Comments on: Criminal Procedures Act amendments

By: bigblukiwi

bigblukiwi — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:14:55 +0000

I have believed for some years that ‘western democracies’ have a joint hidden agenda possibly driven by ‘the bilderberg group’ that makes imperative the ramping up of ‘legal’ strictures on our civil rights. It is a drip -drip philosophy which will mean that when the crap really hits the fan as it is doing now big time, all the requirements will be in place for mass repression. Given the short fast slide into ‘the new paradigm’ we are now seeing there will be armed troops and paramilitary police on every street very soon. We will mostly accept it as ‘normal’ and ‘necessary’. Ho Hum !!

By: andrew

andrew — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:05:00 +0000

i knew they were talking about removing the jury unanimity requirement a few years back, but what about removing the double-jeopardy prohibition? has this just entered consideration after the recent couple of high-profile murder acquittals? if so that is a terrible knee-jerk reaction, or maybe a gift to a government which would have liked a propitious moment to remove a few more of our rights
from this angle it seems that the police felt under pressure to bring prosecutions even though they must have known they couldn’t reasonably hope for a conviction.

there’s worse: “the legislation allows for judge-only trials in cases that are likely to be long and complex.”

where was the public discussion of this? as i noted, i remember the idea of changing the jury unanimity rule some years ago, & had assumed the issue had gone away. then i wake up & find it is a done deal. who is at fault here? the government for not having adequate consultation? the media for not keeping the issue alive? the public, including me, for not having organized as soon as the issue was raised & staying organized & informed?

By: bigblukiwi

bigblukiwi — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:16:32 +0000

BigBro,

a little heavy on the irony Bro - I beginning to believe you will vote for the bastards !

By: wekaontheroof

wekaontheroof — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:51:55 +0000

So with the new poll out the Greens are slowly but surely increasing the %
We should be over 10% by November
(for a rolling poll avg visit)
http://www.nelsongreens.org.nz/election08.html

By: dbuckley

dbuckley — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:39:31 +0000

Yay for the Green Party, nice to have something entirely positive to say in their direction.

The removal of the protection against double jeopardy is really bad.

In the process of the state bringing a defendant to trial, the state hold all the cards. They decide if to prosecute, and if so, who they prosecute, when to prosecute, and what charges to lay. The state has (in effect) a limitless resource pool with which to investigate.

When a prosecution fails it is always the fault of the prosecution.

In my ideal world, the trial process is almost a rubber stamping exercise. If someone is taken to trial, then the prosecution has evidence beyond reasonable doubt that will lead to a conviction.

In the real world, many trials are not like that. There are no official numbers to back it up, but unofficial numbers do pop up from time to time, such that if the chances of a prosecution of succeeding are better than 50/50, then they’ll go to trial.

The existing double jeopardy rules act partly (though not entirely effectively) as a safety valve; the prosecution are required to make a judgement call. Do they go early with incomplete evidence and hope for a sympathetic jury, or hold off and hope for better evidence.

All to often they opt for the first path, and thus you get aquittals, and when it happens in high profile cases, theres public disappointment.

Unfortunately, no-one seems to be held accountable for poor prosecutorial decisions.

By: Edge

Edge — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:19:42 +0000

Some who are fans of the play (and movie) 12 Angry Men, may have a few misgivings about Parliament’s decision last night.

You want that guy to be able to hold-out out and prevent a proper acquittal that everyone else agreed was just?

By: jh

jh — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:03:29 +0000

Can we watch the whole of that movie Frog. There’s nothing on TV

By: toad

toad — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:25:25 +0000

Except, BB, for this one:

“I’m voting Labour because gender roles are artificial, but homosexuality is natural.”

which is true.

But still no reason to vote Labour - Green is a better option, taking all into account.

By: toad

toad — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:20:29 +0000

BB - your “Why I’m Voting Labour” post above has got to be the best reasoning I’ve seen yet to vote Green! Well done!

By: jh

jh — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:36:29 +0000

I think we have two fundamental responses to violent crime anger and rose coloured spectacles (bleeding heart…… Green Party default reaction). It’s a matter of weighing up both sides. Y’ gotta remember that some people are excited by sadistic violence. One man in Bishopdale answered a knock on the door to be slaughtered by a machete. The guy “wanted to know what it felt like” (better to give than to receive as the good book says). His widow never went back in the house and my friend got a bargain when he bought it.