposed for murder? What's the maximum non-parole time? I did a quick google but couldn't find the answer.
I did find out that William Bell got the longest sentence ever in NZ - life in prison with a 30 year non-parole period, Mark Burton got life with a minimum non-parole period of 26 years which is the third longest sentence ever, and that in most cases where the sentence is over two years, a person can be considered for parole after they have served one-third of their sentence. Only one-third! Crikey!
-
oopsie - that should of course read Graeme Burton, not Mark...
-
glad for the verdict, but that doesn't mean we should give him some extra sentence specifically for being a complete jerk.
There's surely little doubt he'll get some extra punishment (perhaps enough even to satisfy the KB/Facebook crowd) where he's headed.
I'd almost stopped checking the NZ Herald site for the last two weeks because the defence "case" was always headlining.
-
Meanwhile, could the papers (and the rest of the media) stop posturing about the appealing trauma Sophie Elliot's family went through while you've got her parents performing like dancing grief monkeys, and you still can't stop yourself publishing every salacious titbit you can dig up?
Perhaps we can have an in-depth feature on people who suffer from dissociative disorders that allow them to compartmentalise and rationalise distasteful behaviour.
-
Perhaps we can have an in-depth feature on people who suffer from dissociative disorders that allow them to compartmentalise and rationalise distasteful behaviour.
I'm sure we'll see one in this weekend's Herald on Sunday.
-
(Didn't have the heart to surf over to Three, but my heart hurts watch John Campbell working at 2% of his potential.)
JC is not there. Carol did a last show last Friday and signed off thanking those she had worked with. No flowers on air to send her on her way to Maori TV and no JC then or since ????
-
I'm sure we'll see one in this weekend's Herald on Sunday.
That would require an element of self-knowledge that I doubt you can have as an employee of the Herald without dying of shame. :)
JC is not there. Carol did a last show last Friday and signed off thanking those she had worked with. No flowers on air to send her on her way to Maori TV and no JC then or since ????
???? indeed. Perhaps a "re-formating" wouldn't be such a bad thing, so we can all write off Campbell Live as a wasted opportunity and start grieving properly.
-
Apropos parole: when the minimum period is up, you don't get paroled, you just get a chance at convincing the parole board. You may be eligible at 1/3, but you don't get paroled as of right. I'm not sure everyone realises that.
-
Tom, use the 'Off' button (on your tv...)
Why should I have to?
Because if you don't, sooner or later you'll be confronted by something featuring Simon Barnett. And then you'll see the wisdom in those words.
-
However, If Graham Burton looses more body parts, he might argue that he's unfit enough the be safely put out to pasture. I believe William Bell has lost an eye
So, it's like we are sending them for dismantling. Can we sell the spare parts?.
-
So, it's like we are sending them for dismantling. Can we sell the spare parts?
Well, there are numerous allegations that this happens in some parts of the Chinese penal system.
-
Murder carries a mandatory life sentence
Not it doesn't.
Section 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002:
An offender who is convicted of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust.
It used to be mandatory, but now there's a presumption in favour of life.
Which is why we can get rid of provocation - judges don't have to give life in all cases.
-
D'oh!
Not it doesn't = No it doesn't
edit button now!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.