General Debate 26 November 2007

November 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm by David Farrar

So should the Police have prosecuted the 21 year old for having (consensual) sex with an 11 year old, who at 13 is now pregnant with their child?

I’m saying – absolutely.  If it was a 17 year old and a 15 year old, prosecution would be overkill.  But *no one* should be having sex with 11 year olds.

Tags:

82 Responses to “General Debate 26 November 2007”

  1. dave (988 comments) says:

    DPF- the girl has already given birth. What do others think of the role of CYFS- you can be it if it was a smacking case they`ll be hotfooting it to the police who will investigate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. andymoore (74 comments) says:

    Yes. absolutely. Eleven year old’s are not always old enough to have the discernment to say no in a situation like this. The 21 year old is a loser for taking advantage of such a young child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. pdm (844 comments) says:

    Yes 100%!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    If police don’t charge this man then God help our vulnerable children . The appropriate charge for the keystone cops to serve asap is sexual violation and unlawful sexual connection with a child under the age of 17 years . What on earth are crown law prosecution doing here, because not to charge sends a dangerous message to parents with daughters around that age ??? Not to mention the horrible thought, that the judiciary could possibly condone CHILD ABUSE !!!

    What the f##k has happened to honour in society , oh thats right , two words : Helen Klark !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    11 year olds can’t give informed consent. Full stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    And yes manukaumum , agree but please be careful. I got a 12 year old and 14 year old daughters’ , and I protected them from bad arses. I stood up for their honour against evil , but it is me who is on police bail . Careful as the cops are in on the destruction of the family unit !! Bastards !! My two daughters can’t understand why the cops always put the knife into their dad !!! Thanks Helen !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    The rest of her life, not to mention the childs life will be badly effected by this 21 year old for what he did. Lock him up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. john (478 comments) says:

    nothing probably will happen, but if the randy tossier smacks the kid,in the future (watch out)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kehua (225 comments) says:

    Of course they should , and the adults who contributed to this by watching it happen around them.

    Now that Clint Rickards has “resigned” along with the hush money, what restriction is there on the 25 or so women in NZ and another 12 or so living in Australia who had their vulnerability and lives trashed by this piece of shit and his feral mates, from publicly informing the media on just how organised and low this filth would go in their “power game.“He should be behind bars , he knowsit and so do the public. Come on you kiwiblog lawyers lets have some advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Hardly suprising the police have not prosecuted this man given the queers, steers and sexual deviants that pass for leadership in this country. Things will not get any better till the boil that is Liarbore has been lanced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    Bob, you really are a side show.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Blue Bird (17 comments) says:

    And the prize for the
    RWNJ comment of the week award goes to Sideshow bob

    Hardly suprising the police have not prosecuted this man given the queers, steers and sexual deviants that pass for leadership in this country. Things will not get any better till the boil that is Liarbore has been lanced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    You are so right this Liarbour Government want to make the vulnerable children prey for the unscrupulous amongst society . They subject the kids to their insipid corrupt indoctrination too fast , too young , government for hire , ambulance of bottom of hill mentality . Judges pack the golf club car parks and f##k those weirdos in gummint !! Poor children .

    Hey pollie leave those kids alone !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Tane – don’t you work in circus as I could have sworn I put a ping pong ball in your mouth while at the ChCh Show ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    I thought it might be useful to get a few details on this before commenting (note to others: maybe you should try this, it really helps). The only information I can find is from the Nats and Family First, hardly balanced sources of information. But from what I can glean, the key problem isn’t that the police, or CYFS, or the judiciary, or H1, supports this, but that they simply don’t have sufficient information to lay a charge they think will stick. Which is why the police are yet to charge, I couldn’t find anything that said they had decided not to charge, which is what those here seem to think is the case.

    Now, this is based on some limited information, so I’d be interested if others linked to the detailed information they are obviously basing their comments on. This guys behaviour is appalling, as is that of the family if, as has been suggested, they are protecting and supporting him. It would be even worse if the police bowed to political or lobby group pressure and layed a charge that they couldn’t make stick, instead of continuing to investigate and do their job properly, so they can lay a charge that will result in this guy going to jail (assuming of course he did it, which doesn’t seem to be disputed).

    [DPF: I really think the fact she has had a baby to him, and she is aged 13 makes it one of the more simple cases to prosecute. DNA can be used if necessary]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    I agree that it’s wrong but I wonder if we no longer have the moral and philosophical arguments to justify our disapproving position.

    In New Zealand, sex is pretty much free. All that is required is consent.

    I notice that with the 17 and 15 year-old example, it seems that while David doesn’t disagree with the appropriateness of the action, he’s not comfortable with it either. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not being critical. I’m just wondering if there is an underlying uncertainty there.

    Personally, I think society’s general free-love attitude toward sex is terrible. I believe that the general silence on sex issues by most Kiwi leaders and things such as abortion on demand and the Prostitution Reform Bill indicated a moral failure and leaves kiwi-kids confused about sexuality, which only increases the chances of them making damaging mistakes as the grow up.

    I’m not about to suggest we outlaw premarital sex but a failure to even publicly discuss ideas like abstinance (without mocking Catholics or Americans) shows a disturbing bias in how we educate (or don’t educate) our kids about sex.

    [DPF: I would probably advocate a law where sex with anyone under 14 is illegal. Between 14 and 18 it is legal if your partner is say within two (or even five) years of your age, and once you hit 18 legal with any adult.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. baxter (893 comments) says:

    Eleven is too young but didn’t Liabour’s Heir Apparent Pill GOFF agitate to reduce the age of consent to 12….Perhaps Annette KING better define what Commonsense is for the benefit of the people making this decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Right of way is Way of Right (1,122 comments) says:

    Simple, accuse the 21 year old of SMACKING the 13 year old! Then CYPS will get involved, surely?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. david (2,557 comments) says:

    2 points,

    a propos of nothing, wasn’t it Phil Goff who suggested lowering the age to 11 or 12?

    It sounds like the parents gave the consent on behalf of the girl, God only knows how informed it was tho” – it really suggests that they were not fit parents which in itself should be grounds for some sort of response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    This guy’s inappropriate behaviour is already sufficiently covered in the crimes act . Why the reluctance from police is rather disturbing ? Or is it normal and acceptable in a society that has sunk into sub standard moral values . I thought the government had a moral obligation to protect children ? I must of have thought wrong madam speaker !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. david (2,557 comments) says:

    snap baxter, I must learn to type faster.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    “a propos of nothing, wasn’t it Phil Goff who suggested lowering the age to 11 or 12?”

    YES !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Linda Reid (415 comments) says:

    BeShakey – a simple DNA test would establish paternity and guilt in one stroke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    DNA Test , yeah right , getting a family court to sign one of them is sad joke !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    I used to respect the New Zealand Police. This issue is sadly one of many which make the words “used to” the most significant part of my opening sentence. It is NOT the role of the police to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong in this country. However, it IS the police’s sworn responsibility to uphold and enforce the law. In the case that DPF cites, the police should definitely prosecute, and leave it up to the courts to decide whether there are any mitigating circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    I have an 11 year old daughter, and a rifle.

    On another matter, Scot Watson is looking less guilty by the day, will we see another senior Policeman ousted, if so how golden will the parachute be? On breakfast this morning Paul Henry asked how big would the payout be “if the police framed Watson”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Bad cop Rob ? Better luck with the new job ? Yeah right , next commissioner ask Helen ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    A DNZ test would certainly help, but, as D4J suggests, you would probably need to get the court to require one (assuming the guy doesn’t offer one up). The issue not mentioned is that (I don’t think) the court could order the girl to take a DNA test, and, given the risk associated with an in vitro test, there would probably be reason to wait until the baby had been born (assuming it hasn’t yet).

    Inventory – it isn’t the role of police to be the arbiters of right and wrong, but they are supposed to ensure there is sufficient evidence to ensure there is a reasonable chance of a prosecution. I agree that it is the role of the court to judge mitigating circumstances, but that only happens once guilt has been established. My point is that I would rather the police did a good job and (assuming the guy has done this) gets a conviction, rather than do a half assed job and lay a charge which doesn’t stick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    So it is not okay to smack a child lightly on the bottom but it is okay for an adult to have sex with a child and not be prosecuted!

    And speaking of the Police – have they high tailed it up to Northland to retrieve the body of the Christchurch man whose whanau stole from his widow?

    Is the prosecution of our laws, now dependent on ethnicity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Seamonkey Madness (328 comments) says:

    Dave over Big-News makes a very valid point.

    “CYFS knew about it, so does the police. Police have decided not to lay charges. Nothing to see here, no evidence, apart form a child, move on. The whanau is not talking. The girl will get the dpb in a few years but the 20-year old will not be paying child support you can bet on that.”

    How much of a shambles is that? (if true)
    Surely there is legislation that prevents underagers claiming a DPB? My comment may be cut and dry, but it would discourage acts like this taking place, or more importantly the impetus for the parents of the child in this case to be more protective against 20 year-old dropkicks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    <i>a propos of nothing, wasn’t it Phil Goff who suggested lowering the age to 11 or 12?</i>

    So much ignorance, and so quick to jump union sensation… it’s finally starting to dawn on me how a lot of you guys have come to such reactionary political beliefs.

    Goff never wanted to make 12 year olds fair game for anyone – from memory, what he proposed was to make it so that if a couple of adolescents over the age of 12 but within two years’ age difference had sex it wouldn’t be a criminal offence.

    What appears to have happened in this case would not have been legal if Goff’s entirely sensible proposal had become law.

    [DPF: Indeed, and if I recall Phill Goff quoted myself in the House defending his proposals]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    Should say ‘jump upon sensation’… clearly my mind is on other things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    This article from the Herald should clear up some of the confusion. The guy admitted he had sex with this girl. How can we have any confidence in the police to use discretion in case of smacking when they do not prosecute this case.

    Where is the opposition? There should be a call for Cindy Kiro to resign.

    Bob McCoskrie of Family First did well to highlight the incompetence of the police and Cindy Kiro.

    Minor has baby: no charges laid
    5:00AM Sunday November 25, 2007
    By Stephen Cook

    Police chose not to lay charges against a 21-year-old who fathered a child with a 13-year-old girl – even though he confessed to police he had been having sex with a minor.

    The pregnancy was highlighted last week by Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro, who used the case to illustrate “the wall of silence” protecting people who committed child abuse.

    The girl had started having sex from the age of 11 and Kiro claimed that no one in her family would come forward and shed any light on who was responsible.

    However, the Herald on Sunday understands the father turned himself in to police but was given only a verbal warning by officers.

    Rape Crisis is demanding answers about why police never charged the man with having sex with a minor. It says the police’s failure to do so sends extremely worrying mixed messages to teenagers.

    A conviction for having sex with someone under the age of 12 carries a maximum prison term of 14 years. Having sex with someone under the age of 16 carries a 10-year maximum prison term.

    Sources involved with the girl’s family told the Herald on Sunday the man had been involved in a sexual relationship with the girl since she was 11. When Child Youth and Family (CYF) became aware the girl was pregnant at 12, she was removed from the mother’s care and placed with a family member. Four months ago the girl gave birth. She was 13.

    It is understood the 21-year-old is still involved in a relationship with the girl and has supervised visits with his son. During the day the baby is cared for by a family member, allowing the girl to remain at school.

    A source told the Herald on Sunday the girl’s mother was aware her daughter’s relationship was of a sexual nature, but chose to do nothing about it. For five months, the girl had managed to hide the pregnancy, and authorities became involved only after being alerted to the case by the girl’s doctor.

    It was then that CYF intervened. CYF is understood to still be monitoring the girl, but with the refusal of police to act in the case it is hamstrung over taking any action about her relationship with the baby’s father.

    Asked about police protocols in the case of someone having sex with a minor, a spokesperson at Police National Headquarters said charges were laid only if there was sufficient evidence and proceeding with a case was in the public interest.

    Rape Crisis spokeswoman Sandz Peipi said the fact the 21-year-old had been involved with the girl when she was only 11 was “disturbing and quite perverse”.

    Whether the sex was consensual was irrelevant because of the girl’s age and the man should have been charged by police.

    The fact he had admitted committing “statutory rape” meant police had more than sufficient evidence to go on, Peipi said. She was also surprised police did not believe it was in the “public interest” to lay charges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    The biggest problem we face in NZ is the lack of morals ethics and principles.

    And the worst offenders are in order

    The Politicans
    The Judicary
    The Police
    The main stream Churches.

    All have taken the line of least resistance over the past three decades so we now have a leaderless country where the worst excesses are tolerated and those who stand up for moral and ethical behaviour are shouted down riduculed and reviled.

    Yet those doing the shouting wring their hands and wail at the sorry state of our society without the nous to connect the dots.

    Until we get strong leadership that has the intestinal fortitude to restore good morals good ethics and punish those who resist we will continue to slide down the sewer that the Socialists/Communists leadership has condemned us to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. cubit9f (356 comments) says:

    On another topic.

    How many have read the full 156 page police affidavit relating to the goings on in Tuhoe country.

    It is available at http://www.clgu.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    What I don’t understand is how people can have the gall to condemn pedophilia on the basis of consent, yet happily murder animals for food without their consent.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partij_voor_Naastenliefde%2C_Vrijheid_en_Diversiteit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    To quote a line from letter received from Mr Goff ” Far from liberalizing laws relating to sexual abuse with those under 16, the government is significantly tightening the law in this regard. ”

    Really Phil , whats the story in the case ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. bwakile (757 comments) says:

    The guy is more likely to be awarded the Red Star for “outsatnding service to the destruction of family values”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. cubit9f (356 comments) says:

    Sorry wrong finger. Here is the correct site.

    Makes interesting reading. Quite some Boy Scout camp for wayward youths and flag burners.

    http://www.nzclu.org/download/NZPOLICEaffidavit.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. rgbaal (1 comment) says:

    My initial response was similar to other posters i.e. ‘yes of course” however after a bit of thought I changed it to ” it depends”.

    I would say no, as long as the father takes responsibility for his actions and works at his responsibilities in raising the baby. If he is willing to do this I cant see any gain in prosecuting him. or put it another way what advantage is it to the health and upbringing of the baby if his/her father is locked up for 10 years? How will the child bond and obtain the benefit of a father under those circumstances? it all feels like bolting the gate after the horse has bolted! Action should have been taken before she got pregnant not after she has given birth.

    Who I would go after 100% is the adults who were that this was going on, and reports suggest that it was going on for a year before she got pregnant, and did nothing.

    I think this is one of those cases in life where each case has to be taken on its individual merit or lack of, one size does not fit all.

    People should be concentrating of how to deal with the children (notice I use the plural as she is still a child) rather than the understandable urge to punish the father.

    Its not necessary to do a DNA test as he has already admitted to it.

    I also have daughters and I would have taken action as soon as I had any indication that anything like this was going on!

    “a propos of nothing, wasn’t it Phil Goff who suggested lowering the age to 11 or 12?”

    YES !!!!

    No they did not! you are confused

    Sb

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Thanks for posting that article Chuck. It’s always tempting to jump to conclusions but I’d like to hear from the police about why they didn’t lay charges. If because of a lack of evidence, then how does the reported confession fit with that. If because it was not in the public interest, then an explanation of why they believed that (and surely if anything it must be the first reason, at least based on the information available).

    To reinforce a point made by Tane, the changes proposed by Phil Goff were to prevent cases like the guy who had a conviction for having sex with his girlfriend the day before she turned sixteen (he was 16). Changes to the law around licenses for bus drivers were going to mean he was going to lose his job because he had a conviction for a sexual crime. The case at hand would still have been illegal under that law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Seamonkey Madness (328 comments) says:

    C. Bird,

    Here’s a bit of a conspirital tongue-in-cheek curveball.
    One might draw from the last paragraph of the article you quote, that the “father” of the child is a member of the Labour Party.

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Yes.

    I am reminded of the House of Lords (or might have been English CA) discussing this issue along the lines of an older man taking advantage of a young girl deserving pretty close to the maximum (for consensual underage sex) but the situation where two 15 year olds at a dance catch each others eye before heading out into the bushes is a situation where a discharge (no further penalty) may be appropriate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    Tane Said:

    “So much ignorance, and so quick to jump union sensation… it’s finally starting to dawn on me how a lot of you guys have come to such reactionary political beliefs.

    Goff never wanted to make 12 year olds fair game for anyone – from memory, what he proposed was to make it so that if a couple of adolescents over the age of 12 but within two years’ age difference had sex it wouldn’t be a criminal offence.”

    Which sounds like a very sensible suggestion. We might not like 12 year olds getting in the situation. But it makes absolutely no sense to treat them like criminals for it. Out of my group of friends when I was in high school, I’d say only 10% had waited untill they were sixteen before becoming sexually active. And I’d suggest that this would be fairly similar across the country.

    Those who prey on 12 year olds on the other hand are an entirely different kettle of fish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    To quote another line from Goof oops I mean Gaff , silly sorry Mr Goff : “Nobody thinks that young teenagers – those under the age of 16- should be engaging is sexual conduct . They are simply too young to fully comprehend the emotional and psychical consequences of their actions .”

    Forget teenagers Phil as its younger VICTIMS now !!

    Really Phil , why did police prosecute again? Mr Puppet Puller Goffa !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    Today, we’re having this debate. How long till its legalised? I’m not being fanciful, the people who would actually LIKE to possibly constitute a majority among the political “leadership class” of NZ today.

    Smacking children evidently is child abuse, but screwing them isn’t, according to these peoples moral compass.

    Who’s read “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley? Of all the classic “future” novels this one is the most frighteningly appropriate to our situation today.

    The Clark Feminazis would have their followers believe they’re on the way to utopia by destroying “oppressive” “social constructs” like marriage, fatherhood, and morality. Hell on earth, more like. The plot involves the creation of Kahuis en masse so that total State control looks like a plausible alternative, Judeo-Christian traditions having been long since consigned to the dust bin of history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pita (373 comments) says:

    Tractors up the steps of parliament are obviously more worthy of police attention…This scenario resembles the inaction of the Rotorua police in the 1980’s

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Ruth (178 comments) says:

    Out of my group of friends when I was in high school, I’d say only 10% had waited untill they were sixteen before becoming sexually active. And I’d suggest that this would be fairly similar across the country.

    Those who prey on 12 year olds on the other hand are an entirely different kettle of fish.

    ITA MikeE.

    Sexual activity is part of life, but every parent, including myself, hopes to delay it for as long as possible.

    It is crucial that girls (and boys, of course), be able to talk to their parents about sex, and that the parents themselves have a healthy attitide to sexuality. This delays sexual activity – there is a US study somewhere. Religion and other forms of authoritarian parenting stifle this openness.

    I don’t know the circumstances, but maybe the young girl felt she couldn’t confide in her parents andf ask them for advice when she felt pressured.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    The police are only auntie helen feminazi show ponies . Jump boy eunuchs, as the mistress is setting another land speed record today ?
    Solo mums and fractured families keep the kids in doors as the mad bat is high flying about on that broomstick again . Judge Stret will sort it ?
    I think my dads gone crazy , oh well !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Fair call Tane, when the detail escapes it is always the soundbite that haunts.

    A bit like “The war in Iraq is over” really, doesn’t mean what it says without the context but people will still trot it out as a self-sustaining slag-off whenever it suits.

    Hope you are good to go with only context based quotations in future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Ruth,

    Spot on. As I said earlier, it reflects more on the parents than either the boy or the girl.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Blue Bird (17 comments) says:

    Today, we’re having this debate. How long till its legalised? I’m not being fanciful, the people who would actually LIKE to possibly constitute a majority among the political “leadership class” of NZ today.

    Smacking children evidently is child abuse, but screwing them isn’t, according to these peoples moral compass

    And the prize for RWNJ post of the day gets snatched off
    side show bob and handed to Philbest

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Blue Bird

    SNAP

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Blue Bird (17 comments) says:

    A note D4J was been disqualified for having won so many times before

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    DPF – legally, an 11 year old can’t give consent. Only after age 16 can a person conset to sex, that’s why its called the age of consent, and why, in the US, sex with someone under the age of consent is called statutory rape – its rape by defination because the statues define sex with someone under the age of consent as non-consensual, ie rape.

    david – re your comment on Key’s ‘the war is over’ quote – taken in context he’s saying that the conflict in Iraq is now no longer an issue of international importance – which is what everyone had a problem with.

    [DPF: I am well aware of the law. But as you will know the court will treat very differently someone having sex with say a 15 year old, who has consented to the sex, as oppossed to a forcible rape of a minor. Both are illegal, but are treated differently by the Police and courts. I used consent in the non legal sense.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Careful you don’t choke Blue Bird :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Russell Brown (405 comments) says:

    Thanks Cubit!

    It even has bloopers …

    I”‘··Detective HORSNELL estimates KEMARA weighs 140kms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Maybe the detective got traumatized by a speeding Helen Klark, Mr Brown ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    I would say that what he meant in context Sam is that it was an issue no longer of importance to New Zealand. This became true as soon as the foriegn policy document was issued, because there was now bi-partisan agreement that New Zealand would take no part on the war in Iraq.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. john (478 comments) says:

    as i said ,NOTHING WILL HAPPEN ,why steers ,queers and power LESBIAN rules us , bonk on kids

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    yes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Swampash (114 comments) says:

    Let me get this straight…

    An adult can have sex with an 11-year-old child with no fear of punishment. But if he spanks her WHILE he’s having sex with her, he will get prosecuted?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Swampash (114 comments) says:

    …but only for the spanking?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    BeShakey, have you heard of the law of unforeseen consequents? The vast majority of parents would strongly object to Goff’s ill considered proposal as they have to the anti smacking bill. It would seem obvious to most parents that if the age was lowered proposed more children would have sex at an earlier age.

    I do not think it unreasonable to criticise Goff for flying a kite that would have had bad consequences for many young children that would take a law change as a green light.

    I would think would be some times since the police charged a boy where there was less than two years age difference and there did not appear to be undue pressure – not force – from the boy.

    This is a case where the police should and do use discretion. If a parent is unhappy with the decision of the police they are free to take out a private prosecution.

    I fail to understand why Mr Goff was unhappy with allowing the police to use discretion in deciding to prosecute a stranger for sexually abusing a minor but happy to allow the police to decide when a smack become abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    It is crucial that girls (and boys, of course), be able to talk to their parents about sex, and that the parents themselves have a healthy attitide to sexuality. This delays sexual activity – there is a US study somewhere. Religion and other forms of authoritarian parenting stifle this openness.

    Ruth, I was with you 100% until ‘Religion and other…‘. I can tell you with absolute certainty – and as one who might well be labelled a Christian fundamentalist – that my wife and I had very full and open discussions with our pre-teens vis-a-vis sex and sexual activity. Is it possible that you have a jaundice, or even media-degraded view of the attitudes of the religious towards parenting and/or sex?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Swampash – a fair question !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Chuck – to put the discussion back in context someone stated that Phil Goff had proposed lowering the age of consent to 11 or 12. The points I (and others) made, were setting out what had actually been proposed. I for one didn’t take a stance on whether it was right or wrong.

    But since you have raised some points:

    “I do not think it unreasonable to criticise Goff for flying a kite that would have had bad consequences for many young children that would take a law change as a green light.”

    Since when did ‘young children’ look to the law for a green light on this? I’d be interested to see some research (hell even some anecdotes) on people saying ‘no i want to wait till the age of consent’. I suspect (but am willing to be corrected) that if you look at the average age of losing virginity it is not strongly correlated with the age of consent, particularly in comparison to other factors (usual suspects: education, parental support, socio-economic).

    “This is a case where the police should and do use discretion. If a parent is unhappy with the decision of the police they are free to take out a private prosecution.”

    I’m sure you would feel much better about it if you had a conviction for this following a private, rather than police, prosecution. If, as you say, this is a very rarely used law, that would be one reason to consider changing it (in most cases I suspect there would be stronger reasons for or against, but it would be one reason).

    “I fail to understand why Mr Goff was unhappy with allowing the police to use discretion in deciding to prosecute a stranger for sexually abusing a minor but happy to allow the police to decide when a smack become abuse.”

    Has Phil Goff made a statement on this (charges in the current case)? If so I’d like to see a link to it? Or are you making things up to support your argument?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    Ruth said “I don’t know the circumstances, but maybe the young girl felt she couldn’t confide in her parents andf ask them for advice when she felt pressured.”

    Ruth – no 11 year old girl should be being pressured into a sexual relationship. If pressure was applied to a pre-teenager by someone almost twice her age, the police should be looking at sexual violation charges against the guy, not unlawful sexual intercourse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Southern Raider (1,830 comments) says:

    What about that wanker Chris Carter’s press secretary admitting that his standard response to any question about the EFB is “Are you a member of the EB?”. How can an elected official think that this is appropriate. They can’t defend what they are doing so their only option is to try and caste blame onto a group that had no effect on the last election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    Souther Raider: Good to see you have your priorities right, Carters standard response to EFB questions is MUCH more important than the statutory rape of a young girl. There is a thread for that discussion, why you don’t you go lurk there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. toby1845 (194 comments) says:

    “….didn’t Liabour’s Heir Apparent Pill GOFF agitate to reduce the age of consent to 12….”

    Didn’t Goff also release a discussion paper recommending that incest be legalised? From memory it was in 2004, but may have been early 2005.

    Either way, you’d have to wonder……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Southern Raider (1,830 comments) says:

    BeShakey its called a General Debate because any topic can be discussed and I haven’t seen any other blog about Chris Carter today. Are you the new left wing blog monitor that determines what we discuss? Its not the 1st January yet and the bill hasn’t been passed. Get over yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    BeShakey, sorry I cannot supply research for everything. The best evidence I could give would be the drinking age. It would appear that heavy drinking has occurred at a much younger age since the drinking age was lowered to 18. That does not of course prove cause and effect.

    There are of course many kids who would take no notice of what the age of consent was. It is only my opinion but I think there would be a number of young kids who would have sex at a younger age if the age of consent even in limited circumstances was lowered to 12.

    Has Phil Goff made a statement on this (charges in the current case)? If so I’d like to see a link to it? Or are you making things up to support your argument?

    No and no. I was not referring to the current case. Goff should have known that the police were using discretion in deciding whether to charge someone with having underage sex where the age difference was not too great. Why would he see the need to change the law if the police were able to use their discretion properly?

    If they were capable why change the law. If they were not capable would they be capable of using discretion competently in cases involving smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. libertyscott (359 comments) says:

    Ruth made the best point. There may be umpteen reasons why this happened, and had the girl learnt more about her body, and felt adequately loved and proud of herself and her body, this may have not happened. Similarly if there had been contraception, then it would be less serious.

    I am assuming failure to prosecute may have everything to do with the girl refusing to testify, which may or may not be through fear of violence. She may also refuse to give a DNA sample (as she has committed no crime), in which case evidence for a criminal conviction becomes hearsay. The Police face charging him, if he has a decent lawyer he’d plead not guilty, there would be no evidence other than cops saying the girl told them he did it – which would be inadmissible. Of course the guy in question is still at risk, she can still choose to testify in future years – this case may not be over yet. The key will be whether as an adult, she believes she was a victim or not. At the moment she doesn’t, but he can’t always be sure of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ZenTiger (435 comments) says:

    So if a pedophile can groom and rape a child, informed consent is not required. The Police just ask her if it feels ok….

    This is ridiculous.

    Meanwhile, in a matter of self-defence, Police charge the person who defended their life and put them through a court trial.

    The adult who had sex with this girl should be in front of the courts.

    Why not ask children if they want their Dad to go to jail for a smack? Maybe the children gave informed consent? The liberals out there can put it down to a bit of S & M and they’ll be endorsing it.

    Discipline – no.
    Kinky – well go for it. Not our business.

    The double standards are simply staggering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Lindsay Addie (1,515 comments) says:

    The Nats have an advert on their website about a ‘special announcement’ at 10.30am Tuesday, anyone hazard a guess as to what it’s going to be about?

    The only idea that I can dream up is perhaps a high profile NZer is going to be a candidate for them in 2008?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Swampash Says:

    November 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
    Let me get this straight…

    An adult can have sex with an 11-year-old child with no fear of punishment. But if he spanks her WHILE he’s having sex with her, he will get prosecuted?

    Actually, he might equally be trouble if he goes has a cigarette afterwards….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    am wrong but it sounds to me like you are saying that this situation is in some way satisfactory.

    If you read the article you would see this low life confessed to police he had been having sex with a minor. If the court cannot order an DNA test from the baby the law needs to be changed.

    I listened to Bruce Russell on NewstalkZB last night say that Labour was looking at changing the law relating to sexual offending. The changes would include lowering the age of consent and allowing sex between adult brother and sister.

    I would be interested if anyone else has heard anything about this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    I missed the first line with my last post.

    Libertyscott, I find it hard to work out what you are trying to say. You can correct me if I am wrong but it sounds to me like you are saying that this situation is in some way satisfactory.

    If you read the article you would see this low life confessed to police he had been having sex with a minor. If the court cannot order an DNA test from the baby the law needs to be changed.

    I listened to Bruce Russell on NewstalkZB last night say that Labour was looking at changing the law relating to sexual offending. The changes would include lowering the age of consent and allowing sex between adult brother and sister. He was reffering to the Crimes Amendment Act No 2.

    I would be interested if anyone else has heard anything about this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    WHO ARE these faceless droogs who DO this “decided not to prosecute” stuff? What is laws, and parliament, and elections, FOR? Kiwis DO NOT WANT underage kids screwed over by cruising predator adults. GET THE MESSAGE, you secular immoral social misengineers. If any issue could ever boil over into NZ’s first ever lynch mob, this could be it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote