There's the bail act. It sets the test for bail.
It's a question of fact in each case. Someone imprisoned when they shouldn't be, has suffered more harm that someone detained at home, who has suffered more harm than someone with a curfew.
I don't have a fundamental problem with the possibility of a contributory negligence-like analysis, but fundamentally the Government runs the risk. If it ask for someone to be locked up, and then can't justify that in the end, I don't see why the person you locked up should wear the cost.
If they are going to ban some prisoners from voting, maybe those serving 5 years, or with non-parole periods of three years?
Your headings “Arbitrariness in sentencing dates” and “Home detention” are mixed up.
Happily that, and the erstwhile error in the headline are artefacts of the copy paste process, and not errors in the submission itself.
I haven’t written anything yet. Can I join yours?
given the woeful behaviour of editors and publishers in recent years, why trust them to judge what to do with material carefully crafted to incite violent hatred of a certain subsection of people?
The censor seems to, although he has also cautioned them to take care.
He's the expert, I'm happy to take him at his word.
If you were trying to make a coherent argument I lost you from your comparison to child porn
It's not my comparison. That's what Parliament has said.
As to voting at 14, I’ll be cynical again and wonder if anyone has done research into the correlation of 14-17 year-olds’ voting preferences with that of their parents. It’s not the best argument for enfranchising this age group , but at worst the voting preference of parents with teenagers will get a small boost.
I'm not supporting giving votes to 14-17 year-olds because I think they'll vote a particular way. I support this because I think they should be allowed to have a say in the future.
Just posting a comment so I can turn on email notifications to any comments :-)
But almost as important is the fact that the question did not explicitly seek such a repeal. It was ambiguous; it begged an opinion without actually proposing an action.
It would have been odd for the question to seek repeal. The question for the referendum and proceess for holding it started well before the law was passed.
In relation the criminal side of things, I agree it’s strange that s22 (criminal harm offence) doesn’t have an express reference to NZBORA when it’ll often be a more important consideration there than in the civil jurisdiction under s19.
I don’t think it's strange. Courts are always required to act consistently with the Bill of Rights. It’s strange when they include it, as though a Court doesn’t have to act consistently with the Bill of Rights when it’s considering a charge of offensive language! I considered that maybe it was explicitly included because of doubt that the approved agency might not be covered, as it doesn’t really exercise any state powers.
As for defences, I agree we’ll probably get there, and that Courts will allow a defence of publication in the public interest, but, for example, it strikes me as highly odd that to get civil relief you have to establish a breach of one of the communication principles in the act, but that doesn’t apply to the criminal offence. If you intend to cause harm in which way which breaches none of the principles in the act, you can still be criminally liable, even though the victim could not obtain a take down order.