Phobia lets death driver avoid jail

[James Deuce]

OK ... let's stop the calls for capital punishment. If the legal system in NZ was the same as the one in Iran, I'm sure you lot would be complaining just as hard. Actually, you wouldn't be complaining as you'd be too scared to say anything in case the Police turned up to take you to Aden prison - a place one generally leaves in a bodybag - for daring to criticise the regime.

Capital punishment is wrong, whatever the crime, and certainly wrong for drink driving causing death.

But this doesn't excuse the laughable joke that is the sentence given to this woman. What I'm trying to understand though, is how agoraphobia - a fear of open spaces - is a valid excuse for not going to jail. Claustrophobia I could understand (almost), but if I was an agoraphobic, the knowledge that I was not going to have to go outside and see a horizon or an open sky for the next 5 years would be a great relief, not a punishment.

Sounds like another judge with his head far too far up the (well-perfumed and polished) arse of the PC brigade.

Agoraphobia isn't the opposite of claustrophobia.

From Psych Central

"The essential feature of Agoraphobia is anxiety about being in places or situations from which escape might be difficult (or embarrassing) or in which help may not be available in the event of having a Panic Attack or panic-like symptoms. "

[Forest]

Agoraphobia isn't the opposite of claustrophobia.

From Psych Central

"The essential feature of Agoraphobia is anxiety about being in places or situations from which escape might be difficult (or embarrassing) or in which help may not be available in the event of having a Panic Attack or panic-like symptoms. "

Sounds like she would be an ideal prisoner.

Once accommodated she won't be capable of carrying out an escape attempt.

[EJK]

The victim's family would've been abit unhappy when they read this....

[scumdog]

The victim's family would've been abit unhappy when they read this....

How?? Why?

[sunhuntin]

Capital punishment is wrong, whatever the crime.

sorry, but i disagree fully! i fail to see how capital punishment isnt a valid result of taking a life?
maybe not in this case, but actual murder cases, where the crim set out to murder. whether its a domestic, child abuse or anything. why should the families and friends of the victim, who has been taken away from them forever, have to pay to keep their killer happy and well fed in prison?
there is a guy in prison right now who murdered one of my best friends. she was the light in her families lives, and they struggle daily without her smile.
i would love nothing more than to spend 5 mins with him and a baseball bat, and make him feel the same agony that tania did. tania was so badly destroyed by the monster that her tattoos were the only way her father could identify her.

[Deano]

Nope. Covered by different acts. The "reasoning" is that it is too difficult to prove intent, hence dangerous driving charges with "causing death" or "causing injury" appended to them and much lesser sentences attached than taking an ice axe to someone's head.

DIC & causing death is a different story to being stupid and causing death, even if the outcome is the same, in my book at least. Mistakes do happen. If you are DIC you clearly have no regard for your fellow road users and you should be tried under the provisions of the Crimes Act. Being DIC should "prove" intent.

I was under the impression (from past teachings) that there are two types of proceeding.

Criminal and civil.

It's clearly not a civil case.

???

[Dakara]

Nothing wrong with capital punishment... Sure some countries perhaps take it too far (although fear is a great detirrent) but it takes a lot less tax payer dollars to simply turn the swtich off... there's no redemption for the crimes some people commit.

Back on topic, this outcome honestly makes me laugh... not because it's a laughing matter, far from it, but sometimes, when your lost for words/emotion laughter is all that can come out. All I can say is "What next NZ?"

[Sanx]

sorry, but i disagree fully! i fail to see how capital punishment isnt a valid result of taking a life?
maybe not in this case, but actual murder cases, where the crim set out to murder. whether its a domestic, child abuse or anything. why should the families and friends of the victim, who has been taken away from them forever, have to pay to keep their killer happy and well fed in prison?
there is a guy in prison right now who murdered one of my best friends. she was the light in her families lives, and they struggle daily without her smile.
i would love nothing more than to spend 5 mins with him and a baseball bat, and make him feel the same agony that tania did. tania was so badly destroyed by the monster that her tattoos were the only way her father could identify her.

The problem with capital punishment is that it is the ultimate final sentence. Should evidence come to light later that throws doubt on the conviction (as has happened many many times) you can let someone out of prison. You can't let someone out of a grave.

But what about the criminals who are absolutely positively guilty? The criminals that have confessed? Etc. Etc.

There is always some level of doubt in a conviction or a plausible cause of the actions that does not involve the criminal nature of the person themselves. In the UK over the last twenty years, I can think of people convicted of murder and subsequently released as a result of:

• Police fabricating evidence (Birmingham Six and Guildford Four)
• Forensic techniques later proven to be unreliable
• Brain tumour, which caused random acts of extreme violence and hallucinations
• Eye-witnesses later proven to have ulterior motives and shown to have lied under oath

I don't think that any criminal conviction can be 100% beyond doubt in perpetuity. And therefore it isn't just to have a punishment that puts the person 100% beyond release in perpetuity.

In the past 35 years, 129 people were sentenced to death and subsequently released from death row in the USA. Between 1973 and 1995, 5% of all capital convictions ended in the person subsequently having their conviction quashed. Others whose sentence was overturned were retried and found guilt of 'lesser' offences. The Innocence Project has proved, using post-conviction DNA-testing, that 218 death row prisoners were innocent and secured their release. They've secured pardons or retrials (ending in acquittal) in other cases where the sentence was something other than death.

Take this bloke's case as an example. Curtis McCarty was sentenced to death in 1982 for the murder of 18 year-old Pamela Willis. During his first trial, a government forensics expert said that hairs found at the scene matched those of McCarty and that semen collected from the victim matched McCarty's blood type. The forensics expert changed her notes during the case; something only discovered 18 years later when said forensics expert was arrested for fraud. The District Attorney also withheld evidence from the defence and jury. The conviction was overturned two years later and a retrial ordered. During the second trial, the judge misdirected the jury and a re-trial was once again ordered. The third and final trial confirmed the death sentence.

In 2000, with the forensics expert, Joyce Gilchrist, under investigation for fraud relating to fabrication of results, the defence asked her to produce the hair samples which she had testified matched McCarty's. The evidence had conveniently been lost. In 2002, McCarty's lawyers were able to secure DNA testing on the sperm sample found on the victim's body. In 2005, McCarty's lawyers were able to secure a new trial based upon Gilchrist's proven unreliability and bad-faith destruction of evidence. Further forensic evidence showed that skin scrapings taken from under the victim's fingernails did not match McCarty's and a bloody footprint left at the scene could not have been made by him either. Before the third trial started, the judge dismissed the charges and released McCarty. He'd spent 22 years in jail and 18 years on death row. And he was innocent.

There's also arguments about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. Or more to the point, it's complete lack of effectiveness. The ACLU have quite a detailed section on it, but of course it should be read in the context that the ACLU is against the death penalty and will only publish evidence that supports their stance.

[scumdog]

The problem with capital punishment is that it is the ultimate final sentence. But what about the criminals who are absolutely positively guilty? The criminals that have confessed? Etc. Etc.

There is always some level of doubt in a conviction or a plausible cause of the actions that does not involve the criminal nature of the person themselves. In the UK over the last twenty years, I can think of people convicted of murder and subsequently released as a result of:

• Police fabricating evidence (Birmingham Six and Guildford Four)
• Forensic techniques later proven to be unreliable
• Brain tumour, which caused random acts of extreme violence and hallucinations
• Eye-witnesses later proven to have ulterior motives and shown to have lied under oath

I don't think that any criminal conviction can be 100% beyond doubt in perpetuity. And therefore it isn't just to have a punishment that puts the person 100% beyond release in perpetuity.

Ah, that's crap in a fair number of cases (Bell in the RSA, Antonie "I'm insane" and a few others,) - never going to be any use to society and only a leech on the tax-payer.

Best positon for them? - in an offal pit.

[jrandom]

sorry, but i disagree fully! i fail to see how capital punishment isnt a valid result of taking a life?

Of course it is. Theoretically.

But, just in case you found Sanx's excellent post too long and involved to follow, I'll boil it down for you:

The justice system isn't infallible, which means that capital punishment inevitably results in innocent people being executed.

[James Deuce]

I was under the impression (from past teachings) that there are two types of proceeding.

Criminal and civil.

It's clearly not a civil case.

???

You are completely correct, but the sentence relates to the act under which the "criminal" is tried. Last election the Gubbmint effectively moved the perpetrators of deaths on NZ roads beyond the scope of the Crimes Act and made it legal for people who drive the wrong way up Nauranga Gorge to retain their license despite suffering from all the effects of extreme age.

To get a murder conviction to stick you have to prove that the other driver intended to kill that other particular driver. With manslaughter you have to prove that the other person was capable of understanding that their actions could result in death. hose charges are only used when someone drives into a crowd of pedestrians and a large number of witnesses can positively ID the perp.

Road accidents are not regarded as violent crimes and that is the official word. That is why the sentences are so light.

[jrandom]

Road accidents are not regarded as violent crimes and that is the official word. That is why the sentences are so light.

Makes it pretty straightforward to choose a method of bloody vengeance against those who have wronged you, eh?

Just gotta be a bit smarter about it than that dumbfuck coconut who drove into the crowd.

[sunhuntin]

Of course it is. Theoretically.

But, just in case you found Sanx's excellent post too long and involved to follow, I'll boil it down for you:

The justice system isn't infallible, which means that capital punishment inevitably results in innocent people being executed.

so therefore, its ok to let 100% guilty murderers live [like the examples scummy gave, and ill include the dick in the wheelchair for good measure] IN CASE someone gets it wrong, even when its 200% obvious that that person did murder that person for no good reason? i can understand that mistakes have been made in the past, but with the advances in forensics and dna and the like, those mistakes are less and less. eventually, mistakes wont happen at all. then what?

[Dakara]

The problem with capital punishment is that it is the ultimate final sentence. Should evidence come to light later that throws doubt on the conviction (as has happened many many times) you can let someone out of prison. You can't let someone out of a grave.

But what about the criminals who are absolutely positively guilty? The criminals that have confessed? Etc. Etc.

There is always some level of doubt in a conviction or a plausible cause of the actions that does not involve the criminal nature of the person themselves. In the UK over the last twenty years, I can think of people convicted of murder and subsequently released as a result of:

• Police fabricating evidence (Birmingham Six and Guildford Four)
• Forensic techniques later proven to be unreliable
• Brain tumour, which caused random acts of extreme violence and hallucinations
• Eye-witnesses later proven to have ulterior motives and shown to have lied under oath

I don't think that any criminal conviction can be 100% beyond doubt in perpetuity. And therefore it isn't just to have a punishment that puts the person 100% beyond release in perpetuity.

In the past 35 years, 129 people were sentenced to death and subsequently released from death row in the USA. Between 1973 and 1995, 5% of all capital convictions ended in the person subsequently having their conviction quashed. Others whose sentence was overturned were retried and found guilt of 'lesser' offences. The Innocence Project has proved, using post-conviction DNA-testing, that 218 death row prisoners were innocent and secured their release. They've secured pardons or retrials (ending in acquittal) in other cases where the sentence was something other than death.

Take this bloke's case as an example. Curtis McCarty was sentenced to death in 1982 for the murder of 18 year-old Pamela Willis. During his first trial, a government forensics expert said that hairs found at the scene matched those of McCarty and that semen collected from the victim matched McCarty's blood type. The forensics expert changed her notes during the case; something only discovered 18 years later when said forensics expert was arrested for fraud. The District Attorney also withheld evidence from the defence and jury. The conviction was overturned two years later and a retrial ordered. During the second trial, the judge misdirected the jury and a re-trial was once again ordered. The third and final trial confirmed the death sentence.

In 2000, with the forensics expert, Joyce Gilchrist, under investigation for fraud relating to fabrication of results, the defence asked her to produce the hair samples which she had testified matched McCarty's. The evidence had conveniently been lost. In 2002, McCarty's lawyers were able to secure DNA testing on the sperm sample found on the victim's body. In 2005, McCarty's lawyers were able to secure a new trial based upon Gilchrist's proven unreliability and bad-faith destruction of evidence. Further forensic evidence showed that skin scrapings taken from under the victim's fingernails did not match McCarty's and a bloody footprint left at the scene could not have been made by him either. Before the third trial started, the judge dismissed the charges and released McCarty. He'd spent 22 years in jail and 18 years on death row. And he was innocent.

There's also arguments about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. Or more to the point, it's complete lack of effectiveness. The ACLU have quite a detailed section on it, but of course it should be read in the context that the ACLU is against the death penalty and will only publish evidence that supports their stance.

Yea, that's a scary thought indeed. However, my support of capital punishment is more for the mass murderer's, rapists... those repeat offernder's who are obviously guilty and don't deserve to breathe our planets air.

[jrandom]

eventually, mistakes wont happen at all.