Double standards?

[Edbear]

I agree. The current justice system basically says:
it isnt fair that some people have more to lose than others, so when someone high profile, whether it be business, sporting or otherwise related, it is reasonable to provide them with a lesser sentence, and provide them with fairer treatment so they do not lose too much.

The reality SHOULD be:
If you have more to lose, then you have more reason than anyone to think about the consequences of your actions, and as such, it stands to reason that if, with all you have to lose, you STILL decide to make a poor decision, you should be punished equally, as there is no point being kinder to you, when you have made your decision despite the knowledge of all you have to use.

That said though, (to play devils advocate) IF the woman has a record of same, or similar offences, and the all black does NOT, then that does go some way to justifying the different treatment. - Im not defending the rugby meathead here, I think theyre all cunts anyway, but sometimes there is a lot of very relative history that played a part, details that the papers omit for whatever reason.

Now there's a novel idea...

Yepper, the examples are all over the place, the double standards that we are accepting as "just how it is" are beggining to grate.

Yeah, ...SNIP.... All the thinkers must be gone

I think, therefore I am...

There is supposed to be one law for all, and all are equal under the eyes of the law.
That said, then name suppression prior to any trial/conviction should be automatic for all. Or nobody.
If/when convicted, then sentencing may be tailored to the individual and their particular circumstances, and name suppression could be lifted (or not) for all sorts of reasons.

Thanks for clearing that up... I think...

[Scuba_Steve]

this is why we need a "blind legal system". I reckon judges should not be able to see whom they are judging & persons names or companies they work for should not be able to be mentioned in court i.e. an All Black can only be called a "rugby player", & politician or council worker "public servant", a judge or lawyer "legal worker" etc

This way only the legalities should be able to be argued, not "he's John Key, an All Black, or a cop so deserves special attention despite the offence"

[oneofsix]

snip
name suppression prior to any trial/conviction should be automatic for all.

seem to remember we had that for a couple of years and then the Government changed and the rule of privilege was reintroduced. Of course the plebs did recognise it as the rule of privilege, they thought they were being deign knowledge. Fair dues, I mean how could they publicly lynch people before all the facts were in if they didn't know who was being accused.