Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
For anyone who thinks we should tinker or do away with the jury system, have a think about Churchill's famous quote:
""Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
I tend to agree. But that doesn't mean it can't be discussed or made better.
-
I raised the matter in response to Russel's incredulity that someone was *blaming* children for being smacked.
I was referring specifically to the rhetoric from Family First and McCroskie. Responsibility for any incident always rests with the child (or at least not with the parent -- McCroskie's refusal to criticise the Masterton father in even the mildest terms was sickening).
The idea that parents need to exercise self control as part of their duty of care doesn't really feature. Does anyone else really think the father who grabbed his teenage daughter, threw her over his knee and "smacked" her over an argument about her boyfriend was acting wisely?
There's a weird dissonance here with respect to intervention too. Christine Rankin can blather on about how CYF stands by and refuses to act while babies are abused -- and then you read that tendentious list of cases on the Family First site and you'll see CYF routinely demonised for even taking an interest. One could be forgiven for thinking that kids are fair game once they can walk.
I think that most parents would think that if a child hasn't done anything wrong, why would any form of discipline or punishment - physical or not - be appropriate?
And parents who hit their kids for missing the mark on toilet training think they're doing the right thing too. You say it like it's a clear principle, and it isn't.
I also suspect that many parents were miffed at being lumped together with child abusers ...
I think that's right -- that's what they thought. It's the basis of the way that in this rhetoric, parents -- even those who very plainly lose the plot, like Jimmy Mason -- have become the victims.
if proponents of the amendment had toned down the rhetoric
Uh, if proponents had toned down their rhetoric?
and instead argued:
You've lost me here. Isn't that pretty much what Sue Bradford and others actually did argue?
From Hansard, Bradford, third reading of the bill:
Neither the select committee, myself, nor anyone else supporting this bill has ever intended that all parents who ever lightly or occasionally hit their children should be subject automatically to investigation and police prosecution. What we have been simply seeking to do is remove a defence that has allowed some parents to get away with quite badly beating their children and, most significantly, that has stopped police from taking action in many situations of violence against children.
She's followed by Chester Borrows, also speaking in support of the bill:
Those parents who are worried that this legislation will criminalise lightly smacking a child can rest assured that Parliament’s intention is that this should not be the case, and if at some future time they find themselves on such a charge, they should advise counsel to research Hansard and cite these comments in their defence.
Yes, a couple of the cases cited by Family First seem ludicrous on the face of it. A woman suspend from her employment at a daycare centre for giving her daughter a "tap on the back of the hand"? Ludicrous! As silly as a man being charged with assault for merely flicking his son's ear ...
-
Come off it Russell, I have sat on a jury. You think they only discuss the case amongst themselves when they formally retire to consider the verdict?
I wouldn't expect them to go around informing strangers that it'd all be over real quick, no.
I'm poorly placed to argue any further, not having been there. My point is that I cannot recall experienced journalists -- who were there for the whole three months -- describing a jury in these terms. Ever.
-
I don't think what I'm proposing - that maybe there was actual reasonable doubt - is that controversial. However, I'll desist from this line of argument, because it's getting me nowhere and I don't want to be a bore.
Graeme made the same point, and I completely accept that if the jury found reasonable doubt they did the right thing to acquit.
But there does seem to be an impression amongst people who were there that the jury behaved unusually, and decided fairly early on the piece that Bain was innocent.
One thing I forgot earlier: one jury member not only spoke to a reporter after the decision, she rang a radio talkback show and discussed the case. Can we agree that's unusual?
Anyway, I think there'll be more on this theme in Saturday morning's Insight programme on RNZ. I think it's a legitimate and interesting topic for discussion.
-
I'm uncomfortable with the view I've often heard expressed (and which van Beynan's article does nothing to dispel) that they must have all been thick, or asleep at the wheel, or blind to the obvious. But all 12 of them?
At least one juror, it seems, was literally asleep during proceedings. Like I says, court reporters don't say these things lightly -- I can't really recall it before.
And having heard another experienced court reporter say even stronger things off the record, it does seem to me that there were odd things going on with this jury.
Further examples: one juror passed a note to his wife to say not to let go of their tickets for Stomp because it'd all be done and dusted by the Friday evening. Another said something similar to a worker at the coffee bar across the road. It was a troubling jury.
-
Martin van Beynen asks us, who did it, David or Robin? He doesn't seem to entertain the idea that an answer to that question is unattainable.
The fact it had to be one of them makes that an uncomfortable point of resolution.
-
David Dougherty might have something to say about the wheels of justice and how easy it is for a jury to convict an innocent man.
David Dougherty's is an amazing story. But he was freed (and eventually compensated) because his lawyer (and Donna Chisholm) completely knocked out the prosecution evidence and showed there was no way in the world he was guilty. Bain's defence defence didn't do anything like that.
-
He's possibly missed on the formation of the PAS Women's XV too. Danielle caught the play nicely, as usual.
It's not just the skillset, it's the blistering natural speed. She'll always beat her man on the outside.
-
While it's not surprising, it's the fact that it's still considered acceptable by a lot of people in society to say that about kids, whereas not many people would still think about saying it about an adult. That's the contradiction that needs more highlighting.
Quite.
I might add that it's a contradiction that Family First has turned into a fetish. They seem to struggle to find a parental action that can't reflexively be blamed on the child involved. And these are people who drone on out the other side of their mouths about "parental responsibility".
-
If it is (I have been out of the loop, not reading HardNews for several years),
You'll have missed the memo about not using words like "tart" and "bitch" to insult people in the news because they happen to be female.
C'mon. Really.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 … 2279 Older→ First