|
|
Post by eri on Feb 19, 2023 19:08:22 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 19, 2023 19:11:57 GMT 12
It's not about the judges. The Police need to charge them under the appropriate Act and Parliament need to set appropriate penalties. The court system is designed to ensure that penalties for similar offenses are consistent and predictable. This principle is based on the idea that the law should be applied uniformly to all individuals, regardless of their social status, wealth, or background. By ensuring that penalties are the same for similar offenses, the court system helps to promote fairness and reduce the risk of discrimination or bias. Section 76 of the CDEM Act states that it is an offense to "take possession of, remove, or otherwise interfere with any property without lawful authority" during a civil emergency. This includes looting, as well as other types of property damage or theft. The penalty for looting during a civil emergency can include imprisonment, fines, or both. The Crimes Act 1961 includes provisions related to theft and property damage, which can be applied in cases of looting. The Summary Offenses Act 1981 also includes provisions related to offenses committed during a state of emergency. If police charge offenders under the Crimes Act then the judges will dish out consistent and predictable penalties in line with past crimes. If people received a slap on the wrist in 1905 for stealing a toolbox during a civil emergency then you can expect that in 2023 the same slap on the wrist will occur again. The judges will continue to do this until parliament change the law and impose greater penalties. Only when that occurs can judges impose different penalties for similar offenses. Are you serious "Ducky" not the Judges"" please explain how drinking driving with a manslaughter charge warrents 6 months home detention?? when its a jailable offence like so many offences Judges are taking the soft option,showing lean icy for early pleas,fuck me you did the crime.Now pay. Perhaps the Italian way is much better. Hand the criminal over to family for a few hrs? I am all for the death penalty where a perpetraitor has been physically caught in the act of murder,like the wanker shooting cops out henderson way. The police need better training,shoot to kill.Dead men tell no lies. I am not specifically clear on which case you are referring to so don't have an opinion if that is fair of not. However many people in NZ have received home detention after being found guilty of manslaughter. In New Zealand, home detention is a possible sentence for criminal offenses, including manslaughter. This decision was made by the New Zealand Parliament when it passed the Sentencing Act 2002. Basically, the Act provides judges with a range of options for sentencing offenders, including home detention, imprisonment, community work, and fines, among others. The idea behind home detention is to give offenders an alternative to imprisonment, while still holding them accountable for their actions. It's a more humane and cost-effective option, as it allows offenders to maintain their connections to their families, jobs, and communities, while also getting the support and services they need to address the underlying issues that led to their offending behavior. However, it's important to remember that the decision to impose a home detention sentence is up to the judge. They have to look at all of the factors in a particular case, like the seriousness of the offense, the offender's criminal history, the harm caused to the victim and their family, and the offender's personal circumstances, to determine the most appropriate sentence. They have to balance the need to hold the offender accountable with the need to protect the community and promote rehabilitation. Most importantly, when imposing a sentence, the judge is also responsible for looking at previous similar cases and imposing a sentence which is consistent with those previous cases. By ensuring that penalties are the same for similar offenses, the court system helps to promote fairness and reduce the risk of discrimination or bias. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2023 19:26:57 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Feb 19, 2023 20:03:51 GMT 12
I heard the Minister of Police teel the Hawkes's Bay gangs "pull your heads in" wow that's fighting talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 19, 2023 21:09:49 GMT 12
Sentencing rules are set by Parliament. The court system is designed to ensure that penalties for similar offenses are consistent and predictable. This principle is based on the idea that the law should be applied uniformly to all individuals, regardless of their social status, wealth, or background. By ensuring that penalties are the same for similar offenses, the court system helps to promote fairness and reduce the risk of discrimination or bias. Home detention for manslaughter does seem be consistent, some headlines: Yesterday, de Reeper was sentenced to nine months' home detention for dangerous driving and the manslaughter of Garth Robinson
Home detention for a young Northlander who punched a grandfather and left him to die during a road rage incident
A woman found guilty of shooting and killing her partner, thinking it was an intruder, has been sentenced to nine months' home detention.a 5-month-old baby who was killed by the mother who was found guilty of assaulting and ill-treatment of her child – only to receive just 10 months home detention.drove straight through a give-way sign killing 54-year-old father Craig Wilton Stills – and received just nine months home detention.I will reiterate what I said earlier. Judge's are required to give out consistent and predictable sentences. Parliament are responsible for setting the sentencing laws. It's not the judges going easy. It's Parliament making sentencing laws that you believe are too light. I guess my point is, don't blame the judges, blame parliament. Indirectly you have also asked me if the sentencing rules, (set by Parliament), for manslaughter are too light. I am on the fence on this one. If I was a victim I would likely say yes. If I was a perpetrator I would likely say no. As a bystander I would also say yes. But I am at pains to point out that I don't have the knowledge or the insight into why the rules have been set as they are. If I had that knowledge then my views would almost certainly be different. The fact remains, if you consider that the sentencing law for manslaughter is too light, then you can blame the Parliament of the day who set the rules. Not the judges who dish out the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by eri on Feb 19, 2023 22:04:08 GMT 12
is there judicial activism in nz? Judicial activism is indeed a serious problem in New Zealand. In 2003, the Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias caused a constitutional crisis by overturning the established common law principle of Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed through a Supreme Court ruling that some customary title may still exist and that the Maori Land Court had the jurisdiction to determine such cases.
www.nzcpr.com/judicial-activism/www.cato.org/commentary/judicial-activism-tomorrows-courts |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 20, 2023 7:14:06 GMT 12
is there judicial activism in nz? Judicial activism is indeed a serious problem in New Zealand. In 2003, the Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias caused a constitutional crisis by overturning the established common law principle of Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed through a Supreme Court ruling that some customary title may still exist and that the Maori Land Court had the jurisdiction to determine such cases.
www.nzcpr.com/judicial-activism/www.cato.org/commentary/judicial-activism-tomorrows-courtsJudicial activism is a hot topic in legal circles, and whether or not it's present in New Zealand is a matter of debate. Basically, it refers to when judges interpret and apply the law in a way that goes beyond the literal or traditional meaning of the law. Some folks see it as a good thing, while others see it as problematic. In New Zealand, judges are appointed based on their legal expertise, and they're supposed to interpret and apply the law impartially and independently. They're guided by legal principles, like the rule of law, and they're expected to follow legal precedent, unless there's a really good reason not to. While some judges in New Zealand have been accused of engaging in judicial activism, most judges tend to take a more conservative approach, sticking closely to established legal precedent. However, it's a tricky subject, and some folks may have different opinions on the matter. Whether or not there's judicial activism in New Zealand is still up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting topic to think about! |
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Feb 20, 2023 7:20:50 GMT 12
But the Labour policy works ! prison population reduced by 25 % .Now that's success ? If its justice the same for all how come someone on the dole gets the same fine as a wealthy person? A $250 fine comes out of the petty cash for a wealthy person whereas someone on the dole it probably means real hardship. I've got enough socialist in me to see that's gross injustice just like the home detention for manslaughter. Interesting point discussing it with a lawyer friend. If you're on the golf course and you hit a ball that hits and kills someone then thats manslaughter according to him. But I think it's an accident. So those are the varying points of view that judges have to deal with.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 20, 2023 7:50:24 GMT 12
But the Labour policy works ! prison population reduced by 25 % .Now that's success ? If its justice the same for all how come someone on the dole gets the same fine as a wealthy person? A $250 fine comes out of the petty cash for a wealthy person whereas someone on the dole it probably means real hardship. I've got enough socialist in me to see that's gross injustice just like the home detention for manslaughter. Interesting point discussing it with a lawyer friend. If you're on the golf course and you hit a ball that hits and kills someone then thats manslaughter according to him. But I think it's an accident. So those are the varying points of view that judges have to deal with. The law is supposed to treat everyone equally, but sometimes the outcomes of legal cases are affected by factors such as wealth, social connections, and access to legal representation. For example, a $250 fine might not be a big deal for a wealthy person, but it could be a real struggle for someone on a low income. However, judges have different types of penalties that they can give to offenders, like community service or imprisonment, to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. They also take into account the offender's individual circumstances when making their decision. In the case of manslaughter, it's not always straightforward whether it was an accident or a deliberate act. The key thing is whether the offender knew or should have known that their actions were likely to cause harm to others. For example, if you hit a golf ball and it accidentally kills someone, it might be considered manslaughter if you should have realized that hitting the ball could be dangerous. In summary, the legal system tries to be fair, but it's not always perfect. Judges do their best to consider all the factors and come up with a punishment that's appropriate for the offense and the offender's circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by OLD ROPE 👀 on Feb 20, 2023 8:57:33 GMT 12
Well fuck cluster...
If your poor!... Stop committing crimes!... Get a job and earn real money...
After all it's easier!
Crims spend too much time and effort risking their cred just for what? A generator they don't need?
FFS at least with drug running their is big money!... But not for these dumb fucks?
Name and shame the losers
|
|
otto
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by otto on Feb 20, 2023 19:22:04 GMT 12
From another forum i'm on here's part of the conversation.
"Black Power moved in to a Pack n Save today. Posted guards at the door, chucked all shoppers out, filled their trolleys and left. Without paying of course.
Nash gave them a telling off. Thank goodness for that."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 22:22:59 GMT 12
From another forum i'm on here's part of the conversation. "Black Power moved in to a Pack n Save today. Posted guards at the door, chucked all shoppers out, filled their trolleys and left. Without paying of course. Nash gave them a telling off. Thank goodness for that." Funny you should quote that from Alan L. I have yet to find a news article on it. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 21, 2023 7:57:56 GMT 12
From another forum i'm on here's part of the conversation. "Black Power moved in to a Pack n Save today. Posted guards at the door, chucked all shoppers out, filled their trolleys and left. Without paying of course. Nash gave them a telling off. Thank goodness for that." Funny you should quote that from Alan L. I have yet to find a news article on it. Surely this is hyperbole? If so it did not occur and thus you will not be able to find any news articles about it. Maybe it's a new misinformation campaign to discredit Nash. Which would be a quite pointless waste of energy as he's perfectly capable of doing that on his own. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2023 12:19:33 GMT 12
Hey Duck,here is a rough outline of what happened to my nephew 15 yrs ago,standing in his drive way making a bit of noise and a neighbour came across the street and hit his head with a iron bar,now scotty was on life support for number of weeks but has survived.When the perpetraitor went to court and pleaded guilty he got 9 yrs as that was the maximum penalty at the time,the judge said ,I would lock you up for life but the law doesnt allow me too.But when you have served your time,non paroll,you will be deported.And he was.
So on the crap you speil on about.Would that mean he would of got 10 months HD??
Talk about dumbing down the laws
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 21, 2023 12:34:28 GMT 12
Hey Duck,here is a rough outline of what happened to my nephew 15 yrs ago,standing in his drive way making a bit of noise and a neighbour came across the street and hit his head with a iron bar,now scotty was on life support for number of weeks but has survived.When the perpetraitor went to court and pleaded guilty he got 9 yrs as that was the maximum penalty at the time,the judge said ,I would lock you up for life but the law doesnt allow me too.But when you have served your time,non paroll,you will be deported.And he was. So on the crap you speil on about.Would that mean he would of got 10 months HD?? Talk about dumbing down the laws I am deeply saddened to hear about your nephew's experience. It must have been a harrowing and frightening ordeal for him and his loved ones. As you mentioned, the crime in question was not accidental but rather a deliberate assault, which falls under a different category than manslaughter. This is why the judge did not impose a sentence of home detention, as the severity of the crime warranted a different punishment. It is worth noting that judges are bound by the laws and guidelines outlined in the Sentencing Act, and their decisions must be consistent and fair in their application. While the judge may have wanted to impose a harsher penalty, they were limited by the legal parameters of the sentencing guidelines, which allowed for a maximum of 9 years. Overall, it is important to remember that the legal system aims to balance the rights of the victim and the offender, while ensuring justice and fairness are maintained for all parties involved. It is reasonable to assume that other instances of intentional grievous bodily harm may have resulted in the maximum penalty under the law. While I have not conducted any research on the matter, it is likely that sentencing decisions for such cases are consistent and predictable, in accordance with the established legal guidelines. |
|
