Kiwiblog

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

National backbencher Paul Quinn has apologised for remarking “there is a real issue with young ladies getting drunk” during a debate about rape.

The list MP defended his comments by saying he misunderstood the question because of background noise.

And he was forced to issue an apology on Twitter after a storm of negative feedback on the micro-blogging network.

He posted: “Sorry I did not hear what she had said. So my answer was totally out of context and I know that short skirts are not provocation.”

It is very very noisy in the pub at Backbenches.  Adam Bennett in the NZ Herald reports:

Greens co-leader Russel Norman, who was sitting next to Mr Quinn, said the National MP had turned to him and told him he had been unable to hear the presentation properly.

“He seemed genuine,” he said

I think Russel’s comments make it very clear that Paul did not hear the context to the question.

In terms of the substance, I always find it useful to differenitiate between blame and safety. In terms of blame, the victim is never to blame for being raped. Nothing justifies rape = ever.

The Lady Garden blogs:

For the record, I could give a dude a blowjob in a bar bathroom, and if he then forced himself on me, it wouldn’t be my fault. Get it?

I agree entirely.

To use a well known example, if Mike Tyson invites you back to his hotel room at 2 am, and then has sex with you against his will, you are not to blame, he is. And in this case he was convicted of rape as he should have been.

However if a female friend of mine told me that Mike Tyson has asked her back to his hotel room at 2 am, my advice would be not to go – or at least not to go alone, as you might not be safe.

Likewise if you get invited to a party at the Mongrel Mob fortress, again my advice would be not to go. If you did go, and got raped, it would be entirely the responsibility of the Mongrel Mob rapists, but as we do not live in a perfect world, reducing risk is often a sensible thing to do.

This is not just about rape. If I was wearing a $20,000 Rolex and had $50,000 of cash on me, and attended said Mongrel Mob party, then there is an increased risk I’ll get beaten up and robbed. I would be the victim, and 100% not to blame. The muggers would be to blame. However I’d probably conclude not to attend any more Mongrel Mob parties with Rolexes.

It is NEVER a rape-victim’s fault that they were attacked. The responsibility lies with the criminal, and the criminal alone. Clothes, behaviour, what they’ve had to drink, their sexual past, proclivities, and promises are no fucking excuse, and don’t come into it at all.

I agree. They are no excuse, and all the blame lies with the criminal. It is atrocious that some men can’t accept this, and commit rape. It is a hideous crime.

However, and I say this with genuine concern, one does have to accept we don’t live in a perfect crime free world. And it is worth taking steps to minimise the probability of crime. No I don’t mean dressing like nuns and being a teetotaller. I do mean however being aware that if you get pissed, you may not be as able to prevent a crime occuring. So if you are getting pissed, maybe make sure you have a more sober friend with you.

Whn going home after a night out, consider the relative dangers of walking home vis a taxi. There are some suburbs that would not be particularly safe for either men or women to be going through at 3 am. if you get mugged or raped, of course you are not to blame because you took a short cut through (for example) Cannons Creek. But knowing we do not live in a crime free society, it might be a good idea not to do so.

It would be nice if we could leave our front doors unlocked and the car keys in our cars, without them being stolen. And if they are stolen, the thief is to blame. But generally I wouldn’t recommend people leave their car keys in their ignition.

Now again, I am in no way saying that women should not go out, should not drink alcohol, should not wear what they like, just to minimise the chance of rape.  All I’m trying to say is there are some evil bastards out there, and to use some common sense when out on the town – to look after each other.

AP reports:

The leader of the International Monetary Fund, a possible candidate for president of France, was pulled from an airplane moments before he was to fly to Paris and is being questioned by police in connection with the sexual assault of a hotel maid.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn was taken off the Air France flight at John F. Kennedy International Airport by officers from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and turned over to police Saturday afternoon, said Paul J. Browne, New York Police Department spokesman.

He was being questioned by the NYPD special victims office. Strauss-Kahn had retained an attorney and was not making statements to the police, Browne said. No charges have yet been filed.

The 32-year-old woman told authorities that she entered Strauss-Kahn’s room at the Sofitel near Manhattan’s Times Square at about 1pm Eastern (1600 GMT) Saturday and he emerged from the bedroom naked, threw her down and attacked her, Browne said.

She told authorities that he tried to force her to perform oral sex on him. She somehow broke free and escaped the room and told hotel staff what had happened, authorities said. They called police.

This will be one of the trials of the decade, if the allegations are correct.

He was not just a possible candidate for President of France, but I would say the clear favourite to becomes the 34th President of the Republic.

Incidentially he was accused of attempted rape in 2002 by the then 23 year old Tristane Banon.

Many will have seen the story about the Swedish Police announcing rape charges had been filed against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The charges have now been dropped.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. In fact I like to mock people who think Bush planned 9/11 etc.

But I have to say that when I heard of the rape charges against Assange, my first reaction was to wonder “How the hell did the NSA manage to arrange that?”

I came accross a new website here the other day, called Kuwait Exposed , where people can anonymously post their “confessions”. While most of the posts are pretty lame and rather whiny, I was disgusted to read a confession of rape .  I’m inclined to believe it as genuine following the poster’s further comment in response to some of the other comments (where he was stupid enough to use his own name – not that that’ll assist in any legal action, which is highly unlikely to eventuate in any case).

It’s surprisingly easy enough to live in a place like this and let the dichotomy of an expat vs Kuwaiti view on the world pass you by, and many people do, despite experiencing the differences on a daily basis.

What struck me most about this “confession” was the reaction in the comments. This creature says he loves this poor girl, whom he has raped.  He seems to realise on some level that what he has done is wrong, but he still sees her as the future wife and mother of his children.

And many of the commenters seem to as well! For example:

” Telling ur mother idf the best thing to do even taking her with u wen u are going to Apologize, the virginity thing could be fixed only if she have an adult helping her. Then if u truly wanna show her that u love her ask ur mam to call hers and engage her to u !” [sic]

“If you really love her and want to make it up, there is a way you could do it. if I were in your place, I would go and ask for her hand in marriage.”

Some don’t even see a need to confess: “what’s left is between you and God”

The comments about the need/ability to “fix” a loss of virginity have got to stop you in your tracks also.

Compare that to comments from those with Western names.

The Court of Appeal released last week their decision in R v AM. The individual decision about MA is not of as much interest as the fact the Court has used the case to quite radically change the way courts assess what term of imprisonment should apply.

Rape has a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment and in 1994 the Court of Appeal in R v A ruled that the starting point was 8 years, and there was a large number of factors which could push that up or down.

The result of R v A is that almost all sentences tended to cluster around the starting point, and relatively few got near the maximum, or at the other end, got near the minimum. It also led to some lack of consistency.

In R v AM, the Court of Appeal has devised for bands of offending for rape, and three for unlawful sexual connection. They are:

1. Rape 1 – 6 to 8 years
2. Rape 2 – 7 – 13 years
3. Rape 3- 12 – 18 years
4. Rape 4 – 16 – 20 years

And

1. USC 1 – 2 to 5 years
2. USC 2 – 4 to 10 years
3. USC 3 – 9 to 18 years

Before I detail what qualifies for each band, I have to say I think the decision is a significant improvement for sentencing. It has bee frustrating that no matter how vile the crime, very few people ever get close to the maximum sentence. This should result in the very worst rapes getting sentences close to the 20 year maximum.

The decision gives a lot of examples of how existing cases would fit into each band, and whether they would be at the lower or upper ends. It is a very detailed sentencing guide. To some degree it shows why there is no need to have a Sentencing Council, as legislated by the last Government. The Court of Appeal looks to be filling that niche quite nicely.

The description of the activity which falls in each band is summarised here:

1. Rape Band 1 (6 to 8 yrs) – offending at the lower end of the spectrum where there are no aggravating factors, no serious violence, no abduction, the victim is not very young or very old.
2. Rape Band 2 (7 to 13 yrs) – involves moderate violence, pre-meditation, a rape involving more than one offender, or an especially vulnerable victim
3. Rape Band 3 (12 to 18 yrs) – offending with serious additional violence, wit multiple (three or more) aggravating factors. For particularly cruel, callous or violent rapes.
4. Rape Band 4 (16 to 20 yrs) – for multiple offending over considerable periods of time, gang or pack rape.

These guidelines are binding on all lower courts from the 31st of March. It will be interesting to see how it impacts sentencing. The Court has said it does not expect the average term of imprisonment to increase (it has already increased from 7 yrs 3 mths in 1996 to 8 yrs 3 mths) but that there will be a greater variety of sentences – more at the top end, and more at the lower end.

It is worth noting that the above focuses on the initial sentence for the offending. Courts also then take into account the circumstances of the offender. Also if an offender pleads guilty their setence is normally reduced by 10% to 33% depending on how early in the process they plead guilty.

The case judgement, from a legal point of view, is a very interesting one. On an emotional front, it was pretty gruesome reading the summarised details of around 52 rape and unlawfu sexual connection cases. I can only imagine what the trauma must have been like for the victims.

The Herald editorial says:

According to retired Court of Appeal Court judge Justice Ted Thomas, the present trial system is “brutalising and distressing” for complainants in sex cases. For that reason, it is unsurprising that many victims of rape are deterred from coming forward. Ways must be found to reverse that and to act on a Ministry of Women’s Affairs study that concluded only 13 per cent of sexual violation cases reported to police ended in conviction.

I agree. But I also note that already the NZ Herald is using the wrong stat from the MWA study. That 13% includes complaints found to be false, and I am sure the Herald is not wanting to imply that there should be more convictions based on false complaints. The figure the Herald should be citing is that only 20% of “valid” complaints led to a conviction.

A core recommendation would allow an accused’s past sex convictions and the complainant’s past complaints to be disclosed. This would address the considerable public disquiet following the acquittals three years ago of former policemen Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum and Clint Rickards on sex charges in the Louise Nicholas case. After the trial, it was revealed that Shipton and Schollum were already in prison after being found guilty in 2005 of the pack rape of a young woman at Mt Maunganui in 1989 – information that could not be disclosed to the jury previously.

Other taskforce proposals include giving judges the ability to direct juries that they may draw an “adverse inference” if an accused opts to stay silent, and to also direct that “beyond reasonable doubt” does not mean “no doubt” the accused is guilty.

In essence three major changes are proposed

1. Allowing details of previous convictions
2. Allowing a jury to draw an adverse inference from an accused staying silent, and presumably not testifying
3. Stressing that reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt

There are reasonable arguments for and against such changes. My position though is that any such changes must apply to all criminal cases, not just sex cases. Why would you give more (or less) rights to those accused of murder, kidnapping, grievous assault, armed robbery etc etc.

It would be seriously unjust that if someone is accused of killing someone they have the right to remain silent, but if they are accused of rape, they lose the right to remain silent (without adverse inferences).

Also why would you have a system which allowed a jury to know someone accused of rape had a previous rape conviction, but not that someone accused of armed robbery had previous convictions for armed robbery?

I’ve finally discovered something useful done by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. They have published a study into why so few sexual assault complaints result in convictions, and it is full of interesting stats. The study is of 1,955 police files relating to sexual assaults upon an adult from July 2005 to Dec 2007.

68% of the files involved rape, 22% unlawful sexual connection, 7% attempted sexual violation and 3% other.

So one third of complaints are not about a valid offence. We learn that 8% were classified as false complaints, so presumably the other 26% were complaints that were not deemed to involve illegal behaviour.

Of the remaining 66% of valid offences, one sixth did not have a suspect identified which brings it down to 55%. A surprisingly high 44% of cases with an identified suspect are not prosecuted meaning 31% of all complaints result in prosecution. And of those 42% resulted in a conviction.

This means overall only 13% of complaints lead to a conviction. However the more useful figure is that 20% of “valid” complaints lead to a conviction.

So let us first look at cases not deemed valid.

‘False complaints’ were defined as cases in which the complainant was charged or warned for making a false complaint. In ‘false complaint’ cases for which further information was noted in the summary data set, the two most common file notes were that the complainant had admitted the allegation was false and that the evidence did not support the complaint. The victim had an intellectual disability or a psychiatric condition or had made previous allegations in around a third of cases.

If 8% of 1,955 cases were “false” that is 156 cases.

So what about the other cases deemed not valid:

The ‘no offence’ category accounted for 34 percent of recorded cases (including the 8 percent designated ‘false complaints’), which was lower than the 45 percent ‘no offence’ rate found in a 1981 New Zealand study (Stace, 1983).

So the category has dropped in frequency.

At least one in five cases did not proceed due to victim withdrawal. That is, the investigating officer recorded that the victim did not want to proceed with the investigation or was uncooperative or could not be contacted. Withdrawn cases were more likely than other cases to involve an offender who was an ex-partner or boyfriend. The police files noted a variety of reasons for a victim not wanting to proceed, including that the victim wanted the offender warned or trespassed but not prosecuted; someone else reported the incident or the victim was pressured to report; the victim had limited recall of the incident; the victim wanted to report the incident or seek advice but take no further action; or the victim did not feel able to proceed, was not ready to proceed or felt threatened.

It is a shame so many victims withdraw, but I can understand why. Now why do one sixth of valid cases not have an identified suspect?

The most common factors in cases with no identified suspect were that the victim withdrew from the process, there was insufficient evidence to identify a suspect who was a stranger to the victim, or the victim had limited recall due to intoxication.

So why were there no charges in 44% of cases with an identified suspect?

The prosecution rate (percentage of cases with charges laid) was 31 percent based on all recorded cases or 46 percent if ‘no offence’ cases were excluded from the base. The prosecution rate for cases involving multiple offences was much higher than for single-offence cases and thus the prosecution rate based on recorded offences (49 percent) was higher than the prosecution rate for cases (31 percent).

Cases in which a known suspect was not charged tended to involve either victim withdrawal or insufficient and/or conflicting evidence.

What is interesting is that victim withdrawal is a common factor at almost every stage. It is a major factor in cases not being deemed valid, in no suspect being identified and in no prosecution being undertaken.

I wonder what the attrition rate at each stage would be, if there was no victim withdrawal? That would be a useful piece of data.

It seems clear that the most significant way to increase the prosecution rate of sexual assaults, would be to have fewer victims withdraw. But that is easier said that done. Many victims can have very valid reasons for not wanting the trauma of a court case.

Some interesting other factors:

• Rape cases had higher attrition rates at almost every stage of the justice process, compared with other offences.
• The 18 percent of cases that involved more than one offence were much more likely to proceed through all stages and result in a conviction than cases involving a single offence.
• The majority of offenders were previously known to the victim, with stranger assaults accounting for just 16 percent of cases and offenders just met (within the last 24 hours) accounting for a further 15 percent of cases.
• A third of cases involved victims and offenders with intimate relationships
• Attacks by a stranger were more often associated with ‘false complaints’
• However, if prosecuted, stranger attacks were much more likely to result in a conviction, giving these cases a relatively high overall conviction rate. (this is logical, as it is harder for the defendant to claim consent if they were strangers)
• Current partners and boyfriends had a high prosecution rate but a very low conviction rate for sexual violation (also no surprise as issues of consent much harder to determine)
• Offenders who were family members had high prosecution and conviction rates relative to other offenders (and again this is logical as few family members ever have consensual sex)
• Cases were more likely to be classified as ‘no offence’ if the victim was uncertain whether violation had occurred. The victim was uncertain in about one in seven cases, and this factor was strongly linked to alcohol or other drug use. (that is a disturbing stat)

They also list factors that do not affect attrition:

• Region (except Akl City has lower level of no offence cases)
• Victim Gender
• Victim Ethnicity
• Victim Origin
• Victim Criminal History
• Victim is a sex worker
• Offender Gender
• Offender Age
• Offender Ethnicity
• Offender Origin
• Incident Timing

This is actually very pleasing. It would be a concern if the demographics of either the victim or offender caused a lower or higher attrition rate in terms of prosecution or conviction.

Also some interesting stats on the 31% of cases that had charges laid:

• 16% plead guilty
• 30% had the case withdrawn or discharged
• 52% went to trial
• Of those that went to trial 50.5% were acquitted and 49.5% found guilty

This is a really invaluable report, full of data. It has certainly given me a much better understanding of how the justice system deals with sexual assault complaints, and should be very useful for policy makers as they seek to improve the system.

Some pretty revolting blind eyes being turned in the movie world, as reported in the Herald:

Petitions from leading film directors and other cinema figures, including one signed by the celebrated Polish director, Andrzej Wajda, focused most of their anger on the Swiss authorities. The fact that the Polish-born Mr Polanski was arrested as he arrived to receive a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich film festival was, they said, “a provocation”.

No a provocation is the fact he allegedly raped a 13 year old girl, and fled the country.

A leading French director, Bertrand Tavernier, said: “The Swiss are extraordinary. Here is a law which is supposed to combat drug-trafficking and tax evasion and the first victim they pick on is an artist.”

Oh how dare they pick on an artist. The shame, the shame. Artists are all good noble people.

He did not get arrested because he is an artist. He got arrested because he is an (alleged) child rapist.

The Swiss Economy Minister, Doris Leuthard, rejected suggestions that the arrest was intended to ease strained relations between Switzerland and the US. An extradition treaty between Washington and Berne obliged Switzerland to act, without question, on any arrest warrant issued by the US authorities, she said. The international outcry on Mr Polanski’s behalf implied that there should be a law for ordinary people and another for celebrated film directors, she suggested.

That is precisely what they are saying it seems.

In a radio interview, the French Foreign Minister, Mr Kouchner, said that the Californian and Swiss authorities had acted unreasonably. “It’s a little sinister, this business, to be quite frank,” Mr Kouchner said. “A man of such talent, recognised throughout the world … All this is not nice.”

Being arrested for rape is not nice I agree. Being raped as a 13 year old is even worse I would say. The only sinister aspect is that France has sheltered him for so long.

The jury of the Zurich film festival … accused the Swiss government of “philistine collusion” with the US.

Oh yes those cultural philistines. How dare they arrest a movie director for child rape. Don’t those philistines know it is okay if you are an artist.

The jury’s president, the American actress Debra Winger, said: “[The arrest] is based on a three-decade-old case that is all but dead but for minor technicalities.”

So if you flee overseas, then the case should be dropped if you do it for long enough.

When news of his arrest first came through I was thinking hey maybe they should not send him to jail. But the more the cultural elite complain about what has happened, the harsher I think the sentence should be.

The Herald reports Simon Power has clarified:

Mr Power gave further details of his proposal yesterday, saying it was aimed at cases where the complainant’s relationship with the accused was raised. This would only happen if the judge gave prior permission.

I said yesterday I supported restrictions on questions about the complainant’s previous sexual relationships.

However I have to say I think it would be pretty dangerous to ban any evidence or questions about the actual history and relationship of the complainant and accused. This seems to me incredibly relevant – especially when a trial has consent as the only disputed fact.

Considering there are a significant number of false complaints made, this could lead to more innocent people going to jail. And I am reminded of the maxim better 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent person is jailed.

The Herald reports:

The sexual history of rape-case complainants may no longer be able to be raked over by defence lawyers in potentially far-reaching reforms proposed by Justice Minister Simon Power.

He is considering making evidence about a complainant’s previous sexual relationships inadmissible without the agreement of the trial judge.

I am broadly supportive of such a move, but have to admit I thought there already were restrictions on such details being detailed in court? One of our friendly defence lawyers want to clarify.

There are some occasions where past relationships could be material. If for example a complainant said she did not consent as it was their first date, and she would never sleep with someone the day she met them – then evidence that she is lying and has had a one night stand before would be relevant. But only because it is contradicting a claim she made. If she made no such claim, then I would say it is not relevant how many one night stands a complainant may have had.

Mr Power said rather than the complainant being ambushed in court with cross-examination about her past, a judge should first rule on its relevancy.

Which seems sensible.

He also proposes changing the definition of consent so someone would have to say “yes”, rather than the current law where a defendant is able to argue the woman did not say “no”.

Here I have to say, the proposal is impractical. Power isn’t exactly proposing this change – more just floating the possibility. But I think consent is often implicit, not explicit, based on how someone responds to you. I think Canada may have gone down this path, but to me it reeks of almost having to sign a statutory declaration of consent before sex.

Mr Power has also asked the Law Commission to investigate introducing a European-style inquisitorial justice system in sexual offending cases.

He said using such as system – where the judge is involved in collecting and determining the facts of the case – instead of the adversarial system that required “harrowing” cross-examination of victims was “worth a look”.

Fairly openminded on this. Fair to say though a high level of persuasion would be needed to change from the current system.

Mr Power says alcohol – a “facilitator” for crime – has to be dealt with if the Government is to have any impact on the crime rate. He says this will be done in one package of law reform this parliamentary term and will take into account the ongoing work of the Law Commission. It has already suggested limiting the opening hours of liquor shops and bars, raising the drinking age to 19 or 20 and increasing tax on alcohol.

I hope his comments do not mean the Government will just automatically legislate whatever the Law Commission recommends. The quality and relevance of the research they have used to date in citing the need for change has been seriously lacking.

Simon also announced his views on the provocation partial defence, which I will deal with in another post. His speech is online here and is a very good read. I’m incredibly impressed by the pace of work by Simon – he has achieved a lot in six months and by the end of his first term, will have a huge amount of law reform behind him.

On a final note did anyone else see Valerie Morse on TV last night holding up a sign calling for all prisons to be abolished at Simon’s speech. I’d like to ask Valerie what she thinks should happen to Clayton Weatherston and Graeme Burton. I guess she’ll just claims they are victims of the colonialist capitalist oppressors.

While I comment on a number of crime stories, I generally try and avoid comment on rape cases where the only issue is consent (ie both parties agree there was sex) as it comes down to who you believe more, rather than forensic evidence or eye witnesses. And if you were not in the room you can’t be sure.

But I am glad to see the Judge stop the trial of Mark Tulloch, throwing the charge out after the third day. On the basis of the media reports (and yes I know that can be dangerous) it is difficult to see how there was ever a credible case that had any chance of conviction. I can just assume that as the accused was a Police recruit, the Police decided they had to charge him so they can’t be accused of doing a Rotorua.

False accusations do imense damage. Not just to the accused, but to all the genuine victims of rape who have to battle suspicion and sometimes hostility.

Convicted pack rapist Brad Shipton is out of prison after serving just three years of an eight and a half year sentence.

Why is he out so early?

Because Phil Goff changed the law in 2001/02.

Prisoners who were rapists or other violent criminals were previously ineligible for parole until two thirds of their sentence. Labour changed the law in 2001/02 to allow rapists to be eligible for parole after one third of their sentence.

God knows why. Maybe someone could ask them.

TV3 reported tonight that the parole board is letting pack rapist Brad Shipton out of jail in a couple of weeks despite the fact he hasn’t served even three years of his eight and a half year sentence.

How is it possible a pack rapist gets out of jail so quickly?

The answer is that Labour changed the law in 2001. Before they changed the law Shipton would have served around a minimum of six years of his sentence. But Labour changed the law to allow rapists to be eligible for parole after just one third of their sentence instead of two thirds.

This is the same Government that has also just made it easier for repeat offenders to get bail.

Stephen Franks blogs on the battle to save Crossways in Mt Victoria. I will be blogging on this myself during the week. It will be a tragedy if Mt Victoria loses what has been a focal point for the community. The City Council is justifying its lack of support by saying residents have lots of cafes nearby unlike suburbs further away from the city centre. A very very weak argument.

Keeping Stock blogs on an alarming suggestion by Auckland lawyer Catriona McLennan on Nine to Noon. She suggests that in rape trials, the burden of proof should be on the accused to prove there was consent. And this is not just a throw-away remark – she actually argues in favour of it against Kathryn Ryan for some time.

Whale Oil has been threatened with defamation by a lawyer acting for Pearl Going, who objects to comments he had made on her. The material has been removed from his blog after the blog hosting company was also threatened, but copies have sprung up on a dedicated blog hosted overseas.

I don’t intend to comment of the substance of the allegedly defamatory material, but would note that pressuring hosting companies to remove material, even after the blog author has asserted it is not defamatory and is willing to defend it in court, is not a particularly sensible tactic as it is so easy for the material to appear elsewhere – as has happened. Also of interest is that the lawyer for Pearl Going is Steven Price, who was very critical of the Listener for threatening the Hot Topic blogger with defamation.

This should not be taken as a suggestion that defamation laws do not or should not apply to the Internet. Of course they do. But more the appropriateness of targetting blog hosts if the blog author is willing to stand by their words and accept legal consequences for them.

The Dim Post has more satire, this one on how Winston is handling the Owen Gelnn scandal:

• Monday 2:00 PM: Hires two identical twins as press secretaries, one of whom always tells the truth while the other always lies.

• Wednesday 11:30 AM: Announces to press conference that he will explain everything but in doing so will be forced to reveal the secret surprise ending to Battlestar Galactica. Political media beg him to remain silent.

• Thursday 6:35 PM: Notifies Speaker Margaret Wilson that he is officially changing his alignment to Neutral Evil.

• Friday 10:30 AM: Recieves report back from Department of Statistics confirming that proportion of New Zealanders with IQ below 90 is still greater than 5%. Laughs heartily. Tells rest of country to go fuck themselves.

Heh.

Liberty Scott pings Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn for his comments on Gordon Brown approving a state funeral for Margaret Thatcher when she dies. The offending quote:

“On the plus side, it will at least give her victims a final chance to throw excrement and rotten fruit at her as she goes past“

As I/S goes on about how some on the right are often poisonous, spiteful and bitter, this quote brings to mind stones and glasshouses.

David Cohen looks at a case for Nicky Hager:

A column containing acidic opinions about a powerful political media personality mysteriously fails to show up on the author’s regular spot on her newspaper’s website. Another major news outlet, after allowing criticisms to be made of the same public figure on one of its shows, hurriedly issues a grovelling clarification. Does this sound like a case Nicky Hager ought to be investigating?

It would indeed if it weren’t the slightly inconvenient fact that the media power broker in question also happens to be the same gent.

The Herald reports on the law commission inquiry into sex cases, and the recommendation that an inquiry be held into whether there is a better way to conduct such trials than the adversarial one.

I have no problems with this, and am generally supportive of changes which are less “brutalising and distressing” for complainants.

However I get worried when I read:

Sir Geoffrey said there was also concern at the high number of acquittals in rape cases.

There may be a high number of acquittals because the Police policy now seems to be to prosecute no matter how flimsy the evidence. Any suggestion that people should be more easily convicted despite a lack of evidence is somewhat chilling.

As I said, no problems with changes to make it more complainant or victim friendly. But any move to make it easier to get convictions would be of concern. We should not throw away all principles of guilty beyond reasonable doubt just because most people think Clint Rickards unfairly was found Not Guilty.

In 2002 Labour changed the laws so even violent offenders and rapists could become eligible for parole after one third of their sentence.

The Criminal Justice Act 1985 did not allow a prisoner to be released from prison before two thirds of their sentence, if they had been convicted of any of the following crimes:

1. Sexual Violation (includes rape)
2. Manslaughter
3. Attempted Murder
4. Wounding on injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and wounding/injuring with intent to injure
5. Using a firearm against law enforcement officer
6. Commission of crime with firearm
7. Robbery and aggravated robbery

But the Parole Act 2002 changed that, and lets all the rapists and other thugs become eligible after one third of their sentence. Labour only finally backed down on this in the last parliamentary term.

So in July of this year, Graham Capill will become eligible for parole, despite having served only three years of his nine year sentence.