Having to prove your innocence ruled out

June 18th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Justice Minister has ruled out reversing the burden of proof in cases – one of the key recommendations in the first report of the Glenn Inquiry.

It was a suggestion, not a recommendation, but still good to have it ruled out.

Tags: , ,

25 Responses to “Having to prove your innocence ruled out”

  1. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    So turning down the ‘key recommendation’ would be reason enough to turn down the rest.

    But then window dressing so as ‘to be seen to be doing at least something’ is a trademark of National.

    Smacking comes to mind.

    Men will be hassled by this further no doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    In many if not most of these cases it is the COMPLAINANT who wants matters to be taken no further. There are very few cases indeed where a cowering complainant is brutalised by defence counsel IF EVER. people watch too much American television. But in child abuse especially homicide cases some reform of the right to silence and the inferences that can be drawn from saying nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    It is a pity the media and commentators decided to single out this one aspect, giving that all their attention, and in doing so, shift the emphasis from the parts of the report that actually demonstrate the sad reality of violence and abuse in this country.

    Perhaps they should have held the report back until after the election, when it could be considered objectively, rather than from political bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    ….”It is a pity the media and commentators decided to single out this one aspect”….

    Fair go Judith…..the report suggests tipping the justice system on its head just so the femnazis can reach their targets better & you wonder why the proposal gets attention?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ tvb (4,103 comments) says:
    June 18th, 2014 at 9:09 am

    A victim of abuse, especially sexual abuse does not have to be submitted to a vigorous defense just to feel vulnerable and revictimised.

    Simply sitting in the same room, looking at the face of their attacker is enough to trigger effects of PTSD etc.

    I agree, most defense counselors are respectful – the courts wouldn’t allow them to be anything but, however, it is the process of the investigation that is difficult – but I fail to see how that can be resolved. The Courts need the facts before they can take action.

    Sadly it is the process that means many victims fail to lay complaints, and in doing so allow other people to fall victim to the same offender’s behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    Judith, if you really want to see an end to violence then you should address the leading indicator – fatherless neighbourhoods.

    That’s where 90% of the action is.

    How did you miss that through having an exstensive careerer?

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ nasska (10,205 comments) says:
    June 18th, 2014 at 9:15 am

    Sorry, perhaps I didn’t word that very well. I totally agree with you. As I have stated many times, innocent men have been used by scornful women many many times in the Courts and the system. I have personally seen it many times, but been unable to do anything about it, as the Court had already passed a guilty verdict.

    My comment was really about the fact that the report does offer some good data regarding abuse – and I would hate to see that data be ignored now, because one recommendation in the report is way off key.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    You never did tell us what your putative doctorate is in Judith…Clinical psychology perhaps? “Looking at the face of their attacker is enough to trigger…PTSD”?? I don’t think so… I dunno though…just seeing He Who Cannot Be Named on here is enough to raise my blood pressure several points…

    But good on the Minister for stomping on this proposed fundamental attack on the justice system…She’s a damn good Minister…and a bloody good person for that matter…

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Harriet (4,261 comments) says:
    June 18th, 2014 at 9:17 am

    I haven’t missed it Harriet, and have commented on it several times. I believe very much that it takes two to make a child, and at least two to raise it. Even more so, I believe in the saying ‘it takes a whole village’, especially in this day and age where mothers are expected to work, and therefore others are responsible for child minding.

    One of my biggest issues is that families isolate the generations, and that I believe families who include the older generations within the family environment on a regular basis, actually provide a better standard of care for the entire family, and especially the children.

    In times past many marriages failed, but the fathers stayed, often sleeping in a separate room, however, were there for their children. We don’t see that happening any more because it is just too easy to walk away (either parent).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    FFS…… I get downticks at #1 for pointing out the bleeding obvious of what is too come?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Manolo (14,165 comments) says:

    Who made this sinister recommendation? Was it the infamous Cath Tizard?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. fernglas (196 comments) says:

    I have no doubt that a rethink is needed to deal effectively with not just domestic physical but also sexual violence in the courts. Complainants are revictimised by the process, but on the other hand, the cases are notoriously difficult to get convictions on because of jury reluctance to convict in word against word cases. Where there is a domestic aspect, reconciliation becomes impossible because of the polarising nature of the adversarial system. Few men are prepared to admit their offending in an adversarial situation, usually, I believe, because they recognise the contempt in which they will rightly be held. Some form of inquiry untrammelled by the judicial process and not conviction based, but nevertheless with some coercive power to get to the truth, would be more beneficial in a large number of cases. As always, the question is where to draw the line. That is where the debate should be. The adversarial system has its place, but it is not the only or best solution in every case involving criminal offending.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett (5,807 comments) says:
    June 18th, 2014 at 9:19 am

    I disagree with you on the type of person our Minister of Justice is, both professionally and privately.

    You can ask all you like what my doctorate is in, but I shall not tell you, because you would simply check on-line and then know my identity, and as I have told you before, that is something I do not believe you need to know. If that means you don’t believe me, that is okay, winning friends and influencing people is something best done off the net in my opinion.

    Regarding the PTSD. No, that is not triggered by facing the perpetrator, but the effects of ongoing PTSD can be made worse, and have been recorded many times as being retriggered or getting worse when a victim is forced to confront, even just visually the person responsible or even someone that was present during the initial traumatic event.

    David – you are not a victim of the person you rightfully do not name. You are however obsessed with him, to the point that you make some very bad decisions – for your own sake you need to learn to control your emotions on that level, and conduct yourself as the professional you are and not some out of control, unmoderated vigilante. By all means take whatever action at a professional level you need to in private, that is your right, but you do yourself and your cause no favours when you present yourself like you do on here regarding that matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    fernglas#

    “…..Some form of inquiry untrammelled by the judicial process and not conviction based, but nevertheless with some coercive power to get to the truth, ….”

    You don’t ever ‘get to the truth’. You only get to what is ‘perceived to be the truth’. And more so in these types of cases.

    The adversarial system is probably the best for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    She’s a damn good Minister…and a bloody good person for that matter…

    Good at covering up for the criminal judges, perhaps. She’s a dishonourable woman with a history of obstructing due process.

    http://www.actsinjunction.info/corruption.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Thanks very much for the advice Judith…That Person is a disgrace….he should be dead, or at the very least in a cage…for reasons best known to him, Our Host lets him post here and also hands out demerits if one comes too close with the hints about his identity…all a bit silly since everyone now knows who the prick is, but its David’s blog, and he makes the rules…

    I don’t give a flying f…. what you think of how I “conduct myself” in that regard…for the last ten years I have done pro bono work for victims, and survivors of murder of their loved ones…I do that in a number of ways and I will continue to do so … you may think my desire to see That Person recalled for his crimes is an “obsession”…again, I don’t give a flying f…what you think. Rather than an obsession, I prefer to see it as a mission on behalf of his most recent victim.

    Next month I will be attending Tai Hobson’s 80th birthday…Tai and his family have never got over the murder of their wife and mother by Bell in 2001…At least Bell is where he belongs…and I have promised Tai I will do all in my power to see he stays there, even though I will be in my 70’s when the POS comes up for parole.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Manolo (14,165 comments) says:

    @DG: Do not waste your time with Judith, who is very soft (and partial) to killers and murderers (shall I dare to mention one Mr Bain?). :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    UT: that website of yours speaks volumes…It reminds me of the bedrooms they find when they arrest some serial killer in the US…every surface festooned with newspaper articles about the killer and pictures of their victims…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. fernglas (196 comments) says:

    Harriet, the adversarial system that we have periodically, and somewhat inadvertently, throws up the truth or the next best thing, but is not the right process for these types of cases. The very low number of complaints that are prosecuted by Police and the much lower number that result in conviction attest to the inadequacies. Nor would I be so bold as to say that the low conviction ratio means that the convictions are always safe. Even if they were, the damage caused to the participants in the process, who unlike most victims and offenders have an ongoing relationship, far outweighs any social benefit. Addressing the problems as soon as they emerge rather than letting them fester through the drawn out criminal justice process (if indeed they get that far) will be far more likely to help stem an endemic problem which is a source of shame to our society.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    every surface festooned with newspaper articles about the killer and pictures of their victims…

    The killer in this case is the civil system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    fernglas#

    “……Addressing the problems as soon as they emerge rather than letting them fester through the drawn out criminal justice process (if indeed they get that far) will be far more likely to help stem an endemic problem which is a source of shame to our society…..”

    Adversarial feminism is the source of shame in NZ.

    It has pitted mothers against children and wives against husbands over abortion, based on the premise that all women should climb down from their pedestal and onto that of the male pedestal. And because of that mothers now ‘work’ relegating ‘motherhood’ to the status of ‘childcare’ – ‘just another job’ – like prostitution.

    Women have distanced themselves from their nature – to that of the nature of the male – then claim victim status when males better them at it. Men haven’t changed for the worse.

    Some men who assault their wives have probably spent a fair amount of time being seen as an opponant of ‘what I, woman, want’ – fights happen……then people leave……but I can’t remember as many men killing their kids and wives over it back in the 50’s, 60’s & 70’s………or as many men killing themselves over it……..but keep going with ever more ‘legal stuff’ in your fight to ‘save women’.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. backster (2,195 comments) says:

    I think there was room for the minister to compromise and yet bring more balance to the scales of Justice. Remove the defendant’s right to remain silent.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. OneTrack (3,348 comments) says:

    “It was a suggestion, not a recommendation, but still good to have it ruled out.”

    Ok, lets just put this folder safely away here, ready for when conditions have changed enough for another try.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Mr_Blobby (207 comments) says:

    I think young Owen should ask for his money back.

    What a waste of time. What else would you expect from life time serial troughers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Hair Removal Specialist (80 comments) says:

    Mr Blobby: agree. Wasn’t this report/inquiry meant to be more about stopping abuse from happening in the first place? This is all ambulance at the bottom of the cliff / rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote