Bleeding heart liberals

[marty]

who insisted on the NZ Bill of Rights *win* again:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?...jectID=9004595

it's a shame victims are not afforded the same level of protection and rights.

[Blakamin]

what a farqin joke!!!

[wari]

I"m nott goin'a readitt ..

Itt'll make me madd ... I mean crazy ... I mean angry ...

:spudwave:

[Drunken Monkey]

I would blame this on the bureaucracy and incompetence of our courts system rather than the B.o.R. They should have given the case the priority it deserved, or brought someone in from another district to handle the overload.
There isn't anything wrong with expecting 'undue delay', regardless of your crime.

[spudchucka]

John Rowan QC can feel very proud of himself for this great achievment. What a fucken oxygen thief!

I remember seeing an interview of a retiring Judge a few years ago, can't recall his name but he sat on the Lundy murder trial.

Anyway as he's being interviewed he is cleaning out his office, he takes a volume from his bookcase, looks at it and then says, "The New Zealand Bill of Right Act 1990, thats been nothing but trouble since it was passed". He then unceremoniously dumps it into the rubbish bin, where it belongs.

[avgas]

heh makes me relise how pathetic it all is, not only are our punishments too damn light, sometimes we dont have time to even give them.
To any cops out there that come accross this, accidentally have an accident - and miraculoulsly survive while not letting the accused

[toads]

gotta agree with everyone on this, it's gotta stop, we have to start telling it like it is and make sure crooks get what's coming to them. Castration is a pretty final way of dealing with paedophilier imho

[sels1]

We hear how the Govt has lots of $ in the bank why the hell cant they resource the courts properly so this sort of thing doesnt happen. The police work hard to bring offenders to justice and it must be incredibly frustrating for them when this sort of thing goes on. And the victims and their families.....its just awful.

And every alleged offender (yes - they are innocent until proven guilty remember) has a right to a fair trail - in a fair amount of time.

We have a pretty good legal system in this country (compared to some others) but those holding the Treasury benches need to make sure it is properly funded. (along with health,education etc of course)

I note the offender in this case had an intellectual disability but (if found guilty) killing or mutalating him (as someone suggested) is hardly a civilised way to treat a sick NZer

[MikeL]

It really perturbs me to read all these knee-jerk reactions masquerading as opinions. Emotive terms like "bleeding heart liberals" are a substitute for rational argument. A blanket condemnation of the Bill of Rights without attempting to analyze where the blame lies for individual mistakes or injustices is intellectual laziness or political prejudice.
And there is a whiff of hypocrisy in such condemnations coming from people who in all likelihood have already used, or will use, every resource of the law, include "technicalities", to get off a traffic charge...
Incidentally, I note in the article that a police officer charged with careless driving benefitted from the same or a similar "loophole". Did he and his colleagues vehemently protest against this miscarriage of justice?
Some time ago Spud agreed with me when I suggested that, as the police were in the best position to know who was guilty and who was not, we dispense with the courts altogether. Is that what you lot want?
We know the judicial system can be improved, and it may well be that some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are unsatisfactory - but if you think that this and other safeguards of our freedom can be dispensed with entirely, just stop and imagine yourself in the dock on a trumped-up charge, or detained indefinitely without trial, or given summary "justice" out the back of the police station...
And by the way, it was "bleeding-heart liberals" of the day who ended slavery, child labour and other injustices...

But hey! Why let rational thought get in the way of a good whinge...

[MSTRS:Me]

It really perturbs me to read all these knee-jerk reactions masquerading as opinions. Emotive terms like "bleeding heart liberals" are a substitute for rational argument. A blanket condemnation of the Bill of Rights without attempting to analyze where the blame lies for individual mistakes or injustices is intellectual laziness or political prejudice.
And there is a whiff of hypocrisy in such condemnations coming from people who in all likelihood have already used, or will use, every resource of the law, include "technicalities", to get off a traffic charge...
Incidentally, I note in the article that a police officer charged with careless driving benefitted from the same or a similar "loophole". Did he and his colleagues vehemently protest against this miscarriage of justice?
Some time ago Spud agreed with me when I suggested that, as the police were in the best position to know who was guilty and who was not, we dispense with the courts altogether. Is that what you lot want?
We know the judicial system can be improved, and it may well be that some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are unsatisfactory - but if you think that this and other safeguards of our freedom can be dispensed with entirely, just stop and imagine yourself in the dock on a trumped-up charge, or detained indefinitely without trial, or given summary "justice" out the back of the police station...
And by the way, it was "bleeding-heart liberals" of the day who ended slavery, child labour and other injustices...

But hey! Why let rational thought get in the way of a good whinge...

You're one of Them, aren't you ?? 'Undue delay" is a complete crock of shit - it doesn't mean the crime never happened, so where's the redress for the victim. Technicalities are all very well, but in the case of a serious crime, they don't serve the need for justice. I lost my plantation & workhouse to these unjust new liberal laws. There were no technicalities for me

[Jamezo]

It really perturbs me to read all these knee-jerk reactions masquerading as opinions. Emotive terms like "bleeding heart liberals" are a substitute for rational argument. A blanket condemnation of the Bill of Rights without attempting to analyze where the blame lies for individual mistakes or injustices is intellectual laziness or political prejudice.
And there is a whiff of hypocrisy in such condemnations coming from people who in all likelihood have already used, or will use, every resource of the law, include "technicalities", to get off a traffic charge...
Incidentally, I note in the article that a police officer charged with careless driving benefitted from the same or a similar "loophole". Did he and his colleagues vehemently protest against this miscarriage of justice?
Some time ago Spud agreed with me when I suggested that, as the police were in the best position to know who was guilty and who was not, we dispense with the courts altogether. Is that what you lot want?
We know the judicial system can be improved, and it may well be that some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are unsatisfactory - but if you think that this and other safeguards of our freedom can be dispensed with entirely, just stop and imagine yourself in the dock on a trumped-up charge, or detained indefinitely without trial, or given summary "justice" out the back of the police station...
And by the way, it was "bleeding-heart liberals" of the day who ended slavery, child labour and other injustices...

But hey! Why let rational thought get in the way of a good whinge...

word.

I think the one thing that we can all agree on, is that our justice system needs to be better funded to prevent future tragedies like this.

[toads]

I note the offender in this case had an intellectual disability but (if found guilty) killing or mutalating him (as someone suggested) is hardly a civilised way to treat a sick NZer

there is no way to "treat" a sick Nzer or any other person guilty of such a crime, intellectual disability or otherwise, paedophiles have the lowest reform rate of all criminals, one with an intellectual disability even lower, if we can't be decisive about such matters in this area, then we are never going to have a bottom line about what sort of sentencing is appropriate, I think we all agree paedophiles are not the sort of person we want in our society and that is unfortunate for those who are paedophiles you could say.
Bringing back the death penalty for recidivist offenders in most catergories of criminal behaviour would help immeasurably too imho.
We can't complain about wishy washy sentencing if we have endless amounts of sympathy for the perpertrators of crime, and that means being prepared to make harsh and absolute judgments and stand by them rightly or wrongly, no doubt Arthur Allan Thomas and people like him who have been falsely imprisoned for crime they have not committed have swayed public opinion against harsh sentencing, but any recidivist offender should be immediately given the harshest sentence appropriate for their crime, don't you think!

[moko]

Many different sides to this one,while agreeing with the basis of what MikeL says it must be galling for the parents of that girl to see relatively minor cases in court on a regular basis while something so serious that a danger to society has admitted apparently not even getting that far.Probably far-fetched but it seems to me that the Father seems to know the piece of slime responsible,know what you mean about proof Mike but the guy`s admitted guilt in this case surely let alone any other evidence?O.k. so he does the guy up then contacts the media telling them what he`s done and why,he then calls the Police and gives himself up admitting assault.They`ve got to arrest him,media have a field day.Govt on the rack and just maybe things will change,can you imagine the shit flying when he has his day in court?O.k. so maybe that`s simplistic but it takes such action to get things done sometimes and the media is a very powerful weapon.

[Ms Piggy]

Bringing back the death penalty for recidivist offenders in most catergories of criminal behaviour would help immeasurably too imho.

Why will killing the perpetrator of a violent crimes stop others committing the same or a similar crime? Do you think a criminal thinks of the consequences of what may heppen to him if he kills/rapes/commits a violent act on another person? I don't believe so.

I have to disagree with ya on this one Lucy.

Now onto the other 1300 posts...

[MSTRS:Me]

Why will killing the perpetrator of a violent crimes stop others committing the same or a similar crime? Do you think a criminal thinks of the consequences of what may heppen to him if he kills/rapes/commits a violent act on another person? I don't believe so.

.

Then why bother weeding your garden?? I'm sorry, but it's as obvious as bald tyres - you'll never stop the rapes/murders etc, but a rope is guarantee that at least some of them won't be breeding.