I think the media are guilty of both slack reporting and bias. They are inherently populist as well, so being ‘anti-crime’ must be seen as a good thing. That translates to ‘all persons charged are guilty and the acquitted only get off on technicalities or through a dumb judge/jury”.

I just read what Bill Hodge said and I agree with him. Even if Weatherston was to get a manslaughter verdict the sentence would be huge.

You mention the media. Do you think their omissions would be slack reporting or a bias? If drugs were found this would cast the homosexual victim in a bad light.

BTW – have you read what Associate Professor Bill Hodge had to say?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10583858

The partial defence of provocation is an allowance of the fact of human emotion.

Weatherston would have no chance of arguing self-defence.

But if provocation is removed as a defence then you may well see juries acquitting of murder simply out of sympathy for the stress the accused was put under by the provocation. Of course, that assumes that the judge allows that evidence to go before the jury. If provocation ceases to be a partial defence then I would think that the judge would rule evidence of provocation to be inadmissible.

GNZ, if you look at the older comments on the thread on provocation you will see the suggestion that some form of ‘date rape’ type situation might have existed based on drugs found at the deceased’s address. Never ever think the media even give you a partial understanding of what the evidence was. Unless you were there you just don’t know the nuances of what went on.

I fail to see how re-educating the country would have any effect. However, reducing the use of juries in murder trials seems to be a bit extreme, simply because you don’t like the occasional verdict.

Edit: Chuck, no allowance was made for any error when the death penalty was in place. The rules were pretty much the same as today. If anything, the balance was well in favour of the prosecution. That is why so many innocent people went to their deaths.

In as far as it was used as a defense in a case regarding homosexual advances I think it just highlights the basic issue with juries that they tend to favour groups they can more easily identify with and disadvantage others. So Weatherstons lawyers try to tell you a story of his childhood and the lawyers using the gay advances defence were probably hoping someone on the jury didn’t know any gay people.

The only real solution (besides reeducating the country) is to reduce the usage or influence of juries.

If provocation was done away with people like Ambach would have a greater chance of pleading self defence. People like Weatherston on the other hand would be fu*ked.

At least most of National’s homosexual MPs tend to steer clear of these homosexual issues and get on with the job they were elected for.

If we are going to get rid of diminished responsibility on the grounds of provocation why do we not disallow diminished responsibility on the grounds pregnancy?

There may possibly be some grounds for a woman killing her newborn baby immediately after birth. However, the law on infanticide allows this weak excuse for a child up till the age of 10 and the child does not have to be the woman’s. This can also occur for some time after she has given birth. You can imagine the hue and cry if women were not allowed to drive passenger vehicles for some time after giving birth.

…he told the GayNZ.com website.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10583823

What is wrong with homosexuals? Why don’t they like being called what they are, homosexual?

Reclaim the word GAY – it is ours, it has a long useage and history. It does not belong to homosexuals and should not be purloined by them. End euphemism, call a spade a spade.

Anything else would be, well, gay.

One of the best investigations to date into the damage caused by the use and misuse of benzos was carried out by the Victorian Parliament in Austtralia. The full report (3Mb pdf) is available online.

To quote the report:

Misuse of benzodiazepines, especially when combined with alcohol, can create an increased risk of aggression and violence…

…most of the adverse consequences of pharmaceutical drug misuse can be distinguished from the adverse effects of medical use of these drugs at the individual and community level. The exception to this is the impacts of benzodiazepines on aggression and violence – the so-called ‘Rambo effect’…

Further evidence that flunitrazepam is associated with aggression and violence was found in the report of an Australian study investigating factors affecting young drug users’ completion or cancellation of parole…

The Committee has also noted that there are dangers to community safety from impaired driving and increased risk of aggression and violence associated with these drugs.

So a person overdosed on benzodiazepine (especially if combined with alcohol), can most definitely pick up a weapon and use it.

Rohypnol has effects on memory that Lorzepam does not tend to be associated with.

It just seems as if there is a lack of common sense going into these decisions!

It’s like people can just murder someone and fabricate a story to get the charges reduced.

Amongst the other items of evidence found at the scene was Lorazepam, belonging to the victim, – a benzodiazepine and close cousin to the notorious date rape drug Rohypnol.

The possible presence of benzodiazepines was also mentioned in the thread on Weatherston and I commented there also.

If the report you cite is correct then you’re right, it could be a major injustice that Ambach was found guilty of anything. If ever there was a drug, the effects of which were precisely to diminish one’s responsibility let alone make you entirely unaware of what you’re doing, it’s benzodiazepines.

One or two are calmative and make you sleepy. An overdose however, as you’ve pointed out, creates a monster who’ll harm themselves and others with no knowledge of what they’re doing. It makes someone on “P” look relaxed and sedated.

How can there not have been blood tests taken when drugs of that nature were found?! Certainly the effect of benzodiazepine overdose is consistent with the way Ambach described flashes of violent recollection of the night in question.

I assume that once again the Police arrived, made up their minds what had happened well ahead of the evidence, and proceeded accordingly.

If I were Ambach’s lawyer I’d be commissioning a hair test, stat.

This guy does have some kind of serious, serious personality disorder – but I don’t see that as a defense. Most murderers (and yes, I’m calling this guy a murderer, and he can feel free to take me through the NSW courts – I’m Sydney based – for defamation if he likes, he will lose) have a fucked up background, some brain problems and little self control. That sounds to me to sound more like a reason to lock these people up for longer – not shorter.

This does tend to reignite the degrees of murder debate.

So remove the provocation defence, add in what andrei says and this guy probably walks on grounds of reasonable doubt and killing someone being a form of self defence against rape?