Tag domestic violence offenders

June 15th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The former Supreme Court judge leading the Glenn Inquiry wants to electronically tag men on protection orders so an alarm sounds if they approach the family home.

Bill Wilson, speaking ahead of tomorrow’s release of the inquiry’s People’s Report, also wants a complete reform of the Family Court and is calling on a cross-party commitment to an overhaul of the family violence system. …

But Wilson says the patterns he has seen have led him to come up with preliminary ideas of his own.

An electronic tagging system for domestic-violence offenders could be introduced.

“We’ve had a number of tragic incidents in recent times where a former partner and children who were meant to be protected by court order have been killed by the man against whom the order was made. That’s an appalling situation.

“The reality is a man who is minded to attack his former partner and children will not be deterred by a piece of paper. If we can avoid one more situation [like this] then it would be justified.”

Sadly protection orders mean nothing to some offenders.

I would not support electronic tags for most cases, but where someone is the subject of a protection order and they have been convicted of either domestic violence previously or of breaching a protection order – then I think an electronic tag may save lives and be justified.

Police Minister Anne Tolley said GPS tracking was used for high-risk and child sex offenders, but had been widened to a small number of domestic violence offenders, and the Government was considering ways to expand that number.

Justice Minister Judith Collins said the Government had increased the maximum penalty for breaching a protection order from two years jail to three, more breaches were being prosecuted and further strengthening of laws around domestic violence was planned.

The Government was also considering a scheme modelled on a British law change called Clare’s Law, which allows police to disclose violence convictions to a new partner.

All sounds good.

20 Responses to “Tag domestic violence offenders”

  1. Redbaiter (11,656 comments) says:

    Actually, we could put these tags on all kinds of people.

    Why stop with protection orders?

    How bloody barbaric is this country going to get under Progressive rule?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Griff (13,845 comments) says:

    Might be a good idea to suggest to nursey
    Tag your zimmer frame.
    To stop you attacking random Marxist Hippie Prog Scum Suckers.
    That and a gizmo on your key board so any reference to imaginary commies is deleted and you get a electric shock.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MT_Tinman (4,394 comments) says:

    It’s only men that breach protection orders?

    The story certainly suggests so.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Meatloaf (574 comments) says:

    If we think its ok to put an electronic tag on any particular person, it will no doubt be expanded. And here’s the proof why:
    http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/family-violence/help , if you go to the link you’ll find something very interesting. According to the police, if you want someone to get milk for you, and they say no, and you belittle them, that’s violence if in a relationship. Any physical or psychological pressure to do something is violence. So the white Ribbon Society likes to put men as the heartless violent offenders, so that people will think there is a big problem that only the White Ribbon Society can fix.

    But the reality is, if anyone uses pschological pressure to get you to do something you don’t want it is violence. So if men should be required to have electronic tags, why shouldn’t everybody be required to have electronic tags, how else will you prove that someone has been using pschological violence. So beware of the White Ribbon Society.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tvb (5,518 comments) says:

    Sadly there are men out there who resort to violence if they do not get their way. For many a protection order is just a piece of paper. For men who have a history of violence against women this could be justified providing there is proper Judicial involvement. I am not optimistic District Court Judges will deal with this adequately.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jack5 (9,305 comments) says:

    How about something like this for Kea and other Kiwiblog miscreants working out bans? As soon as they log on to Kiwiblog, the alarm goes and at the same time sends a WiFi signal jamming their modem?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Meatloaf (574 comments) says:

    Well the police’s definition of domestic violence includes psychological cruelty if someone doesn’t get there way. Men aren’t the only violent people. Gone out with many women who use psychological cruelty if they don’t get their way.


    They say 33% of women enter into a violent relationship. That means if 3 women were in a room and each had gone out with 20 men, that’s 60 dates between them. And the statistics would show that at least one of those relationships was violent. Well the men I’ve talked to who are 30+ understand how some women can use mental cruelty, and we all agree that its well above 1 out of 60. And why do they push this, so that we will continue to support the DPB. We can’t get rid of the DPB til we get rid of the White Ribbon Society.

    National is being tough on the DPB, saying you can only move onto the DPB if its a violent relationship, and the White Ribbon Society is their to exaggerate the facts. As soon as they said 33%, they asked me for money. They failed to break it down and say 33% divided by 20 relationships is less than 2%.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. adze (2,133 comments) says:

    I have observed the institutional sexism in the way domestic violence is handled, and treated as a gender issue by lobbyists such as White ribbon. While any domestic violence is abhorrent, the fact is that women are domestic violence perpetrators also. Such incidents are however under reported, and even more rarely prosecuted. I am therefore concerned at the gender-specific language in the former Judge’s comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Meatloaf (574 comments) says:

    Yes, yes adze, finally someone is starting to get the idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Unity (1,474 comments) says:

    If someone has been convicted of violence against a person, whatever sex, then I think tags have merit provided they are issued by carefully selected people under very strict criteria. Protection orders, especially against women, have absolutely no effect at all and are a waste of time. However, if violence has been involved and the perpetrator shows signs of continuing to harass the other person, then tagging should come into effect. All too often jealousy or loss of power is involved and the convicted person becomes even more angry at being excluded and seems to feel that if he/she can’t have the other person then no-one will and that’s when tragedy occurs, not only to the partner but all too often to the children as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Meatloaf (574 comments) says:

    Yes unity, You understand “all is fair in love and war”, and “hell hath no fury like a ____ scorned”. If someone just wants to be loved, any pulling away is going to really hurt them. And yea, I think it should be put on only by those who just won’t take no for an answer, it can be used as a lesson. If you don’t respect the protection orders you will have this thing on you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. rouppe (1,236 comments) says:

    “The former Supreme Court judge leading the Glenn Inquiry wants to electronically tag men on domestic violence protection orders so an alarm sounds if they approach the family home.”

    So they will then just do it somewhere else. Duh! If they really want alerting, then both parties need to be tagged so the alarm goes off when a pair of tags approach each other

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Meatloaf (574 comments) says:

    A+ Rouppe, even i didn’t of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. pcplod (29 comments) says:

    Protection orders are too easy to get which lessens their significance for some in law enforcement. It would be equally valuable to make sure protection orders are taken out for legitimate reasons only and not used for tit-for-tat attacks on former partners. If we want protection orders to be taken seriously we need to be serious about their allocation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Fentex (3,332 comments) says:

    Sounds like a useful solution if properly applied. The call for a cooperative review by all parties is a sensible invitation to figure out in which circumstances applying such technology should occur.

    A defended hearing in front of a judge brought by the police, or person with a protection order, to argue there is a real threat of the order being broken and someone endangered – evidence of previous breaches of protection orders being acceptable cause for the public to initiate the hearing.

    There’s all sorts of way such tags could be used – first txt the wearer to warn them they’re in danger of being fetched by cops for a night in a cell, then summon cops if a breach continues (or the proximity of the offender to the defended gets too close).

    Sounds like a good idea to me if suitable processes are in place to protect everyones rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ross411 (1,748 comments) says:

    I don’t see why this is man-specific, unless someone actually believes it should only be so, and lives a life wearing blinders.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Unity (1,474 comments) says:

    I don’t think it is man-specific Ross. However, the more serious offences, like loss of life, do seem to occur to women but I know women can be very destructive also. If the offence is serious, regardless of the gender, then the same system should apply to either.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    What a ridiculous suggestion.

    Firstly, the orders are often used as a control mechanism by partners, who are happy to see their ex’s in some circumstances and not others. They are also used for negotiation for money, child care etc. Those who are a real threat are the minority.

    Secondly, those that are actually dangerous, and who are a risk to the lives of the ex-partners, are not going to be stopped by an order, or a tag.

    Just how would you make the tag work? You cannot stop a person from being in public, as they would need to work, etc. You cannot lock a person up or restrict them from carrying out the normal business of living, simply because you think they might hurt a particular person or someone is scared of them. You have to have threats etc (law breaking first).

    Sure, you can put some sort of device in the home of the proposed victim, to trigger should the order be broken, but that will just mean that the offenders will attack in another place.

    Why is it, that people insist on thinking that because something sounds rational, it will work? When someone is intent on causing grievous bodily harm, or murder, they aren’t acting rationally, and stupid suggestions like the one above, will only work on a rational mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Crusader (376 comments) says:

    At first glace I thought the headline tag read TAX domestic violence offenders. I wondered what kind of surcharge they were proposing?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Unity (1,474 comments) says:

    Yes, I can certainly see where you are coming from, Judith. There are many protection orders gained by spurious means. However, something needs to be done and if tagging was going to be considered, it shouldn’t just be for everyone on protection orders but only for convicted violent offenders who have already shown they could still be dangerous to the other party.

    However on thinking about the matter I do wonder whether the Police would get there in time anyway if a tagged offender was intent on serious harm to the other party. Their response time and availability is questionable. However, there has to be a way to keep people safe from an ex partner who can’t accept the relationship is over and is deemed to be a continuing danger. Tagging could make the potentially violent person even more angry – another downside, but the safety of the other party needs to be paramount.

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