A fine is not enough
The Herald reports:
Anti-violence campaigners have condemned the penalty handed to a Taranaki rugby player who strangled his pregnant partner but escaped with a $750 fine.
Paul Perez, 23, lifted his partner Dana Carlyle Brooks off the ground in May, choking her until she almost blacked out, before he punched her in the nose.
And he gets a fine only slightly more than speeding tickets.
Jane Drumm, executive director of Shine (Safer Homes in New Zealand Everyday), said the sentence was “just not acceptable” and she was extremely concerned for Ms Brooks’ safety.
“When someone puts their hands around a person’s throat and does that, that means they’re very close to being killed,” she said. “That is how women die.
Strangling is no minor assault. It is an attempt to kill, not to hurt.
December 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Yet again a person of perceived high societal value gets an easy out. Bit of a kick in the face (pun intended) to the recent White Ribbon day. How can we as a country get serious about our terrible domestic violence rates when a piece of crap like this guy gets a small fine for a very nasty attack.
December 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
15 minutes in the sin bin?
December 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
But he’s a rugby player. That’s an automatic free pass to be violent in New Zealand society. Just ask Tea Ropati :-/
December 5th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Not mentioned in the article – has she left him? if not, why not? That may well have affected the Judge’s thinking on sentence.
December 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Scum like these deserve every bit it comes their way. Could we please stop wasting time on them?
December 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
What annoys me, living in Taranaki (although it wouldn’t matter where I live), is that before sentence they were asking for no conviction cause it would hurt his ability to make a living overseas.
Oh and I believe he has another assault charge yet to get to court too…..
December 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Many thoughts on this but hard to put into words. This is sad for justice, sad for rugby, sad for the family. Yeah it could be tough on career and finances to have an appropriate penalty, but this sentence is totally the wrong message to give to the thugs out there. A fine is not enough.
December 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Makes one wonder why we bother with Courts – just leave it to the bloggers!
[DPF: Yeah sentences should never be criticised. How dare we.]
December 5th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
…we all know there is no justice in NZ…we all know the court system in NZ is a joke..why the outrage…what did you expect?
December 5th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
There’s always a risk that bloggers and their commenters jump to a conclusion about a case not having heard all the evidence. But this is one instance it seems pretty clear cut… manual strangulation isn’t lashing out in anger in a moment of clouded judgment it’s sustained brutality taken to the very edge of murder.
On the assumption there’s not, therefore, something we don’t know about this case that otherwise justifies the sentence (and try as I might, I can’t think what that might be) I too am appalled.
Not just for the victim, and her family. Not just for the families who are more likely to be bashed by some thug who’s now got the message you can get off lightly. But also for the next person to appear before the courts having committed a much lesser act, but who gets a ridiculously harsh sentence as the pendulum swings the other way and some judge decides to “send a message” to counteract stupid sentencing like this.
It just makes justice a lottery. And as we all know, when it comes to lotteries there are very few winners, a lot of losers, and the only one to profit is the system itself.
December 5th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Wrong. Justice will never please everyone but it tries to get the balance right. In this case I don’t think it did (and I’m not usually calling for harsher sentences).
December 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
..thats right PG…you dont think…
December 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
ask a victim of crime..any victim if they were happy with the sentence handed down to the crim…9.5/10 will tell you they were not.
December 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Today many prisoners sit in a cell for having committed far lesser crimes than this wife beater. Justice kiwi style is far from balanced and fair. Justice must be seen to be done, yeah right sick joke and it’s totally unacceptable that a judge would fine a violent maniac for strangling a pregnant woman. I know who should be behind bars your honour!!
December 5th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Well, the assault convictions will be with him forever, that’s a form of punishment in itself, especially for a rugby player with a public profile and who travels internationally. However community work might have been a more appropriate sentence than a fine. And why not some supervision as well to do anger management and other counselling? The application for a discharge without conviction was misguided – this offending is simply too serious.
December 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Harsh words always lead to strangling. I say ban harsh words.
..and is this another example where the judge might be slightly on the wrong side of a judgement, and yet the Greens will now mount a campaign to ban harsh words to bring about a necessary change in society?
December 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
dad4justice (5599) Vote: 1 0 Says:
December 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Today many prisoners sit in a cell for having committed far lesser crimes than this wife beater.
What were you in for again? I forget. Making false complaints to the Police, wasn’t it?
December 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
David, permit me to point out the pivotal fact you inadvertantly overlooked when making your editorial comment: namely the fellow’s a doof-head **Rugby Player**.
In NZ that’s the magic key to the Gold Bathroom that washes away All Crimes – now including GBH/attempted murder.
December 5th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Flashman
Do the entertainers have a Platinum Bathroom or is that reserved for the politicians and the entertainers share the gold one with Rugby players?
December 5th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Only if you know the secret toilet stall foot tap sequence.
December 5th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
@d4j 6:10 pn
FFS – I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with anything you have ever posted.
Well done. There are some men who are arseholes about how they treat women, and I’m glad you finally recognise that, rather than blindly defend them on custody issues, because if they beat their partners, they are just as likely to beat their kids.
Hope springs eternal!
December 5th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
What intrigues me is why this happens. Is it because the defending lawyer puts together a credible and reasonable argument based from common law on sentencing or because the prosecution makes some type of fundamental error or because the judge exercises discretion? Even if any of these it puts emphasis on the concept that the judge is not the right person to give sentence. He should be making a statement about the facts and information he has received and making a recommendation on those facts. The sentencing procedures are an act of their own. The judge has enough to do to determine guilt. Cases of guilt like this should be decided from within an institution that is skilled and specialized in rehabilitating anti social and dangerous behaviour – there is no room for error in sentencing and with the range of judges with their respective skills they are prone to making such ludicrous assessments in reply to intolerable violence.
December 5th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
toad opines:
Not for one moment defending anyone who hits anyone else for any reason. But whatever gives you that idea, at least in relation to those men involved in custody disputes?
I’ve worked with men against whom the most reprehensible lies have been told in the Family Court. Often, the women who’ve stooped to that level have done dreadful things within the relationship which have provoked the man into striking them.
Certainly they should be held to account for resorting to violence. But the likelihood of those men hitting their children is very small, and drops to virtually nil for those involved in the Family Court – because if they didn’t love their children they wouldn’t be fighting for them – it’s much easier, and considerably less expensive, to walk away.
Yes, there are thugs who think nothing of hitting women and children. But you won’t find too many in the Family Court. That’s the point D4J makes, and it’s a valid one.
December 5th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
What the hell is it with rugby players in Taranaki?
Remember the Inglewood incident?
phool, here is a chance to promote veganism
Don’t be hypercritical though — armed robbery and all that!!
December 6th, 2009 at 6:51 am
If victims of crime were able to choose the sentence we would have a much less balanced justice system than we have now.
In fact in this case it’s quite possible the victim wanted a minimal or no sentence, that’s not uncommon for victims of domestic violence.
And as an example in cases of accused violence with separations and child custody disputes there could be major injustices.
There are good reasons why we try to have impartially imposed sentences rather than starboard sentences.
December 6th, 2009 at 7:53 am
I say we don’t have enough people in jail. That is where this person belongs.
A guy in new york was just sentenced for about 70 years in prison for bashing a 100 year old lady. She didn’t even die.
The same crime in nz might only get a couple of years jail.
The yanks have got it right. I understand crime in new york is pretty low now.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am
A guy in new york was just sentenced for about 70 years in prison for bashing a 100 year old lady. She didn’t even die.
..I wait with baited breath to see what sort of wet bus ticket bitch slap sentence a certain ” we are looking for a male maori ”
offender gets when they find who is responsible for the attack/robbery of an 88 year old lady in a Christchurch shopping mall car park the other day. Tell me Pete George..what sort of term do you think should be given for a crime like this?
December 6th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I don’t know starboard, depends on what is normal for that type of crime, the criminal history of the offender etc. I’d think some sort of state holiday is justified. What do you think?
December 6th, 2009 at 9:55 am
what is normal for that type of crime, the criminal history of the offender etc.
..and this has been the problem to date. Judges looked at previous sentences for a particular crime and then ended up with a wet bus ticket type of namby pamby soft cock sentence.
This particular offender should receive 15-20 years jail .
So you think a non custodial sentence for this offence? You need ya head looked at.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I should have been clearer – state holiday = custodial
But 15-20 years is not even close to realistic.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:53 am
..and its because of minds/thinking like yours running our justice/courts system that we have no real justice . What if it was your mother/grandmother assaulted…picked up and thrown on the ground for a hundred bucks..how would you truly feel PG…what would you want to have happen to the offender?
December 6th, 2009 at 11:02 am
“What if it was your mother/grandmother assaulted..”
He has none. Was found under a cabagge.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:07 am
As I said earlier, it depends. It could range from malicious injury to unintended? That would make quite a difference. The record of the offender and the attitude of the offender would also matter – do they demonstrate real remorse, or callous disregard.
What if he was an opportunist snatch thief, and the lady just lost her balance and fell? Still a crap thing for the guy to do but no reason to have a blanket over reaction with the sentence.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:33 am
unintended?
c’mon PG..unintended..opportunist…the offender saw a little old lady with a handbag..picked her up and threw her to the ground and stole her pension money…you dont get much lower than that. On cue, the slime is going to show remorse when he is caught and he will be wearing a suit..the lawyer will wheel out the old ” he was abused as a child trick” and ” the offender has a drug problem “. Nah sorry PG..your thinking is old hat….we need to be dealing to these low lifes and 15-20 in the can is a starting point…personally Id take the guy out the back and beat the living shit out of him.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am
personally Id take the guy out the back and beat the living shit out of him.
Thus making you no better than him.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am
..somewhat better borker…he is described as a male maori 6 ft tall…his victim was a small frail old lady…