No Right Turn on the presumption of innocence

July 10th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Idiot/Savant at blogs on ’s policy to require those accused of to prove they had consent:

This clearly violates the presumption of innocence affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act (not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human RightsICCPR, and every other major human rights instrument). Under that presumption, the state has to prove each and every aspect of its case (“the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies”). That’s clearly not the case under Labour’s proposal.

Our Supreme Court has already found that the presumption of supply in the Misuse of Drugs Act violates the Bill of Rights Act for exactly these reasons. They will draw exactly the same conclusion about this proposal – as will the UN Human Rights Commission.

I accept that rape cases are difficult to prove. This change will make them remarkably easier. If Labour gets its way, there will be a lot more convictions for rape. And a lot more of them will be of innocent people. We presume innocence because we believe it is far better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished. Labour clearly does not believe that any more.

A party which does not believe in and will not defend the presumption of innocence does not deserve your vote. All they deserve is your contempt. If they retain this policy, you should not vote Labour.

I can not believe they will not back down on this policy. Surely it is just a matter of time.

I’m surprised the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have been silent on Labour’s policy. It’s hard to think of a policy that strikes more at the heart of the justice system.

Tags: , ,

76 Responses to “No Right Turn on the presumption of innocence”

  1. Harriet (4,970 comments) says:

    The bar has to be kept high in all matters that concern the law. What’s rape got to do with that?

    Wimmin are not above the law Cunliffe! :cool:

    Fuck he’s an idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Keeping Stock (10,339 comments) says:

    It’s not often that I agree with Idiot/Savant, but he is dead right on this issue.

    And with regard to his comment that one should not vote for parties who will not defend the presumption of innocence, it is important to find out what other parties think of Little’s proposal. I would be especially keen to know what the Greens think, given the positive reaction of their MPs last week to Jan Logie’s allegation that the Government was actively encouraging a rape culture in New Zealand. If the Greens come out in support of what Andrew Little and Labour have proposed, one would expect NRT to add them to the list of parties that “deserve your contempt” and not your vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The policy would never ‘just happen’ and I suspect the Law Society etc, because it is an election year, will keep quiet until such time as the matter, if it ever should be, is put before the house. The usual process should be adhered to and the matter would require submissions, which is when groups like the Law Society would get to have their say.

    It is not appropriate (no matter how much you’d like it) for such groups to influence the election with their opinion (if for no other reason that being on at least mutual terms with the next government).

    I also think that DPF is exaggerating the way the change would work, by not adding that the measure of reasonable doubt would also apply. Proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt is a little easier.

    However, either way I don’t approve of the proposed change, although I do approve of attempting to make giving evidence easier on the victims, perhaps by use of technology which would prevent the victim being sat opposite the ‘attacker/offender’, and other such measures. Victims often say that it is not just the questions that upset them, but simply the presence of their attacker that is hard to cope with (understandably).

    Also, the victim deserves the innocent presumption, and many are treated and questioned as if it is they that on trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. fernglas (157 comments) says:

    The policy, if that’s what it is, seems inconsistent with the Labour Party website, which talks about allowing the Law Commission to complete its review of alternative systems while preserving the presumption of innocence. The proposal does just the opposite, if it is implemented within the current criminal justice system. The comparison with the presumption under the Misuse of Drugs Act shows just how wrong it is; at least with drugs the Crown has to prove the commission of a criminal offence, possession of drugs, beyond reasonable doubt, before the presumption kicks in. In this case, all the Crown needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is the commission of a lawful act before an accused would be required to prove innocence. It would be like assuming that everyone driving a car is doing so drunk, and requiring the driver to prove the contrary. For Little to suggest that the proposal somehow relieves the Crown of the obligation to prove a negative is wrong. At present they have to prove that intercourse took place without consent. That is not proving a negative, it is proving the existence of a state of affairs within the knowledge of the complainant.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Gulag1917 (916 comments) says:

    No presumption of innocence = lunatic fringe = political suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. fernglas (157 comments) says:

    Judith, complainants in Court are never “sat opposite” the accused, and in most cases give evidence by audio visual link or from behind screens particularly where the process is likely to be unfairly distressing.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Harriet (4,970 comments) says:

    “…..I’m surprised the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have been silent on Labour’s policy……”

    Imagine going to court presumed guilty?

    Well…..long before that you get interviewed by the police…………..how long do you think it will be before the police start presuming people guilty on a women’s ‘say so’?

    If a women says “I’ve been raped” you’re going directly to court.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Scott1 (552 comments) says:

    ‘It would be like assuming that everyone driving a car is doing so drunk, and requiring the driver to prove the contrary.”

    That is how the law works isn’t it? try refusing an evidential blood test and see where you end up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    ” It would be like assuming that everyone driving a car is doing so drunk, and requiring the driver to prove the contrary.”

    Proving you are not drunk would be easy enough at the time of the alleged offence if testing was available.

    Proving consent (beyond reasonable doubt) at the time of the alleged offence would be more difficult. Proving either months later would be very difficult.

    Ironically under Labour’s proposal a defendant might have to try and prove a complainant was not drunk at the time and capable of giving or implying consent.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Cunliffe was all over the show on Newstalk this morning, and Smalley called it.

    My impression is Cunliffe is flying blind on this, as if he can’t just pick up the phone to Little get the five talking points he needs to speak assertively and in line with Little on the topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ fernglas (90 comments) says:
    July 10th, 2014 at 7:39 am

    In many cases they are sat where they can ‘see’ the person, and not all cases are given by audio visual link, in fact, of the sexual assault trials I have attended, I would say less than half have used that facility, and whilst the Judges are quick to intervene when the victim is treated to harsh questioning, there are many times when the questions are more about proving the victims ‘wrongdoing’ than the crime been committed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Gulag1917 (916 comments) says:

    Two to eight percent of rape complaints are false.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. chris (647 comments) says:

    Proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt is a little easier.

    Really? But that means if there is any doubt at all, then they are guilty.

    I don’t know if you have been on a jury before Judith. I’ve been on two, and the lawyers always bang on about reasonable doubt. And the reason is because if there is any doubt at all, then you cannot convict them. So defense lawyers spend their entire time trying to throw doubt on a case.

    In one of the trials I sat on, we had to find two of the charges as not guilty because there was enough doubt. The other 4 or 5 we found guilty, and that was after something like 4 or 5 hours of deliberation.

    So if they have to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt, they’re in a lot of trouble if someone takes them to court for rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Was watching something on television last night and there was Louise Nicholson talking about a ‘rape culture’ in New Zealand.
    Now I understand Louise has a reason to be angry but a ‘rape culture’?
    It is almost if they want to imitate the Obama’s ‘war on women’ nonsense here.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Harriet (4,970 comments) says:

    “……In one of the trials I sat on, we had to find two of the charges as not guilty because there was enough doubt. The other 4 or 5 we found guilty, and that was after something like 4 or 5 hours of deliberation…………So if they have to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt, they’re in a lot of trouble if someone takes them to court for rape…….”

    I see here the accused having several charges thrown at him, and the jury finds him guilty on the two that they are supposed to find him guilty on. Fair enough.

    I also see the accused facing charges of threatening behaviour, assault against a female, sexual assault, rape.

    And going to court presumed guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Was watching something on television last night and there was Louise Nicholson talking about a ‘rape culture’ in New Zealand.

    ‘Rape culture’ is generally not a useful term because it tends to alienate many people from an important issue but there are some entrenched attitudes in our society that contribute to negative sexual behaviour. For example:

    · Blaming the victim (“She asked for it!”)
    · Trivializing sexual assault (“Boys will be boys!”)
    · Sexually explicit jokes
    · Tolerance of sexual harassment
    · Inflating false rape report statistics
    · Publicly scrutinizing a victim’s dress, mental state, motives, and history
    · Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television
    · Defining “manhood” as dominant and sexually aggressive
    · Defining “womanhood” as submissive and sexually passive
    · Pressure on men to “score”
    · Pressure on women to not appear “cold”
    · Assuming only promiscuous women get raped
    · Assuming that men don’t get raped or that only “weak” men get raped
    · Refusing to take rape accusations seriously
    · Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape

    If you’re sensitive to the term don’t read this.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wreck1080 (3,912 comments) says:

    This reverses a principle of the magna carta does it not?

    Back then, keeping silence was a reason to jail someone.

    if labour do get in and pass this law , there will be a number of travesties of justice.

    I wonder if annette king (or other female labour mp) will then declare that she is sorry for being a woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. chris (647 comments) says:

    I’m not quite sure I understand your point Harriet, although probably that somehow by my post I think rape is OK? Well I don’t. But I do believe in innocence until found guilty. My concern is that a bunch of people (e.g. my sons in about 10 years time) will be found guilty of rape when all they did was have sex with some girl at a party who was perfectly willing at the time but had regrets in the morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Piss off Pete. These things have been well thrashed out for the crap they are.
    do you seriously think most people still think this way.

    I mean look at this one;· Defining “manhood” as dominant and sexually aggressive

    What with all the mamby pamby metro sexuals like your self around.

    what a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    I just heard Cunliffe with that dopey blonde Smalley who supports a change in the system presumably just for rape cases. She has a young son. I bet she would change her mind if he was wrongly charged.

    Gulag: where do you get your figures?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    I’m surprised the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have been silent on Labour’s policy. It’s hard to think of a policy that strikes more at the heart of the justice system.

    They are not bloggers. Professional bodies tend to take their time over tbings like this, to make sure what they say is entirely correct. :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Harriet (4,970 comments) says:

    · Blaming the victim (“She asked for it!”)

    Pete. Being drunk, alone, and in the company of a male you don’t know is irresponsable, as society will always have rapists. ‘She asked for it’ is a slogan.

    · Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape.

    Other than the answer I gave above, we currently teach both. Unless you have a different view of kiwi male fathers and female mothers than I have. Police officers, doctors & teachers are parents.

    And it’s also what we have public lighting for. And consideration given by everyone to women who work at night.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Bob (497 comments) says:

    Making someone prove their innocence is against our concept of justice. However I do think in rape cases an accused’s record should be revealed. It makes a big difference to know he has convictions for assault and rape against women. Of course the principle is that revealing a person’s history would influence a jury against him. That has to be weighed against the near impossibility for the woman to prove it wasn’t consent.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Viking2 – you may have made a point you didn’t intend to make.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape”

    PG: If nurses are getting raped walking to or from their cars at 11pm should we not suggest the take preventive measures?

    If you leave you car unlocked because people should not steal and loose a computer and camera do you think your insurance company would be happy to pay you out.

    If a person has their wallet stolen and they haves their credit cards with the pin numbers written on a bit of paper do you think the bank might blame you?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    First it was ashamed to be a man now it is assumed guilty of rape for being a man. Now you know why you have to stop this by PARTY VOTE NATIONAL AND TEAMKEY

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Paulus (2,627 comments) says:

    Well from today’s many media outbursts the Malaysian Diplomat is guilty before the trial, which is obviously not Sub Judice,
    Why ?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    Over 99% of burglaries are committed by MEN.

    Like it or not,we are all part of burglary culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    If walking lefty caricature Malcom Harbrow can work this out, whats with the rest of the screeching gaggle?

    i am seeing union comms people running hard on this being a good thing, and attacking anyone who dares suggest otherwise. you know, if you point out that innocent people will go to jail, you are apparently whinging about a statistical irrelevance (false rape complaints), and are a rape apologist.

    at the moment i can predict what they will say before they even say it, first they twist what you said to fit their narrative, then they abuse you, then they rant on about something else. i could almost write their posts for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    If nurses are getting raped walking to or from their cars at 11pm should we not suggest the take preventive measures?

    Like what? Employ armed guards? Stay at work all night? Not work? Use taxis with women drivers?

    Or make it safe for them by dealing to sexual predators and not putting all the responsibility on the victims?

    Men get assaulted on the streets at night. What preventative measures should they take?

    I’m wary of where I go at night, but that doesn’t mean I should just accept thugs can have a free pass.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Paulus (2,462 comments) says:
    July 10th, 2014 at 8:39 am

    Has he been charged? If not, the matter is not before the courts, and therefore not subject to the conditions of sub judice.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    Between 1.5% and 90% of rape allegations are false. According to Wikipedia.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    I’m sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    I think I see where this is going. There will be a union men can join that will help them defend themselves against false rape claims. For just $7.50/week you too can pay for Labour party advertising join the I’m a sorry excuse for a man collective.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Labour … what about that guy who ran naked from Annette Kings house saying he was … abused … Who needs to prove their innocence in that case ? Wasn’t it kinda hushed up for political expediency ? Surely to demonstrate you are serious about this kind of policy somebody should have been jailed for being unable to prove they didn’t rape the guy ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    It is interesting that the presumption of innocence for rapists is sacrosanct on Kiwiblog, yet those same people who post with such solemnity about the primacy of the presumption of innocence within the Western judicial system do not apply this standard when the US is carrying out extrajudicial killings throughout the Middle East.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Yoza

    Perhaps you could explain how the judicial process in NZ is comparable to the middle east ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ShawnLH (5,025 comments) says:

    “do not apply this standard when the US is carrying out extrajudicial killings throughout the Middle East.”

    That is because they are not extra-judicial killings. The US is fighting a war, not a court case. The rules are different.

    When the allies invaded Normandy, or bombed Germany itself, were they supposed to to arrest each and every German soldier and hold an individual trial? Were they supposed to try and hold a trial for every German individual before bombing German targets?

    Very silly argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Dear old Yoza…the 60 year old anarchist…all his mates have moved on; his comrades now have pimples while he has arthritis

    Burt: Game set and match to you…the Middle East is a barren wasteland full of fanatics on all sides…The overwhelming majority of New Zealand men have nothing to fear from the US’ policy of taking out civilian combatants…every New Zealand man potentially has something to fear from this lunacy…except Peter George…he has always been saintly.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    They were non-state combatants, so technically yoza is correct; but in my view this only shows that modern warfare has outpaced the old frameworks of jus in bello.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape.

    The facts don’t support this.

    You can’t teach rapists not to rape. 90% of rapes are committed by 3% of men. Most acts of rape are committed by repeat offenders. These are hardened sociopaths – you can’t teach them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    I had a claim of defamation against me , I wasn’t worried because I had spoken the truth.

    they then struck out my defence of truth and honest opinion and went straight to Quantum .

    No judge ever assessed the truth and I was judged solely on the uncorroborated evidence of the person who sought to use the proceedings to pervert the course of justice .

    I found that the NZ bill of rights is already out of step with the Universal declaration of human rights as you only have a fair trial in New Zealand if you are charged with an offence this does not however apply to any one who is proceeded agaisnt under the civil jurisdiction … evidence does not come in to it and neither does truth .

    25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure

    Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:

    (a) the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:

    (b) the right to be tried without undue delay:

    (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:

    (d) the right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt:

    (e) the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence:

    (f) the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution:

    (g) the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:

    (h) the right, if convicted of the offence, to appeal according to law to a higher court against the conviction or against the sentence or against both:

    (i) the right, in the case of a child, to be dealt with in a manner that takes account of the child’s age.

    UN convention states

    Article 10.
    • Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Simon J Taylor (32 comments) says:

    This is rotten to the core.

    … but it may not stop there; others could also get presumption of innocence overturned
    in their special-interest part of the justice system; a very bad slippery slope.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. ShawnLH (5,025 comments) says:

    “hey were non-state combatants, so technically yoza is correct”

    Color me suspicious, but I doubt Yowza’s motivation is a concern for law, it’s just the standard far left anti-Americanism.

    I agree with you about the nature of modern war, especially asymmetric war, out pacing the current legal frameworks, and until those frameworks catch up the US government’s first responsibility is to defend it’s citizens from those who would happily carry out another 911.

    Anyway, this is veering dangerously close to an off topic threadjack so that is my last word on Yowza’s silliness.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (2,855 comments) says:
    July 10th, 2014 at 10:50 am

    [Yoza]“do not apply this standard when the US is carrying out extrajudicial killings throughout the Middle East.”

    That is because they are not extra-judicial killings. The US is fighting a war, not a court case. The rules are different.

    When the allies invaded Normandy, or bombed Germany itself, were they supposed to to arrest each and every German soldier and hold an individual trial?

    The US is not at war with Yemen or Pakistan, yet when a New Zealand citizen is killed in a drone attack carried out against people the US security apparatus allege are involved in terrorist activity the overwhelming response on Kiwiblog is contempt for the presumption of innocence (the Prime Minister even supported the extrajudicial killings).
    Contrast this contempt for the concept of ‘the presumption of innocence’ with the pedestal on which it is placed when applied to alleged rapists.

    You either accept the presumption of innocence is a central tenet of the criminal justice system or you do not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    ‘Rape culture’ is generally not a useful term because it tends to alienate many people from an important issue but there are some entrenched attitudes in our society that contribute to negative sexual behaviour.

    Most of this is nonsense. People joke about violence all the time, yet those same people don’t commit acts of violence. The feminist movement does not understand that people will joke about all sorts of things, but they are very selective about which of those things they will actually do or approve of others doing.

    Note that the same people proposing this are those who said that pornography causes sexual assault. Well, there’s infinitely more porn than ever before due to the internet, yet the armageddon of sexual assault has failed to appear. These are the same losers who think that Grand Theft Auto causes crime.

    There is very little of merit in feminist rape scholarship. Yes, everyone agrees that it is wrong to put victims on trial, and that rape complaints should be taken seriously. But the reason rape prosecutions are not high is that it is an inherently difficult crime to prosecute. People habitually seclude themselves when they have sex, and this often means that it comes down to one person’s word against another’s. At least Labour are being honest in this case, since it’s the goal of many anti rape activists to overturn the presumption of innocence.

    And for all their hooting and hollering, rape is just not a gender crime. The statistics don’t bear that out. Rape is overwhelmingly committed by a very small number of men who have consciously decided to flout society’s rules about sex and consent. They don’t do it because society approves of it, they do it notwithstanding society’s approval, and they do it for a variety of reasons. Most don’t do it as soldiers in a gender war on women, but for their own personal satisfaction.

    Even RAINN thinks that the “rape culture” meme is stupid.

    https://www.rainn.org/news-room/rainn-urges-white-house-task-force-to-overhaul-colleges-treatment-of-rape

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. stephieboy (3,063 comments) says:

    I see Yoza, then Al Qaeda and its affiliates and off shoots by your definition can act with impunity unchecked and the Kiwi joining them, Darryl Jones , does not have to bear the consequences of his actions at all.??
    I doubt if he e.g joined the Chechen Separatists Putin would see it in your way

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    People joke about violence all the time, yet those same people don’t commit acts of violence.

    Do you know that for a fact?

    It’s quite possible that those who joke about violence most are more likely to be violent. But it’s also likely that most people who joke a bit about violence are not violent people.

    But there’s a distinct difference with sexual crime. I doubt that jokes about violence are focused so much on blaming the victim or excusing the crime or portraying it as not actually harmful.

    I agree that the worst of the problem is due to the actions of a a small minority of men, some of whom will be impossible to change.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Do you know that for a fact?

    Yes, for if it were not true, our society would be awash in violence, and it is not. Yet you can tell a comedically violent joke and most people will laugh. The supposed “world’s funniest joke” involves murderous violence. I’ve told that joke to many people as an experiment, and everyone laughs. It’s deeply human to joke about violence. It’s also deeply human to understand that this does not sanction violence.

    It’s quite possible that those who joke about violence most are more likely to be violent. But it’s also likely that most people who joke a bit about violence are not violent people.

    There’s no evidence to suggest that people who joke more about violence are violent. In fact, there’s good reason to think that culture matters very little in many cases of violence, since they involve people losing their temper or otherwise acting with a lack of self control. Hardly anyone who loses their temper follows a chain of reasoning that says “It would be appropriate for me to lose my temper now, so I will”, because losing your temper is not a rational act. Justifications for violence are usually after the fact rather than causative.

    In other words, there’s no real evidence of a causal link, and strong evidence against the kind of causal link supposed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    You want to see what a rape culture looks like? Go to Egypt.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Yoza, that’s just being racist to accuse Obama of assassinating people by drones. You should know that it’s only a war crime when done by a cis-gendered white male.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. stephieboy (3,063 comments) says:

    Yoza finds an unexpected ally in the form of Ed Snack.

    Go the lefties.!

    I wonder if Yoza and Putin are Birthers.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Yes, for if it were not true, our society would be awash in violence, and it is not.

    Many people complain about far too much violence in our society. Violent crime statistics are high. Police have to deal with something like 200 incidents involving family violence per day. That’s a lot of people potentially being adversely affected – and that’s just the reported incidents. far more people, especially kids, suffer a lot in silence.

    Perhaps you think we have acceptable levels of violence but a growing number of people would think otherwise.

    Have you noticed that the target of the ‘world’s funniest joke’ is not the victim?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Contrast this contempt for the concept of ‘the presumption of innocence’ with the pedestal on which it is placed when applied to alleged rapists.

    It’s simple enough – your typical Kiwiblog commenter is pretty sure he isn’t going to be helping Arab nutcases kill people in Yemen at any point, but he can’t rule out the possibility of one of those sluts he stuck it in claiming rape. Therefore, presumption of innocence is of no importance in the first case and vitally important in the second. A philosophy predicated on “What’s in my best interest here?” always offers a simple answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Many people complain about far too much violence in our society. Violent crime statistics are high.

    Violent crime has been on the wane in western societies for 20 years now. You need to stop listening to the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

    Nevertheless, if everyone who laughed at violent jokes or played violent video games became violent, we would be living through an apocalypse.

    Perhaps you think we have acceptable levels of violence but a growing number of people would think otherwise.

    Don’t be stupid. The acceptable level of violence is zero. That’s not the issue. The issue is causation and the crazy culturalist assumptions about it. You have no evidence or argument and have provided none.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Your typical Dim-Post commenter has just been championing – “In light of recent social welfare policy changes, this couldn’t be more timely.”
    http://kumararepublic.blogspot.co.nz/2011/12/modest-proposal-indeed.html

    How do you think the same satirical approach to rape would go down Psycho Milt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    “You have no evidence or argument and have provided none.”

    You have no evidence or argument and have provided none.

    “Nevertheless, if everyone who laughed at violent jokes or played violent video games became violent, we would be living through an apocalypse.”

    I didn’t claim we’ve had a sudden increase of violence. Violence and rape supporting behaviours have been around for a lot longer than video games.

    Nor did I claim that everyone who trivialises does, in fact I said that wasn’t the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ShawnLH (5,025 comments) says:

    “You either accept the presumption of innocence is a central tenet of the criminal justice system or you do not.”

    It’s a WAR you idiot. We are not tracking down and killing robbers and rapists, we are fighting a large, well funded, global army of terrorists.

    There is NO reasonable excuse as to why any NZ or Aussie or Brit citizen would be hanging out with these people unless they were at the very least sympathetic.

    So if a NZ citizens chooses to join them then they have chosen to join an army fighting a war, led by people who would not hesitate to kill me, my wife and my entire family if they could.

    So, let’s be clear. FUCK you’r rabid lefty excuses for them, and your lefty notions as to innocence. It’s just bullshit to cover your pathetic hatred towards my country, no different to your attempts to whitewash the mass murder you’r commie comrades engaged in.

    You don’t care about justice or the law. You just want Israeli and American blood to flow.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (2,189 comments) says:
    July 10th, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    An objective observer could, from reading Kiwiblog, conclude the judicial system is an instrument intended to preserve the supremacy of the privileged white male rather than an institution designed to treat all as equals through which the powerless can correct wrongs committed against them by the powerful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Yoza

    A subjective observer could infer many things from reading Kiwiblog. We do however know that the NZ judicial system isn’t exactly reserving it’s privilege for white males.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    There are two people:

    A heavily armed individual working amongst other likeminded heavily armed individuals to rob and kill people they don’t agree with.

    A captured prisoner standing trial for a crime.

    Which one of these people is powerful and which one is powerless?

    Bet you can’t answer the question without referring to race, gender or sexuality profiling.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    burt (7,719 comments) says:
    July 10th, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    Yoza

    A subjective observer could infer many things from reading Kiwiblog. We do however know that the NZ judicial system isn’t exactly reserving it’s privilege for white males.

    So if I researched the gender and ethnicity of all of our judges, QCs, barristers, etc, I would discover they reflect the demographic make up of New Zealand society?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Yoza

    Not at all, the chief judges in all jurisdictions are female. It’s a disgrace right – you’re protesting against that right ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    If rapes occur with higher prevalence in prison than in the general population and you want to prevent rapes from occurring – how does it follow that you want to send more non-violent, innocent people to prison?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    How do you think the same satirical approach to rape would go down Psycho Milt?

    Unfortunately, since Sheikh Hilali gave his “uncovered meat” sermon, there isn’t anything Swiftian you could write about rape that readers could be sure was actually meant to be satirical.

    An objective observer could, from reading Kiwiblog, conclude the judicial system is an instrument intended to preserve the supremacy of the privileged white male rather than an institution designed to treat all as equals through which the powerless can correct wrongs committed against them by the powerful.

    Really? I’m not very objective, but reading Kiwiblog usually gives me the impression that the judicial system is one in which namby-pamby Labour sympathisers and liberal female judges trample the rights of proper Kiwi good cunts underfoot every day of the week…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    PM and Yoza : congratulations. You both think war ought to be illegal. Let’s get the UN on the line and make it happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    I haven’t read all the comments above so apologies if someone has already raised this but there is a precedence and that is tax law. As far ago as when I studied tax law the rule was the IRD could send you an assessment and unless you could prove you didn’t owe the tax due then the Court would order you to pay or go to jail so this is just an extension of that long standing law.

    Now I have always disagreed with that law for the same reason as stated in the case of rape. Rather that one sinner goes free than 100 are wrongly convicted.

    You wont have the lawyers trade union or other groups supporting this concept as they can see big buck fees coming their way with the Courts being full of wrongly accused men all having to hire $500 hour briefs to try and stay out of jail and failing when the feminazi Courts find the men guilty as charged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    Oh and while we are at it why not bring back the ducking stools. For those who don’t know you are tied to a stool and dropped into the water. If you drown you are innocent if you survive you are guilty.

    Simple really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. MH (753 comments) says:

    where are the ethnic statistics for this rape culture,and which race is subject to being raped more ? Lets be honest. perhaps we need focused advertising similar to anti smoking campaigns. Will Labour and the greens agree ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    MH

    Yoza’s apparently the one who’s onto the ethnic/gender blame game. Yoza’s bound to want to discuss that one.

    I wonder if an OIA could be used to determine that ?

    All rape should be punished IMHO so please don’t misread my meaning using the word ‘bad’ in my next sentences as to imply I would say any level is ok. It’s not.

    I think a bad rape culture is a culture where rape is either rarely or never reported. Rape reporting rates are always hotly disputed, but it seems to me we have made enormous progress on this over the last 3 decades. That’s not to say I think currently nearly all rape is reported, I doubt it is.

    Talking to people who’ve been involved in various roles in our legal and judicial systems as I have done over the years the theme of ‘not all rape complaints are valid’ always raises it’s head from time to time. It’s possibly this reality that has historically ended in situations where law enforcement officers didn’t handle all cases with the diplomacy and process that we have mandated today.

    Labour have lost the plot here IMHO. It seems horrific to say it, but is Labour really positioning itself to be the party of man haters? Is that it’s political future ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. OneTrack (3,093 comments) says:

    burt – “Is that it’s political future ?”

    Cunliffe says he is already there. Can you think of any Labour MP who isn’t?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    burt (7,721 comments) says:
    July 10th, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    MH

    Yoza’s apparently the one who’s onto the ethnic/gender blame game. Yoza’s bound to want to discuss that one.

    I wonder if an OIA could be used to determine that ?

    All rape should be punished IMHO so please don’t misread my meaning using the word ‘bad’ in my next sentences as to imply I would say any level is ok. It’s not.

    I think a bad rape culture is a culture where rape is either rarely or never reported. Rape reporting rates are always hotly disputed, but it seems to me we have made enormous progress on this over the last 3 decades. That’s not to say I think currently nearly all rape is reported, I doubt it is.

    Talking to people who’ve been involved in various roles in our legal and judicial systems as I have done over the years the theme of ‘not all rape complaints are valid’ always raises it’s head from time to time. It’s possibly this reality that has historically ended in situations where law enforcement officers didn’t handle all cases with the diplomacy and process that we have mandated today.

    Labour have lost the plot here IMHO. It seems horrific to say it, but is Labour really positioning itself to be the party of man haters? Is that it’s political future ?

    Rather than going with anecdotes from people you have met you could read academic studies which carefully document available data.

    Rape is rarely reported, according to the Ministry of Justice only 1 in 10 rapes are reported.

    Unfortunately, rapists do not stand out People who perpetrate sexual violence come from all racial, cultural, age and socio-economic groups. They are more likely to be male. Reporters cannot expect they will be easily identifiable as rapists in the rest of their lives, where they may well be good employees, neighbours and family members.

    Most perpetrators are undetected precisely because they do not “look like a rapist.”
    People often find it difficult to understand horrific crimes being perpetrated by people with status and respect who they may see as role models.

    Research shows:

    90% of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child known to the family

    Adult sexual assault is more likely to be committed by a person known to the survivor

    Over 1 in 3 sexual offences are committedby current partners

    1 in 4 are committed by friends

    1 in 10 are committed by a boyfriend

    1 in 20 are committed by a work colleague

    Police report that 8% of rape cases are false allegations, which is a minute amount when taking into account that this is 8% of the 10% of instances of rape reported to police.

    From the same report.

    Sexual violence is the fifth most common offence in New Zealand, but the crime least commonly reported to New Zealand Police

    Most survivors do not report sexual violence because of fear, shame and beliefs they will be blamed. Cases in the criminal justice system are the tip of the iceberg

    Making the justice system less traumatic for the victims of sexual violence is hardly becoming the …party of man haters”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    “Making the justice system less traumatic for the victims of sexual violence is hardly becoming the …party of man haters”.”

    Well that depends on how they plan to go about it, doesn’t it? Which is the whole point.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Disgraceful, but is it any less principled than National’s repeal of provocation because one person tried to use it and failed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    Well that depends on how they plan to go about it, doesn’t it?

    Newspapers huh..

    He clarified that Labour favoured the system, but its official policy is to have the Law Commission complete its report into inquisitorial systems, and then respond to that report.

    Former Justice Minister Simon Power was a supporter of inquisitorial systems and asked the Law Commission to investigate. But his successor, Judith Collins, has called the system is “a step too far” and stopped the commission’s work.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11289979

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    Just read the report and the police surveys (2006 & 2010) its stats were based on.

    Only 11% of the unreported cases were due a lack of evidence as percieved by the accuser. Removing almost all evidential standards from the accuser (they still have to prove a sexual act took place) might change the mind of 60% of these people (yes – that is a generous assessment).

    Labours policy (or have they changed it again, which way is the wind blowing?) – is to have 84% of rapes go unreported and lock up more innocent people.

    Nationals policy is to have 90% of rapes go unreported and lock up less innocent people.

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