ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th February 2020, 10:25 PM   #1
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,483
NZ - Call to ditch right to silence

Long story short.

NZ, I am ashamed to say has incredibly ugly and frankly embarrassing stats in child abuse and scum parents/supposed guardians.

The latest is a little 4 year old dude who was beaten to an inch of his life and they say he will probably be permanently brain damaged if he makes it.

The cop in charge says it's the worst case he has seen.

We also have another issue, which is we have quite a few times had the entire family of the kids shutting up shop and refusing to make statements.

This is another one.

There are now calls to ditch the right to silence in these investigations

Personally, while I understand why it is there normally for extremely good reason, I say **** people's rights in kid abusing cases and just keep it for others.

We have a govt dept called the Serious Fraud Office which investigates serious financial crime that has more power than the cops and you don't have this right.

It seems a bit stuffed priorities to me that we treat cash as more serious than kids being beaten the **** out of.

I appreciate yanks probably won't agree given the whole ammendment constitution thing.




https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12309161


Quote:

Children's Commissioner Andrew Becroft says right to silence should be abolished

Children's Commissioner Andrew Becroft has called for the right to silence to be abolished, saying that "the fact you might incriminate yourself isn't a reason for not talking".

Becroft's comments come in the wake of the brutal assault on a four-year-old in Hawke's Bay.

Police say the boy, who is in a stable condition at Starship children's hospital, suffered a sustained beating - possibly over days - at a Flaxmere address in late January and will most likely suffer from brain damage.

Speaking to Newshub this morning, Becroft said: "I think [the right to silence] needs to be abolished or amended."

"The state can't force you to incriminate yourself and in my years as a lawyer and judge I held that dear," he said.

"In this role I've come to the view that we need to take a serious look into that."

"I think we will be looking at it very closely."

University of Canterbury criminology lecturer Professor Greg Newbold*told NZME last week that a revised law under The Crimes Amendment Act*- brought in after the trial over the death of the Kahui twins - meant anyone who has frequent contact and knows that the victim is at risk of death, grievous bodily harm, or sexual assault or fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim from risk, could face prosecution.

Those people can be a member of the same household as the victim or a staff member of any hospital, institution or residence where the victim resides.

The maximum sentence for a charge of failing to protect a child or vulnerable adult from risk of death, or grievous bodily harm, is 10 years' jail.

Becroft's comments echo those made by Police Association President Chris Cahill last week.

Cahill said under the current law in the Bill Of Rights Act an individual has the right to not give a statement.

"It's an issue we come across all the time in cases such as this, and we think it is time to look at those rights to silence."

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says someone knows how the four-year-old boy was brutally bashed, and has urged any silent family members who have information to come forward.

Ardern said cases like that of the Flaxmere boy, who remained in a stable condition in Starship Hospital, likely with brain damage, were "devastating".

"I know we are a country that wants all our children to live free from violence - but that is going to continue to take our ongoing effort and commitment," Ardern said.

"In the meantime, someone knows what happened to this child, and I urge them to come forward."
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Last edited by cullennz; 16th February 2020 at 10:31 PM.
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 11:06 PM   #2
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,914
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
It seems a bit stuffed priorities to me that we treat cash as more serious than kids being beaten the **** out of.
There's a good list here of the absurdly lenient sentences handed out to child killers in NZ here: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...bjectid=196458

I would have thought the time to address this law was after the Kahui twins' murder, when not one of the twelve people present told the cops a thing.

On the other side, one of the Hole in the Wall Gang is a mate of mine (not Simon Kerr) and he served eight years for it. Stole loads of cash, never harmed anyone.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 11:24 PM   #3
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,483
Disgusting isn't it.

They should create a unit like the SFO with similar powers and change the law to like England has where if no one talks they just charge everyone of them with doing it, and then lock them up till someone talks or they all get convicted.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 12:14 AM   #4
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,396
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
There's a good list here of the absurdly lenient sentences handed out to child killers in NZ here: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...bjectid=196458

I would have thought the time to address this law was after the Kahui twins' murder, when not one of the twelve people present told the cops a thing.

On the other side, one of the Hole in the Wall Gang is a mate of mine (not Simon Kerr) and he served eight years for it. Stole loads of cash, never harmed anyone.
While I understand your point and don't want to derail the thread, I don't think it's fair to say that stealing loads of cash doesn't harm anyone. I understand that he's a friend of yours, but such crimes absolutely harm society, and depending on the circumstances of the theft, can harm individuals severely in ways not fully understood by the perpetrators of such crimes.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 01:38 AM   #5
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 32,607
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Disgusting isn't it.

They should create a unit like the SFO with similar powers and change the law to like England has where if no one talks they just charge everyone of them with doing it, and then lock them up till someone talks or they all get convicted.

Can you cite this law? It doesn’t sound familiar, and we still have stuff like human rights and the presumption of innocence.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 01:42 AM   #6
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,671
What happened in the case of the Kahui Twins was a ******* disgrace (and it looks like the same thing is happening in this current one, where the whole family closes shop to protect the person who committed the crime)

I would hate to see the right to silence removed, but alternatively, I would like to see the police able to get a High Court order to hold all of the family in custody under a material witness order, and to charge all of them with obstruction of justice... first to talk gets to walk, provided that they were not the guilty party.

The application for a MWO in this type of extraordinary case would have to be heard before a panel of three High Court judges, and the Police would have to show that the family group concerned are refusing to co-operate to help find the person responsible, and are acting to protect that person from justice.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 17th February 2020 at 03:30 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 01:45 AM   #7
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,483
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Can you cite this law? It doesn’t sound familiar, and we still have stuff like human rights and the presumption of innocence.
It's called familial homicide.

But I would have it for kids nearly beaten to death as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_homicide

Forgive if the link doesn't work. Stuck using a very cheap phone
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Last edited by cullennz; 17th February 2020 at 01:46 AM.
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 01:48 AM   #8
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,483
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
What happened in the case of the Kahui Twins was a ******* disgrace (and it looks like the same thing is happening in this current one, where the whole family closes shop to protect the person who committed the crime)



I would hate to see the right to silence removed, but alternatively, I would like to see the police able to get a High Court order to hold all of the family in custody under a material witness order, and to charge all of them with obstruction of justice... first to talk gets to walk, provided that they were not the guilty party.



This type of extraordinary case would have to be heard before a panel of three High Court judges, and the Police would have to show that the family group concerned are refusing to co-operate to help find the person responsible, and are acting to protect that person from justice.
That sounds to me like a fairly satisfactory alternative.

Just as long as you lock the whole lot up till someone talks
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 01:49 AM   #9
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Long story short.

NZ, I am ashamed to say has incredibly ugly and frankly embarrassing stats in child abuse and scum parents/supposed guardians.

The latest is a little 4 year old dude who was beaten to an inch of his life and they say he will probably be permanently brain damaged if he makes it.

The cop in charge says it's the worst case he has seen.

We also have another issue, which is we have quite a few times had the entire family of the kids shutting up shop and refusing to make statements.

This is another one.

There are now calls to ditch the right to silence in these investigations

Personally, while I understand why it is there normally for extremely good reason, I say **** people's rights in kid abusing cases and just keep it for others.

We have a govt dept called the Serious Fraud Office which investigates serious financial crime that has more power than the cops and you don't have this right.

It seems a bit stuffed priorities to me that we treat cash as more serious than kids being beaten the **** out of.

I appreciate yanks probably won't agree given the whole ammendment constitution thing.




https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12309161
In England some of these issues are dealt with by 'joint purpose'. If one of two parents killed a child but they refuse to give evidence against each other and each claim the other did it, they can both be convicted under joint purpose. This also occurs in gang killings where one member of a gang may have killed some one in an affray, all participants may be convicted of murder.

Secondly in England there is not an absolute right to silence, failing to make a statement without good reason can be interpreted negatively by the court.

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 02:20 AM   #10
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,349
As planigale says above it will depend on what you mean by the right to remain silent. In England and Wales it used to be that the prosecution couldn't use the fact you said nothing as part of their case, now they can in very limited circumstances . To put it crudely and over simplified it means the prosecution can now say "if she is innocent why will she not answer question X, an innocent person would answer question X" It does not mean you have to answer any question under penalty of being prosecuted for not giving an answer.

Is that what you are proposing cullenz?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 02:24 AM   #11
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,483
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
As planigale says above it will depend on what you mean by the right to remain silent. In England and Wales it used to be that the prosecution couldn't use the fact you said nothing as part of their case, now they can in very limited circumstances . To put it crudely and over simplified it means the prosecution can now say "if she is innocent why will she not answer question X, an innocent person would answer question X" It does not mean you have to answer any question under penalty of being prosecuted for not giving an answer.

Is that what you are proposing cullenz?
In my probably stupid and unrealistic world the whole family that were anywhere near the place would be rounded up and unless someone spoke up every one would be conviicted and jail.

But realise your version is more realistic
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 06:18 AM   #12
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,209
If the problem is that you can't establish what happened because nobody will talk, I'm not sure that the right to silence if the real issue. Anybody can choose to talk but deny responsibility and blame somebody else. There is no reason to believe that the first person to speak is telling the truth if they say another person is responsible.This is why the option to convict somebody of 'causing or allowing the death of a child' was introduced in the UK. It allows members of a household to be convicted if it can be proven that they must have known the child was being harmed and have done nothing to stop it.
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 10:41 AM   #13
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,914
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
They should create a unit like the SFO with similar powers and change the law to like England has where if no one talks they just charge everyone of them with doing it, and then lock them up till someone talks or they all get convicted.
That's exactly what I maintained should have happened with the Kahui case. By not speaking, they become accessories to murder by hiding his or her identity and given every single one of the disgusting ***** a life sentence.

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
While I understand your point and don't want to derail the thread, I don't think it's fair to say that stealing loads of cash doesn't harm anyone. I understand that he's a friend of yours, but such crimes absolutely harm society, and depending on the circumstances of the theft, can harm individuals severely in ways not fully understood by the perpetrators of such crimes.
They stole complete ATMs out of walls. The only harm done to anyone was through the 0.0000001% increase in insurance premiums that got passed on.

It's the closest thing I know of to a victimless crime, especially when compared to a trained boxer beating a 5-month-old girl to death and serving all of two years in jail for it.

And yes, that piece is right, we selected that murderous piece of human filth to represent NZ at a Commonwealth Games. He turned out not to be too flash when he faced someone able to stand on their own.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2020, 11:46 PM   #14
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,284
It appears to me that the material witness approach makes the most sense. In the USA they would be compelled under oath to testify, but not compelled to incriminate themselves.

The right of silence and against self-incrimination is a key one IMHO. And remember it applies to suspects, not the proven guilty. No doubt some will think that this is a great way to convict the guilty, but it goes against hundreds of years of enlightenment. And the right of silence is an important constraint against legalized torture.

Arguments to eliminate rights always start by citing the very worse crimes. Historically it never stops there. The scene from the movie Man for Allseasons summarizes it best:

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2020, 01:04 AM   #15
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,671
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
It appears to me that the material witness approach makes the most sense. In the USA they would be compelled under oath to testify, but not compelled to incriminate themselves.

The right of silence and against self-incrimination is a key one IMHO. And remember it applies to suspects, not the proven guilty. No doubt some will think that this is a great way to convict the guilty, but it goes against hundreds of years of enlightenment. And the right of silence is an important constraint against legalized torture.

Arguments to eliminate rights always start by citing the very worse crimes. Historically it never stops there. The scene from the movie Man for Allseasons summarizes it best:

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
Our problem here is that we do not have anything like a Grand Jury; we used to have until the 1960s when it was abolished.

In our system of jurisprudence, when a person has been charged with an offence, the case is handed to a Police prosecutor or a Crown Solicitor (depending on the seriousness of the crime) who will decide whether to take the case to court. That's it, there is no check or balance against a crooked or overzealous prosecutor that you get from a Grand Jury.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.