So really if you've got a niggling urge to kill someone - the consequence you're looking at is having to get pizza hut to deliver, rather than dine in awhiles. What country would be theOriginally Posted by Patrick
psychopaths choice to live in?
Hardcore Biker
So really if you've got a niggling urge to kill someone - the consequence you're looking at is having to get pizza hut to deliver, rather than dine in awhiles. What country would be the
stormrider
You are shitting me, out in 4 ?? How many do you have to kill to get a decent sentence ?
bikes and babes are best naked
I found I had a fluffy seam when my crotch got wet.
Tornado Alley
Dunno... Govt won't answer that one either. look at the referendum a few years ago, 95% of the voters said "harsher penalties"... Instead we got home D and parole like the example given..... but I digress....You are shitting me, out in 4 ?? How many do you have to kill to get a decent sentence ?
stormrider
Striking an officer in the royal navy in the 1700's would get you 'keel hauled' or hanged.
Stealing a loaf of bread got you deported to Australia.
Seems we have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous
Now we have gangs of youths running around beating the crap out of anyone they feel like & all they get is a ride home in a police car.
I found I had a fluffy seam when my crotch got wet.
could catch a monkey
Didn't 95% of the population also vote for 99 MPs in the same referendum??
Or am I imagining things again?
Tornado Alley
Nope... talk about "Up Yours" from the Govt to the mass majority....
Geriatric hoon
Ahhhh but Matt Robson said we didn't understand.
I understand that Matt Robson has multiple university degrees but is a complete and utter fuckwit... The very epitome of what you get if you educate an idiot...
Once upon a time they got one third off for good behaviour, now thanks to Matt it's more like two thirds. Oh, and don't worry too much about the behaviour needing to be good either.
Talk about a revolving door. I also seem to recall that home detention was never to be an option for crimes of violence?
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
Special Project
Prison is no longer a deterent. Prison has better living standards (in most cases) than most of these people can provide for themselves, and all they've got to do is commit a crime considered serious enough.
If you REALLY think about it, they commit a crime, a victim suffers (I can't think of a victimless crime) the offender gets locked in a cell sure, BUT, they don't have to make reparations to the victim, they don't have to work anymore, they get free food, free accomodation, free membership to the gym, free education, free healthcare, free power, free phone, (not 100% sure but) free internet and if they are "that way inclined" free sex.
Explain to me where the deterent is. And this is excluding the term "institutionalised"
Then the government decides that because too many people are enjoying their stay in prison, they decide to let people out earlier, they don't do the time for the crime and then don't like having to fend for themselves.
Instead of hardening up, NZ has provided a No.8 wire (read temporary) solution. It fixs prison "overcrowding" now but does nothing to deter future criminals.
This seems to be a common problem in NZ - temporary fixs - I mean look at the way the "patch" the roads. But that's off topic, so I'll leave it there.
You only need two tools in life:
Duct tape if it moves and it shouldn't.
WD-40 if it doesn't move and it should.
Brute force and ignorance always prevails.
Failure comes from too little brute force, or
too little ignorance.
Hardcore Biker
Baring in mind the child had horrific multiple stomping injuries...
His mother has gone in to bat for him it seems, to say it would have been accidental (no intent).
Today the jury heard this character enhancing perjury from him - a jury not allowed to know his history, yet. And he was presented as a good family man.
"It's my fault that she collapsed because I shook her but I didn't bruise her, punch her or whack her or touch her or do anything apart from shaking her. I didn't hit her because I'm not that sort of person. I never intended to hurt her, I just wanted her to stop crying."
It seems he and / or dirty defence lawyer are trying to shift the blame or create reasonable doubt - onto her grieving Mum. Perhaps we should send Judges to the Ureweras to learn to be snipers when "appropriate".
Echos of the police baton trials. Scum Wives / scum Mums and cuckoo trial rules must stop giving F-wits credibility.
Fingers crossed he'll get charged with perjury for the "I'm not that sort of person" BS. Easily disproven.
Tornado Alley
That is when the prosecution can step in and disprove that claim... including previous convictions showing he is that sort of person...
Tornado Alley
See he went down for it...
Good job...
Was on bail for Manslaughter at the time of thie kiddie murder too, I see....
Dunno if this is the "past" you were referring to????
Look Ma, no hands hehehe
Yep this is now the second time that someone has killed again while out on bail (for killing someone).
There maybe other cases, but can not recall them at the moment.
The guy was charged with the man-slaughter of a woman killed 10 months before this little one was murdered for crying. Yet at the time of the little one's murder he was out on bail.
I hope the courts add on his 18 years for murder (before applying for parole) on top of the time that he is serving for the man-slaughter of the woman.
Not sure how much time he got for that - anyone know???????
-- years + 18years (before parole) = ????years to be served.......????
This is one person who should remain inside until he dies, as he has now killed twice. Is he now classed as a serial killer????
Deus ex ukulele
Cases like this worry me at times. Solo mothers, with children to different fathers and at least one big dog, seem to be pathologically attracted to unsavory members of our community who can be best described as "fucking losers". Some of these young women are attractive and otherwise reasonably intelligent. Is there some spectacularly powerful pheromone that Dwayne Hoodie and his mates exude that make women lose all sense of reason? I mean, what's going on here?
If I was a young lady (and the Elf thread suggests that may be a possibility) I wouldn't want "men" like this on the same side of the street as me, let alone close enough to passionately pound my pudenda.
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Hardcore Biker
Yes Patrick - that killing was part of the past I was referring to. His prior murder... erm manslaughter (NZ deflationary pressure on charges). Also his prior rape in a Park toilet he got others to alibi him for, so got off. Also his prior molestation of a 12 year old (proved to court satisfaction).... and no doubt he was also an animal torturer. T'would be par for the course.
I was interested when you said the prosecution could raise past matters if he had made a false claim like "I'm not that kind of person". You'd think that would be natural justice (if thats the word)... but the Herald said that his past was unable to be raised, lest it prejudiced the trial.
Not raising it prejudiced it though - jurors got a presentation so biased they or even that crucial one juror might easily have believed this was an isolated incident of loss of control. It was just damn lucky he did not con this jury like he often has before. Prolly only because Police used emotive tactics, by presenting the bashing evidence in graphic detail - one juror vomited I believe.
Hitcher - I've heard some women go for "tough guy" types, as for some insane reason they believe this offers them protection, in what can be a predatory world. The Mum in this case was not stereotype solo, but recently seperated. She is a nice person, maybe was too trusting. But Maori streets are often like a big community where neighbours babysit for each other. As he was "married" and looked after his own kids, and as the wife is a friend singing praises how great he is then why would you expect your worst nightmare?
She was obviously vulnerable to attentions of this long term slimeball (like his prior victim who he also entrapped into an affair) with the marital breakup. Not in her wildest dreams did she imagine he would have the past he did. She knew he was on bail in connection to something serious, but had been reassured by what she saw (a family man). He was going round saying words like "if the Police really thought I was dangerous I'd never have been bailed - cos that would be just too crazy, eh - its all a misunderstanding".
He had well conned everyone around him that he was not guilty of the other "death", with what I must give full marks for, was a very convincing story (what kind of psychopath worth their salt can't spin some prize BS tho).
Pudenda?
Salted Pork
Its part of the rules of evidence. The prosecution can't base any part of their case on the defendant's past actions or prior convictions. However, if the defence elects to offer "character evidence" then the prosecution can offer evidence in rebuttal, which could be prior convictions etc.
Its true that by excluding this evidence the jury does not have a complete understanding of the person but they aren't there to judge the person, they are just there to decide whether the person is guilty of the offence charged based upon the proven facts. The judge has all the information relating to the defendant's past convictions etc and has to take these factors into consideration when sentencing.
Jury selection is a critical factor, if they get it right they, (the jury) should be intelligent enough to see through the defence smoke screens.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks