Victim Statements in Court
The Herald reports:
The Sensible Sentencing Trust has been warned it is going too far by calling on its members to break the law and defy court orders that censor victim impact statements.
Trust chairman Garth McVicar yesterday said members would say whatever they wanted in court until the law was changed.
His comments follow the news that Gil Elliott, father of murder victim Sophie, was forced to read a censored version of the statement he had prepared.
But the Law Society said the trust was using the wrong strategy if it wanted change.
Mr McVicar said the trust would run the “civil disobedience campaign” until Justice Minister Simon Power changed the law to give victims greater freedom with their statements.
The Herald yesterday revealed that sections of Mr Elliott’s statement had been crossed out at the judge’s request the night before Clayton Weatherston was to be sentenced.
Mr Elliott said it meant he did not get to “have a crack” at Weatherston, who stabbed his daughter 216 times.
There are two issues here – both the “censoring” of victim impact statements, and the way it is done.
From all accounts the process is very insensitive to victims families. They spends day and weeks working on their statements and then the day before court get sent the officially approved version. That is crappy.
The content issue is more difficult. First off I have to say they Courts should be more liberal as to what they allow. The trial is over. The sentencing is being dine by a Judge who will know what to take into account, and what not to. So let the victims and their families actually have the chance to say what they think. Especially when they have had to endure the trial.
Now that is not an argument for no rules at all. I don’t think we want victims or their families able to get up and say I hope you get killed in jail etc.
Mr McVicar said the campaign had been planned for some time and several members yet to present their statements in court had committed to reading them in full.
He said the campaign would go on, even though Mr Power had assured him yesterday that changes to statement rules would be announced by Christmas.
Personally I would wait to see what the changes are – Christmas is barely a month away.
Law Society president-elect Jonathan Temm said the issue was not going to be solved by contempt of court.
“You cannot bring the court into disrespect simply because it is bound by the law of the land.”
Mr Temm agreed that while improvements could be made to the process, the campaign was the wrong way to do it.
He questioned whether the Sensible Sentencing Trust would be satisfied even if the law was changed.
“Victims may be able to spend an hour on their feet, railing against the crime, have everybody listen to their anguish and pain and grief, and flog some individual.
“But no amount of victim latitude at sentencing is going to bring back the loved ones or heal the crushed bones.”
With all respect to Mr Temm, victims and their families know that. But there can be something very therapeutic in being able to look the killer in the eye and tell them they are scum of the earth.
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS
What the law does now:
* Victims can speak of the impact of any physical injury or emotional harm suffered through the offence.
* They can also describe any loss of, or damage to, property and any other effects of the offence.
* They cannot criticise the offender or the justice system.What the Sensible Sentencing Trust wants:
* Victims to be able to give their opinion on the sentence length, and argue for it to be increased to reflect any lack of remorse or misrepresentation of the victim during the trial.
* Victims to be able to ask a court to order specific reparation or compensation.
* Victims to be allowed to draw attention to any disgraceful conduct and attitude during the trail by the offender or their family or supporters.
I don’t see anything objectionable in those changes. The Judge will decide on the basis of case law the sentence, but why not allow the family of the victim, or the victim, to at least have their voice heard on desired sentencing. The prosecution doesn’t speak for them always. Of course the Court will be bound be precedent, but what is the harm by giving them a say?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I think a better strategy would be to stand up and say that they are declining to read their statements due to it being censored.
It would not violate contempt of court and have a much greater impact in the long run. more of the offender having all the rights while the victim gets the shaft.
Having said that I personally would want to avail mysef of the single oportunity to take my shot were I the victim.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
The herald’s editorial today is on the subject.
I agree, for a change, with what it says.
Oh and generally the prosecution make submissions on sentence as well.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
When is a victim impact statement not a victim impact statement? When the statement is censored.
Contempt of court be damned, I support people who would go ahead and read it anyway.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:34 am
What the law does now:
* They cannot criticise the offender or the justice system.
Isn’t the judge about to deliver the definitive criticism of the offender?
What the Sensible Sentencing Trust wants:
* Victims to be able to vent their spleen in a public setting.
Fuelling the hatred and venting spleen appear to be the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s core business IMHO…
November 16th, 2009 at 11:35 am
If criminals were dealt with the way they should be, there would be no need for “victim impact statements”.
That they are necessary demonstrates the fact that Judges are completely out of touch with public feeling on criminal behaviour.
Surely if a family loses a loved one (in circumstances for example where Sophie was taken) the horror of this should be apparent to anybody with a skerrick of intelligence.
Judges are too soft. That is the problem.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:45 am
He questioned whether the Sensible Sentencing Trust would be satisfied even if the law was changed.
Eh? What has that got to do with anything? It clearly shows the contempt this Temm bloke has for the SST and lack of regard he has for victims.
“Victims may be able to spend an hour on their feet, railing against the crime, have everybody listen to their anguish and pain and grief, and flog some individual.
Again this seems to show a total lack of respect for the victims, the way I’m reading this he is just taking the piss.
“But no amount of victim latitude at sentencing is going to bring back the loved ones or heal the crushed bones.”
Ahhh that old chestnut. Again what the hell has this got to do with anything? That seems to be the only answer these wowsers ever have: “it won’t bring them back”
No dickhead, of course it won’t and nobody is saying it will. Throwing the book at a crim won’t bring the victim back, fining them or giving them PD or executing them or letting them off scott free won’t bring the victim back either – it doesn’t need to be said because it is painfully fucking obvious and totally irrelevant to what this debate is about – the right of the victims or their family to face a criminal and tell them how they feel.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am
“Fuelling the hatred and venting spleen appear to be the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s core business IMHO”
Which just goes to prove that you know nothing about the great work of Garth McVicir and the SST
November 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
How dare people who have their family members killed by scum get pissed off about it.
What are you shooting for dickhead of the day or something? You’ll always have my vote RRM.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
‘Judges are too soft. That is the problem.’
I think you are wrong Redbaiter.
Judges are a bunch of financial swindlers. If they actually enforced the law at least 50% would be laid off. It’s in their economic interest to have offenders out on the streets committing crimes.
Fucking scum judges!!!
November 16th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
The Herald editorial states that “Courts do not exist for the catharsis of crime’s victims.”
That is correct. That is also the problem. The issue with the courts at present is that the system does not allow the victim to illustrate the impact of the offence. There are 2 opposite points of view at play here. The justice system must remain dispassionate, but in doing so it fails to recognise that the events over which it deliberates are among the worst that a human can experience.
By censoring a Victim Impact statement prior to sentencing, the court reinforces the perception that the victim of the crime, or in the case of the Elliots, the surviving relatives of the victim, are merely subservient to the process at hand. The crime and the criminal are the dispassionate focus of the courts, and while that approach has merit, in that the process is not unduly swayed by the emotions brought about in the aftermath of the act, is the impact of an uncensored victim impact statement read after the verdict really a challenge to the process and authority of the courts?
November 16th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I thought the TV cameras outside the courtroom were for the families to vent their spleens. That’s what the reporters want anyway.
“The justice system….fails to recognise that the events over which it deliberates are among the worst that a human can experience.”
I don’t think anyone but Weatherston had any difficulty empathising with the Elliots. But the emotions of the victims’ families are not something a sentence should be based on.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
[Murray] How dare people who have their family members killed by scum get pissed off about it.[/Quote]
Not what I am saying at all. Chill out o great defender of the right and good.
At this stage in the trial the taxpayer has already spent a large amount of money establishing a REAL criticism of the offender; one based on an equitable and tightly-argued legal case that is recorded in detail for anyone to review at any time. I have no problem with victims having a say as you seem to be suggesting a I do. But I don’t see why this is an issue.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I really struggle with the way the left think.
Invite a “rap” singer to NZ who has said he is against gays and they scream blue murder.
Suggest that parents should have the right to discipline their own kids as they see fit and they go into meltdown mode.
Offer food at schools that kids actually want to eat and they see a conspiracy.
Yet, these are the same people who want to go soft on criminal scum and the same people who think that victims have almost no rights.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
big bruv – I hope the following is of some help:
1. Glorifying murder of homosexuals = bad.
2. Beating children = bad.
3. Teaching kids to eat fatty sh!t that will kill some of them = bad.
4. A justice system based on emotional BS instead of proven facts = bad.
Pretty simple really…?
November 16th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Victims get ONE shot at crims and thats in court. You’re trying to deny them that. Which i would point out is an essential part of their process in dealing with the event.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Swiftman: Judges cannot be laid off, so there is no self-interest in them seeing crims back out on the street. If judges want more work, they just need the government to employ more policemen. When that happens, Parkinson’s (second?) law takes effect quite nicely.
Murray: less than 1% of complainants ever read their victim impact statements, so any changes are really window dressing on that part.
DPF: i disagree with you on the idea of complainants being able to advocate for a sentencing position in court. The prosecution is supposed to do that. If the Crown Solicitor is appearing at the sentencing then submissions are always filed and oral submissions generally made, with a canvassing of aggravating and mitigating factors, plus sentence length analysis. If the complainants feel that they must advocate for sentence length etc. then the Crown lawyers are failing in their duties, either to liaise with the complainant/s or in advocating incorrect sentence lengths. Otherwise it is simply the complainant/s feeling frustrated out of their own ignorance of the law. Probably that should again be laid at the feet of the prosecuting agency.
The harm in allowing the complaint to have their say unrestricted by rules is that you start to turn the courtroom into a circus. That cannot be allowed to happen.
Blame can also be placed on the officers in charge of cases who often do not take this part of the process very seriously (often they do not bother to get the statements) and a better ‘bedside manner’ on the part of the OC. The OC should be carefully explaining to the complainant what they are allowed to canvass in the statement, rather than ‘censoring’ the document afterwards.
Slightlyrighty: victim impact statements do allow the complainant to show the impact of the offending on their lives. That is what they are for and what they achieve if set out correctly. What the statement is not supposed to be, but what many people seem to want it to be, is a vehicle for the expression of personal statements of vengance and vituperation against the prisoner, no matter the situation as the court has found it to be. Often they can go far beyond the situation as found by the finder of fact and get into fantasy land, or ‘reality as the complainant imagines it to be.
Big Bruv: sorry, but McVicar is nothing better than a vigilante. As one who has had him comment on cases he has appeared in, I can say that he is more than willing to speak without any knowledge of the situation. He is one person that defence lawyers routinely dislike just because he does act out of ignorance. Interestingly enough, defence lawyers would be some of the best people to ask about the crims but nobody does because society doesn’t really understand what we do.
This is all a storm in a teacup whipped up by an ignorant media. Temm is correct, and with his experience (something none of hte medai have in the area) he speaks with a lot more authority than McVicar.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I suppose what I am saying is that, for the most part, victim impact reports do what they are supposed to as they are. Done properly, they can be very effective.
What you guys really want is just tougher sentencing and a chance to kick a prisoner at the lowest point of his life. So get maximum terms raised, that’ll do it more than enough.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
FE Smith.
Hmm, a man who fights for victims right is a ‘vigilante’….I just cannot agree with you there mate.
There are many of us who see our legal system as a joke, I simply do not care about the rights of criminal scum, I want rights for victims to be paramount.
If that means we have to change he law and/or system then so be it.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
“What you guys really want is just tougher sentencing and a chance to kick a prisoner at the lowest point of his life. So get maximum terms raised, that’ll do it more than enough.”
Fucking oath!
I could not give a toss at how ‘low’ the prisoner is, if his crime is murder the bastard should count his lucky stars we do not have the death penalty.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
But he doesn’t fight for victims rights. He wants tougher sentences and the chance to abuse prisoners in court.
But, let’s have a look here: What rights of the ‘criminal scum’ would you remove? And how would you change the justice system so it isn’t a joke?
‘Victims’ are parallel to the justice system, not central to it. Harsh as that might sound, it is a fact. What is central to the justice system is ensuring the populace adhere to the law by prosecuting those who break it. If you want to make the system to be more ‘victim focussed’ then you should take the Crown out of it and take criminal cases back to how they used to be- the complainant versus the defendant.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“I could not give a toss at how ‘low’ the prisoner is, if his crime is murder the bastard should count his lucky stars we do not have the death penalty.”
Perhaps, but that only applies to 60 or so of the over 100,000 offences each year. So what about the rest of it?
Come see what I see, bruv, and you might change your opinion a little. I’m not defending their offences, but I am saying that the sentencing process is about more than just the complainant.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Funny ain’t it, how the left always scream blue murder about stiffer penalities for violent crime or property crime, but break any of their pissant little social order laws, like taking too many crayfish, or cutting down a tree you’re not permitted to, or shooting a bird that is protected, or adding something to your house without the right stamp of approval, and they applaud massive financial penalities, confiscation of property, and jail terms. Hypocrites.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
So why would a judge censor a Victim Impact statement when he/she alone decides on the length or brevity of a sentence? It’s not as though the sentence is determined by a jury, whereby publication of a hard-hitting VI statement could be prejudicial. Surely our judges are skilled and experienced enough legal practitioners to not be swayed by sentiment or emotion, and judge each case on its merits, legal precedents and sentencing guidelines.
Or am I just being simplistic?
November 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
FE Smith.
How can Victim Impact statements truly show the impact on a victim if that victim has to moderate that statement so as not to offend the sensibility of the court that allows the victim to make that statement?
If the verdict has been reached and the process of providing justice for society has been achieved, where is the harm to the process in allowing an uncensored statement?
November 16th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I had my Victim Impact Statement read out in the High Court of New Zealand (Auckland). What I really appreciated about it was the way in which the Judge used the statements to impress on the vermin what they really had done to my family. The Judge, the police, the prosecution and defense (Marie Dhyberg in this case) were all incredibly supportive and caring. I can’t fault (what was a big case for the cops) the way that any of our law enforcement people worked and looked after me and my family. Victims should be allowed their uncensored say, it is the first step in a long rehabilatative process. The repugnant part of the rehabilatative process is where the victims get virtually nothing and the vermin 24/7 support and programs in prison. So an uncensored victim impact statement is a small price to pay for both justice and doing what is actually right. And is Garth a vigilante? No, just someone who seems focused on ensuring that the scales of justice remain balanced.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Mr ELLIOT certainly exposed the farce that victim impact statements had become. Actually he was in fact becoming victimised all over again by the Legalese that had been inflicted on a well meant now distorted system. In my view if a victim needs an hour to correct various distortions and lies that Counsel and Court Officials have spent hours enunciating to justify leniency then he should get it. If he can’t get it inside the court he should do as Mr Elliot did and choose a forum outside the court.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Garth McVicar is a scumbag who makes his living feeding from the pain of others, he and his trust should be shown the door. He and his kind are not needed in a civilised nation.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I look forward to Mr McVicar taking a principled stand and being jailed for it. Then he can discover first hand that our prisons are not the luxurious holiday camps he constantly tries to pretend that they are but instead are dangerous, brutal jungles where not enough staff struggle to contain the handful of real scum who prey on the others.
But wait, it won’t be Mr McVicar whose principles land him in jail. Any more than it’s Mr McVicar whose raw grief is wheeled out in front of the cameras to promote the SST’s agenda. He’s always the guy at their shoulder, basking in the publicity engendered by the tragedy of others.
He is, in short, an emotional vampire.
On the substantive issue of victim impact statements, it may interest some of the hardliners on this thread to know that a victim (and their family, and their friends if they wish) confronting an offender and saying exactly what they want, for as long as they want, where ever they want (often it doesn’t have to be in a courtroom if they’d be more comfortable elsewhere) is one of the foundations of restorative justice, which aims to go much further than the courts do in truly redressing the wrong caused by a crime.
There are some useful research papers on the Resotrative justice site for anyone who wants to approach the issue with an open mind. There’s also a full paper here, though reading more than a third of it requires a (free) subscription.
If you don’t want to read a lot – or even if you do – I’d urge you to watch this nine minute video featuring a woman whose father was murdered with an axe by a schizophrenic neighbour, and who only found peace after a face-to-face restorative justice process with the offender (who also served a 17 year term in a secure mental facility).
She talks of how “nasty” she was for years (an emotion happily exploited by McVicar and the SST) until she went through the restorative justice process. As the documentray describes it, victims who harbour anger and revenge “imprison themselves in a jail of their own making”. A compassionate system should try to release them from that jail… McVicar and his ilk want to keep them there, to exploit for their own ends. They disgust me.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Look if you want Sharia law move to Iran. Direct, input to sentencing is only just removed from that kind of nonsense.
Simple example, both based on real cases reported. Kid drives pissed through Stop sign whilst texting and crashes in to some other person who is killed. Does restorative justice, meets the family of the victim who turn out to be particularly good people of the Christian variety. They forgive him and are supportive of him at sentencing.
Another matter – careless driving causing death. Carelessness found to be “momentary inattention” resulting in the car drifting across centre line, over correction, loss of control in shingle on the side of the road. Front passenger, who by choice, was not wearing a seat belt dies. This family wants blood and doesn’t care how they get it.
So if it came down to the victims’ input the first case would result in a highly culpable person being let away and a person who made a tragic mistake stoned to death in the public square.
That’s why we have a judiciary system – to try and provide some sort of system that is fair and predictable. It may not be perfect but it is a damn site better that mob rule.
The misnamed sensible sentencing trust are basically vigilantes.
Finally I can’t help but think this is all driven by a media that is desperate for juicy crimes. Misery and anger sells. Measured justice does not.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Chris Simpson – good point on how a victim impact statement can assist. Obviously yours was within the rules. And yes they can have a role in bringing home the seriousness of a crime to an offender. Your experience would suggest the system works.
To those who want it “uncensored” the rules are designed to stop the sentencing turning into a farce. “I hate you” and other abuse might seem justiifed in the Weatherspoon case but is it merited for an error of judgment (even a serious one).
November 16th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Yes, McVicar thrives because he is given a voice – the media run to him when they want something talked up.
And the media try and interview victims and victims’ families outside courtrooms knowing it is likely they will get emotional and heavily biased comments – that is of course what they thrive on.
Parasites of misfortune.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Victim impact statements are just silly; I think the entire concept is undignfied and simply an opportunity for ‘revenge’ rather than justice.
Mcvicar and his brain damaged followers are enemies of freedom who would be delighted if they could rip offenders to pieces limb by limb.
In my opinion we should censor all of these statements so no one wastes the Courts time with such nonsense.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
November 16th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Rex, I used to think like you. I always thought people like Garth were actually just as fucked up as the vermin who perpertrated the crimes. That was until pure evil came into my life and ruined it in every way shape and form. I have no ambition in life to be a victim – I’m not! But too be honest, as a father who has had to look at two paedophiles in the eye in the High court, well, I’m fucking surprised i’m not in jail for murder!!!!! And what’s more, no one talks about this in any forum. And what David Farrar allows, in a sense, is a forum for a wider debate beyond that of the sensible sentencing trust. Is Garth a parasite, no! Is he somewhat blunt in his views? Yes! And Mr Pete George, of course you are going to get biased and emotional comments – welcome to real life! (But Pete George, I admire you for using your real name – if that is your real name, unlike the rest of the spineless cowards on this this blog who post under non-de-plums) And for the cunt who gave me thumbs down in my previous post – go and fucking grow a spine you scum bag
November 16th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
GPT – “Misery and anger sells. Measured justice does not.”
And that’s it in a nutshell when it comes to MSM reporting on criminal justice.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Great insightful comments from FE Smith (as usual), Rex Widerstroom and GPT. A large part of the problem is that there is a gap between the true intent, purpose, and benefit of victim impact statements, and the way they are talked about in the media, and by people like McVicar. Unfortunately many who are less-informed simply hop on the MSM/SST bandwagon…
Also, thanks for sharing your story Christopher.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
It is unusual to have victims read their victim impact statement. It is for the judge to dispense justice within well established legal principle which for serious offending involves a jail term. Victims cannot expect the court to bring their loved one back in homicide cases. Nor is the court a forum for spiteful comments of revenge all flossied up as victim impact statements. No doubt Mr Elliott can have his say outside the court-room which he eventually did. The cult of victimhood is not an opportunity to do and say what they like. There needs to be a better understanding on what these statements are meant to achieve in the context of sentencing. I am not convinced they do anything much. The Chief Justice (a victim herself, of a family member who lost his life in a homicide) I think had some very perceptive views on this subject.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Christopher Simpson:
Congratulations not only for sharing your story here but for having the courage to do so under your real name.
We’re going to have to disagree on McVicar. I think the fact that he’s appreciated by (some) victims and their families is testament to the bloody awful jobs done by the police and courts in dealing with victims (ref FE Smith’s comments above). When you’re angry and grief-stricken and everyone else is treating you as though you’re peripheral to the process rather than the reason for it, finding someone who seems prepared to listen must be a relief. But McVicar rubs at the rawness of that scab rather than helping it heal, and he does so to feed his own sadistic streak and his love of publicity.
What I’m more interested in, though, is your views on Restorative Justice. Are you familiar with it? Would you have liked to have seen it applied in your particular case? If so, how?
I hope you don’t think me impertinent… feel free not to answer. However I’ve only been the victim of relatively minor offences (a few assaults (one serious), a burglary, an attempted break-and-enter while we were at home, thefts from cars etc).
At that level of emotion I struggle to impose intellect and think about how Restorative Justice might be better than chopping the hands off the bastards who smashed into my car for the second time in a month to steal yet another GPS. Whether I could bring any level of dispassion to bear were I the victim of a more serious crime, I don’t know… so I’m always interested in the thoughts of anyone who was.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Wow, three more spineless cunts gave me thumbs down in my last post. I really would love to see there real names against there thumbs down! I like to see who my enemy is, rather than shadow box with nobody’s who can’t “man” up and say what they really mean!!!
November 16th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I’m absolutely gobsmacked at some of the vicious comments being directed against Garth McVicar here.
billyborker calls him “a scumbag who is feeding off the pain of others” and who is “not needed in a civilised nation”.
Rex Widerstrom (with whom I have often agreed on other matters) calls him “an emotional vampire”.
Elijah Lineberry calls him “an enemy of freedom” and his supporters “brain damaged”.
You would think they were talking about the devil incarnate, not a man who selflessly devotes his life to fighting for the rights of the victims of our most savage criminals.
I can’t help but wonder at the reasons you three must have for spitting poison at such a man.
I alerted David to this story, because Garth emailed me (and others) the uncensored victim impact reports of the fathers of Sophie Elliot and Natasha Brown.
I suggest you go to the Sensible Sentencing Trust site and read the parts that the judges cut out.
Then ask yourself whether you think that censorship was fair.
I don’t.
I thought the comments were quite restrained in the circumstances. And even if they weren’t, why shouldn’t grieving parents be allowed to speak their minds as fully as they please?
I think in the same position I would have said much the same things – and no judge would have stopped me either.
Being able to say what I liked to the murderer of my child would, I can only imagine, be about the only comfort I could glean from the whole process.
To deny a parent that right is a disgrace.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
“I can’t help but wonder at the reasons you three must have for spitting poison at such a man.”
One is a Christian hating bigot, the other is a whining little Obama loving queer intent only an drumming up traffic to his non event site, and the third is a committed Progressive. In terms of civil behaviour, what more can you expect?? None of them are IMHO fit to shine Mr. McVicar’s shoes.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
John Ansell – nice to see you using your real name – I hope the rest can be like us!
November 16th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“Fucking scum judges!!!”
Indeed, if the moronic public just knew how bad they were then we could fix the problem. Yeah right dreams are free and judge dread rules in a soft cock Nation of foolish sheep to the slaughter. Sorry Your Honour but go get fucked you scum of the earth.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Opps. Sorry Rex, just read your post. My house has been burgled twice (Aucland) and my car broken into twice (Auckland and Wellington). Garth McVicar, I’ve never met him. Restorative justice – that’s a hard one. Do I think he’s rubbing a scab – no! More he’s articulating that of many who are too scared to put their head(s) above the trench. Rex, I truly used to be like you. But the real issue is when you see evil (and it is evil) you kind of understand the issue of making a true judgement call. Especially when your son has been fucked by two Scout Masters and 30 other’s had been involved in the paedophile ring. What’s more when one of the abusers was 70 years of age – yeah, in hinsight I was spineless that I didn’t go on a shooting rampage!!!. But Rex, I don’t ever want to change your opinion, more just add to your education. Oh and for all of those who have been giving me thumbs down in my previous posts, please put your names to those thumbs down! Nice to see those with spines!
November 16th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Judges think they are above human feelings. These pricks are just highly paid bent lawyers playing the bullshit game of justice.
Kind regards
Peter Burns.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
John Ansell:
Just to clarify, my opinion on McVicar has nothing to do with his stance on this particular issue. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with him… victims should have a right to say what they like at sentencing.
I accept FE Smith’s concern that emotive demands for capital punishment and / or insults to the perpetrator risk turning the courts “into a circus”. However anyone who’s had much to do with the courts know that they’re pretty much a circus already, complete with fancy costumes. The only fun to be had is picking which ones in the costumes are the clowns.
Some victims need the cathartic effect that reading an unedited victim impact statement would bring, and they deserve that. If we were like the US, where juries were sometimes involved in the sentencing phase, it would be inappropriate. But since we maintain the fiction (and it is a fiction) that judges don’t allow their personal experiences and emotions to cloud their sentencing, then we must assume that an impassioned outburst from a victim won’t affect their Honours’ judgement.
What causes me to oppose McVicar is that he plays only one note: only harsher, longer sentences to bleaker, less humane institutions will remedy the damage caused by the offender and reduce crime. He’s wrong on both counts and – because he’s not a stupid man – I suspect he knows it.
He’s always there when a victim – carefully prepped and wound up by him and the SST – is demanding some harsh retribution. If a victim chose to do as the woman in the video I linked to, and forgive so as to let go of their grief and anger – I wonder how much support they’d get from the SST? I can’t see McVicar at any press conference called by that woman, or anyone like her… yet he claims to want what’s best for victims.
I’m sure, however, that he’s delighted that Redbaiter will be round to shine his shoes. Make sure you use both lick and spittle, Red.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Rex, in my experience the courts weren’t a circus. The victims (us) were treated with the uptmost respect and courtesy (including the side door of Auckland High Court to avoid the media). The issue is allowing third parties like Garth, to voice what we cant when we are raw. If I was given a microphone on the Tuesday afternoon when two paedophiles were locked up for seven years, then my views would have included an incoherent tirade of death for all those who attack (i.e. fuck children against their will) and all those who support their right to a defence. And I have to say, whoever the fucker’s who continue to give me thumbs down here, please, please put your name to your opinions. or go home to mum and hide behind her apron springs you little spine less fuckers.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Well Rex, I have nothing but admiration for those saintly types who can forgive. In certain circumstances I’d like to think I could do that – if the death was an accident and the offender was clearly remorseful.
But not if I was in Mr Elliot or Mr Brown’s shoes. Then I’d feel pretty powerless, and possibly quite murderous. The least I’d expect the state to let me do is eyeball the offender and tell him precisely what I thought of him.
In Muslim societies and other countries with capital punishment, I’d be able to assuage my grief by seeing the guy rendered extinct, or, if I was the forgiving type, settle for a generous donation of blood money.
Or if I was the saint that woman obviously is, I’d forgive unconditionally.
But I should have that choice.
So I’m glad you agree with that.
As to Garth, he’s at the sharp end of some very distressing cases. He chooses to do it, but it’s not easy for him.
I’ve spent a little time in his company, and he didn’t show much sign of being a slavering, bloodthirsty vampire (though to be fair it wasn’t a full moon).
No, he just sees the distress of these poor folk whose nearest and dearest have been murdered and wants to do everything he can to keep the perpetrators out of circulation.
What is so bad about that?
From what I read, the three strikes law has reduced violent crime in California. It has certainly kept those particular violent criminals off the streets.
Garth is not saying that a person should go to prison for life after his first serious violent offence. (Some would say that attitude makes him a bit of a wimp.)
But a second serious violent offence is getting careless. And only the wettest hand-wringer could excuse a third.
So why should that person be able to walk free again? On what basis should we take that risk?
I’ve heard Garth express sympathy for some of our worst murderers and the wretched backgrounds that spawned them. I suspect he’d favour them being treated humanely, but also held securely.
Our sympathy should not extend to endangering more innocent people, and on that I agree with him.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
John Ansell “I can’t help but wonder at the reasons you three must have for spitting poison at such a man.”
The reason the left spits poison at such a man is simple – the left love to tell themselves that they represent the “common man”, and that their wet-bus-ticket notions of crime and punishment are somehow in the interest of the common man, and supported by them. They are not. The common man wants to see the likes of Weatherston fried in the electric chair or strung up by the balls. The left can’t stand the fact that Sensible Sentencing is articulating something much closer to what the man in the street *really* thinks, than the champagne socialist “justice” espoused by the academic liberals who live in the leafy suburbs where they will be unlikely to be faced with the violent criminals that they have let loose on the working class areas.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
As I have said before, I used to agree with many of you on the broad subject of criminal justice until I began to work in the area. Then my views changed as I became familiar with the problems that we have in the populist ‘get tough on crime’ politics that wins so many votes.
Otherwise, Red, I sit firmly within the ACT spectrum of the right.
But. Mr Ansell, I can tell you that as a criminal lawyer Mr McVicar gets only my disapproval because he is more than willing to comment on a case when the media come to him and request a statement. He does this with no knowledge of the case and without the benefit of having an understanding of what went on in the case. His statements are never helpful and only serve to inflame the media and those reading the MSM reports.
While I have no reason to doubt your assertion that Mr McVicar has expressed concern for some murderer or other. But I disagree with Rex when he says that McVicar only has one note- he has two: tougher sentences and skewing the justice process in favour of the ‘victim’, which in reality means reducing the right and ability of an accused person to defend their charges. Even though something like 90% of people charged with an offence plead guilty, the SST still wants to make it even tougher.
The fact is that criminal justice is purposely designed to be robust in order for us to be able to say, at least most of the time, that truth was reached in the case. It isn’t always, but we should strive as much as possible for those miscarriages of justice to be rectified. The protections in the system, those same rights that many people, even on this blog, want to see removed to allow even more people to be convicted, regardless of innocence, are there because over centuries society has become aware of the true power of the state to coerce and safeguards have been set up against it. Today we are complacent against the exercise of this coercive power, probably because we live in an ‘enlightened’ age where the population thinks the government and the law commission knows best. The problem is, Mr Ansell, that Mr McVicar and his organisation would change processes to actually endanger more innocent people. He accuses the defence bar of bad faith, suggests that appeals should be restricted and worse.
Of course, bad things happen when that is the case. Read this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/afp-blasted-over-rape-evidence/story-e6frg97x-1225797555503
The redactions in Mr Elliots statement (which I have read, by the way) were correct and proper. Some of his statement was not a ‘victim impact statement’ but instead was a commentary on Weatherston, the trial process and the defence. That is not what a victim impact statement is for, nor can I see how allowing a family member the ability to comment broadly on the way a trial has been run can benefit the court in sentencing. If Mr Elliot wanted to launch invective against Weatherston then he could have done it in the media after the sentencing. That is his right. But please don’t argue that such should be the case in the courtroom.
Finally, don’t forget that Mr McVicar chose to advance himself in this area. Nobody has forced him to take part in any of this, and as a result he has, somehow, got the government’s ear. I find that utterly astonishing, when those who actually participate in the system find abuse hurled at their views (as per the CJ’s statements). If Mr McVicar wishes to work with vicitms then I applaud that. But the way he is doing it at present is unhelpful.
Going back to the original topic, however, may I say again that for the most part these statements work as they are intended and should be left as they are.
Edit: Put it away: Their is real danger in adopting what the ‘man in the street’ feels is appropriate in criminal justice because it will surely lead to injustice. Even more, the ‘man in the street’ will support only until he is caught in a system where innocence is irrelevant and the only thing necessary to send you to prison are accusations. I have seen it happen and without the safeguards that currently exist it will happen more often than anybody could be comfortable with.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
So F.E. Smith, if I could play the barrister for a mo…
You say to Murray that “less than 1% of complainants ever read their victim impact statements, so any changes are really window dressing on that part.”
Then you say to DPF that “The harm in allowing the complaint to have their say unrestricted by rules is that you start to turn the courtroom into a circus. That cannot be allowed to happen.”
Why not, if the circus only comes to town in 1% of cases? (Just a harmless bit of window dressing for the big top.)
You seem to reflect the barristerial stereotype that looks upon the victim as an occupational hazard.
You seem to be saying: Nothing must impinge upon the dignity of the court – not even justice.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Because a courtroom should not be allowed to be a circus at any time, Mr Ansell. The court is supposed to be about justice, and should be conducted properly. The punishment handed down by the court should be done carefully and calmly, not in an atmosphere of vengance.
Edit: and please never mistake vilification of an offender for justice of any sort. It isn’t.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
F.E. Smith: “His statements are never helpful”.
Not so. I found his email revealing the uncensored version of those two victim impact statements very helpful. It showed me the level of censorship that takes place in our courtrooms – something I hadn’t realised.
I am not setting myself up as an apologist for everything Garth McVicar does, and if, as you suggest, he has made it harder for an innocent person to prove his innocence then I wouldn’t support him on that.
“Some of [Mr Elliot's] statement was not a ‘victim impact statement’ but instead was a commentary on Weatherston, the trial process and the defence. That is not what a victim impact statement is for, nor can I see how allowing a family member the ability to comment broadly on the way a trial has been run can benefit the court in sentencing.”
Now that’s precisely my point about lawyers. You think a victim impact statement is for the benefit of the court. And it may be, officially.
But many of us humble victims and potential victims would say it should be for the benefit of the victim.
If the emotive nature of that statement should affect the judge – in other words, if it connects with him as a human being, as opposed to a box-ticking robot – then well and good.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:03 am
For goodness sake, it wasn’t censorship. What Mr Elliot wrote was outside the intent and purpose of the victim impact statement and it needed to be changed for that reason. But it wasn’t ‘censored’.
As I have said before, the criminal justice system is about the offences and the offender, not the victim. While it may be a good idea to have supports in place for victims of crime, the process itself is not about them but about discovering facts and punishing wrongdoers. You, Mr McVicar, and many others work from a completely incorrect viewpoint of criminal justice and that means that your positions start in the wrong place.
It is that sort of thinking that allows there to be a ‘victim’ even when there has been no crime.
Your view of the judiciary as box ticking is also wrong, but of course you wouldn’t accept that coming from me, now, would you? Many of us have been victims of crime (some at the hands of our own clients, even) but we continue to do this job because it is important that somebody does. We do not live in ivory towers, Mr Ansell, we are real people.
But the sentencing process is to punish the offender and their actions, not to allow the victim the chance to abuse the prisoner. In this case it is your view that is incorrect.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:10 am
I am well aware that the decrepit condition of NZ’s justice system is not the only reason we have excessive crime here compared to other countries. It is my firm belief that NZ as a country has turned its back on personal morality and this is the primary reason we live in a country under siege from criminals. The true path to reducing crime is to restore the primacy of morality, not by legislative means but by campaigns that clarify lines between good and evil that have been deliberately blurred by Progressives seeking political advantage.
That said, the prime purpose of the Justice system is to keep law abiding citizens free from crime. It is failing miserably in this objective. In fact I believe there have been something like 60 or 70 murders in NZ that have been committed because criminals were released from jail when they should not have been.
Criminals are often found to have records that involve scores of previous convictions. Most often too late for this knowledge to be any help to their latest victim.
Law abiding citizens need an urgent remedy to the wave of crime that makes NZ one of the most dangerous countries in the world to live. There is no more immediate and simple solution than locking criminals up for longer periods.
Furthermore, harsh sentences and even the death penalty help us all by making it clear to criminals and would be criminals exactly where our moral boundaries lie.
So the task people in Justice need to accomplish is to get off their fucking arses, stop waffling about the damn welfare of the offenders, and start doing their real job- keeping law abiding citizens free from crime. That means locking the bastards up for longer and more securely.
There might be a better solution out there, but it isn’t evident right now, so do what you can do, and get the hell on with it. Lock the bastards up, and lock em up for a damn long time. You’re obliged to do so by means of the implicit agreement you have with NZ’s civilized law abiding citizens- TO KEEP THEM SAFE.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:55 am
That’s one of your more reasoned and reasonable posts Red, but there are some things in it I don’t agree with.
To an extent this may be true, but I think it is more a slipping of some standards rather than conscious turning away from them. There is an increasing lack of restraint from anger and abuse on the streets, in homes, and in blogs. You are sometimes an example of those deteriorating personal standards.
No it’s not. If that were the case, to ensure law abiding citizens were kept free from crime, we could have a justice system that locked up permanently or executed someone who proposed and promoted armed uprisings.
We will never be free from crime. Pretty much everyone breaks the law at some time. The best we can do is to try and reduce crime. In previous times and in other places people were imprisoned more, executed for less, shipped to penal colonies, and none of that resulted in zero crime.
We have been doing that. It doesn’t seem to have fixed the problem.
Prison Rates per 100,000 total population
1950 56
1960 76
1970 83
1980 88
1990 117
2000 146
2004 179
2009 195
http://www.howardleague.co.nz/factsheets/factsheet_37.html
SST is getting it’s way already, and it hasn’t fixed the problem.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:07 am
I would have thought a victim impact statement is about the impact of the crime and it’s consequences on the victim’s family. Surely the trial process is part of that. If the person’s statement is edited then I don’t see the point in having one.
Christopher Simpson – hardly anyoen online uses their own names. You have to get used to it. It annoys the hell out of me, even when some of the anonymous posters say things I agree with.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Pete George has very nicely demonstrated a trend of society and what Pete is showing is that whatever we were doing in the 1950’s seemed to be working better. Whist I wasn’t around at that time I can guess that little in the way of welfare – (having to be employed and work for your income, two parent families etc) and plenty in the way of good childhood behaviour- (corporal punishment in schools etc) are amongst those things that ensured a more decent society.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:32 am
John Ansell – far from being ’selfless’ Mr Mcvicar is in fact trying to create a New Zealand of mob rule; a nation of ’star chambers’ where who you are, (or who the star chamber members suspect you might be based on their racial profiling and stereotypes) will decide what happens to you.
Mr Mcvicar wants ‘guilty’ people (as he defines it) to be dealt to by his mob and he is most certainly an enemy of freedom.
The reason we have Courts and Judges is often to protect guilty people from vigilante justice which would otherwise be dished out by nutters like Mcvicar.
Many gullible well meaning people were right royally conned for many years by Graham Capill and I suspect Mcvicar is as ’selfless’ and ‘innocent’ as he was.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
November 17th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Redbaiter: I agree.
F.E. Smith: You clearly know what the system is. I’m more concerned about what it should be. About what would make justice just.
I simply don’t see what is wrong with allowing a murdered person’s relative to express his or her full feelings about the matter – within the bounds of reasonable behaviour.
I thought the censored passages were reasonable. What did others think? (Check the Sensible Sentencing Trust site and scroll down to the Victim Impact Statements of Gill Elliot and Brian Brown.)
And if removing those passages from the father’s carefully prepared statement without the father’s consent is not censorship, Mr/s Smith, then we are speaking different languages.
Garth McVicar makes the reasonable point that when someone has shown by his actions that he has nothing but contempt for other human beings, he should be kept away from other human beings.
That’s not an extreme view. That’s not vengeful bloodlust. That’s common sense.
Mr Elliot had had to endure, on top of everything else, a prolonged and orchestrated litany of lies from his daughter’s murderer. The system allowed him to say precisely what he liked.
But it did not allow the victim’s father to say precisely what he liked. To have done so would have been fair. I know it would not have been normal to you legal practitioners, and that is my point.
If the justice system is not about delivering justice for the victim, it should be.
When some quaint notion of courtroom etiquette comes before justice, then I believe it is the justice system that is ‘incorrect’.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:59 am
You’re onto it Patrick Starr. The ideas of Progressives like the Christian hating Elijah Lineberry and the compulsively lying Pete George are the root cause of NZ’s slide into a crime ridden socialist sewer, and even when they write here and show the evidence themselves, they cannot see it.
The answer to crime is a more orderly and moral society, and that will only come from the hearts of NZers, and the restoration of the patriarchal family unit and not by means of more oppressive legislation by government, that useless broken entity that all Progressives worship so mindlessly.
In the meantime, we need to do something to clean up the mess the Progressives have made, and that means locking up the dregs of the corrupt and amoral and soulless society they have incrementally created. (over the period that Mr. George provides the stats for above)
November 17th, 2009 at 9:13 am
It’s difficult to touch hearts when all you do is kick people in the testicles.
Attack, attack, attack.
Have you any suggestions as to how this could be achieved?
Attack, attack, attack any woman who won’t be subjugated?
November 17th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Pete George, you beat me to it!
Red, when you say that “the prime purpose of the Justice system is to keep law abiding citizens free from crime” you are completely wrong. If that role exists, it belongs to the Police. The purpose of the justice system, that being the system of courts that are in place in New Zealand, is to impartially and fairly hear and rule between two competing parties on the question of whether an allegation of criminal offending has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, if it has, to hand down a just sentence consistent with the offending.
It is precisely when people begin to view the courts as being responsible for keeping us free from crime that our view of the courts become both unreasonable and wrong. If you start from that viewpoint then you are always going to be disappointed in the courts because they are not acting according to your expectations. That is like complaining when your car does not fly- it can fulfil its function fine, but that is not what you want it to do so it obviously is failing as a car.
John Ansell, the justice system is about delivering justice to the offender, as I keep telling you. You, also, have an incorrect expectation of the justice system. It may be possible to tack onto the system something that allows complainants a sense of personal vengeance, but the problem is that each complainant has different views on what justice means to them and to cater to all of them is impossible. Some don’t care about the case, so long as the offender is caught, some are vitally interested in it and follow it at every detail. Most complainants seem to fit into the first category, some even can’t be bothered turning up to the case based on their complaint. My issue with what you say is that you wish to give the complainant or ‘victim’ free reign to say whatever they want in court. Having heard death threats, threats of GBH, painful an prolonged death and suchlike, along with allegations of all sorts of improper conduct made against the lawyer/s outside of courtrooms, I do not think it appropriate to import it into the sentencing process. You may think that is not reasonable behaviour, but others do, so who is right? My standard for what is reasonable behaviour in such a setting is obviously higher than yours, so is my standard better or yours?
I do think the courtroom is one place where decorum and dignity makes far more of an impact than vilification and condemnation, and I will always hold that opinion.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:25 am
The Police and the courts are what makes up the Justice system, and the primary purpose of that Justice system is to keep NZers free from the actions of criminals. You cannot say the courts and the police are two different entitites. They are not. Take away one of them, and you cannot have Justice. How well this system works is measured by how much crime NZers have to endure, and right now they endure more than most countries in the world. A clear demonstration the system is not working. Do your job. Make it work.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:27 am
“It’s difficult to touch hearts when all you do is kick people in the testicles.”
Get used to it. We’re done listening to the likes of you.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Red, the criminal courts existed well before the police did. They are not inseperable; in fact they have to be unconnected or otherwise you have the same body prosecuting the case and hearing the case, that is wrong.. It is you who has the wrong idea in this instance and for once I am glad that you do because an independent and impartial court system is vital to our protection from the state as much as from the criminal.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:19 am
“I am glad that you do because an independent and impartial court system is vital to our protection from the state as much as from the criminal.”
Of course and I have not in any way suggested otherwise. I am advocating increased penalities for the guilty, not kangaroo courts where the innocent are framed. Why can’t you see that??
November 17th, 2009 at 11:51 am
No, but you are suggesting that the police and the courts are one entity with the purpose of fighting crime. That is incorrect, the courts are independent and impartial and are in no way there to fight crime. Your view is not uncommon and leads government, pubic and some judges to see the courts as responsible to implement policy with that aim. That is not their function. Courts are, of necessity, reactive and become relevant when one party brings an allegation against another party. Crime control, apprehension and prosecution of offenders, the bit where we are kept safe from crims is the responsibility of the police, not the courts.
Increased penalties for the guilty are a totally different matter. Go and talk to your local member of parliament about increasing the maximum penalties in the Crimes Act and, if that happens, you will see the penalties currently imposed go up without fail.