Protecting victims

June 25th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Victims of serious violent and sexual offences can now have a “non-contact order” placed on their attackers.

The new legislation is the latest in a raft of reforms to the way in which the justice system treats victims of violent crime.

The non-contact order may be applied to offenders who have been sentenced to more than two years in prison for a violent or sexual offence.

It prohibits the offender from contacting the victim in any way, including electronically. In some cases, offenders can be banned from entering, living, or working in a particular area.

Victims must apply to a court for the non-contact order after the offender has been sentenced. The order can also cover an offender’s associates.

Justice Minister Judith Collins said the new measures would help victims move on with greater piece of mind.

A lot of victims live in fear once their offender is released from prison. while these orders do not guarantee offenders will obey them, they should help in most of the cases.

Tags:

11 Responses to “Protecting victims”

  1. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    ‘while these orders do not guarantee offenders will obey them, they should help in most of the cases.’

    erm….How?

    If an offender doesn’t care about a law that says they can’t beat their partner, why would they care about a court order that says they shouldn’t go near them?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Justice Minister Judith Collins said the new measures would help victims move on with greater piece of mind.

    pre-lobotomy or post-lobotomy?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ciaron (1,434 comments) says:

    Agree, this won’t change jack.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    This sounds like a tacit acknowledgement that we aren’t locking these sorts of people up for long enough to ensure public safety…?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Captain Pugwash (98 comments) says:

    Surely the Government should just legislate to make rape, murder and general violent mayhem against other people illegal. Oh that’s right it already is. So some violent dropkick rapist who ignores the laws against rape, is suddenly going to obey a “non contact order” against one of his victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MD (62 comments) says:

    The question is whether some /most violent attacks are preceded with a period of harassment or stalking. If so, the ability to prosecute them at the stalking stage may be an effective tool to get them locked up again. It’s not going to stop the nutter who comes out of prison buys a knife and visits the ex to finish the job. It could be useful even just as a tool to stop harassment after the first incident rather than wait until repeated incidents before prosecuting the offender.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    The non contact order is about telephones and vision:

    It’s to give most offenders another year or two’s distance from the victim – in the hope that they get on with their life and a new girlfriend once out of prison. That’s reasonably sensable. That’s what conservatives would do – on the matter of post-conviction.

    Those that go on to break the order and beat or bother their former partners were probably going to do it anyway.

    And no one ever goes to jail for belting their wife in a once off – so they can then stay in touch and maybe get back together if it was over something bloody serious that the woman may have done.

    All in all it’s nothing to be too worried about fellas. Waitakerie man may even vote for National yet! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dirty harry (500 comments) says:

    More fiddling around the edges. If it wasn’t so serious Id wet my pants laughing. Do you really think scum are going to play ball on this one?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    This sounds like a tacit acknowledgement that we aren’t locking these sorts of people up for long enough to ensure public safety…?

    Should we just throw away the key and ensure they are all locked up for life? That’ll certainly mean no recidivism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    its a band-aid on an axe wound .

    lawyers think everything can be achieved by words on paper when offenders know its about knives in backs

    it lets those in government sleep well at night , they have no concept of the real problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. goldnkiwi (1,308 comments) says:

    Perhaps it should be an automatic thing at time of sentencing, not something having to be applied for. I would imagine that not wishing to have contact with a perpetrator would be more likely than not.

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