Justice for all...

[speedy_thrills]

A couple of things that would make the New Zealand justice system more just:
• If you are going to prosecute all rape cases (even in the very half assed manner I’m told their doing it at the moment), at great expense to the taxpayer, regardless of if they have a leg to stand on at least be descent enough to counter-investigate cases that are lost as to if there are grounds for the accuser to have falsified a formal complaint.
• The Police and Crown Prosecution service should not be in bed together, so often I’ve heard that evidence has not been fairly collected because of this abnormality. This is a particularly serious matter because everyone deserves a fair trial.

And abandon scameras until you have fully evaluated their accuracy, I’ve just been watching “the truth about speed cameras” on youtube and I’m appalled by how far out some of their readings where! Both parts 1 and 2 are a must see if you haven’t already.

[Kiwi XTR2]

speedy_thrills said:

• If you are going to prosecute all rape cases . . . at least counter-investigate cases that are lost as to if there are grounds for the accuser to have falsified a formal complaint.

I know someone who was falsely accused of rape and assested. Thankfully after about 5 weeks the case was dropped and the police were good enough to write a letter to the guy's mother and his employer making it clear that there was no case to answer, the rape never happened, this wasn't a case of simply having insufficient evidence, and (although for certain reasons they would not be prosecuting the complainant) this is the evidence showing that the complaint was poorly concealed malicious boocks.

I would imagine that of the cases where the defendant was found not guilty, a large portion would still have had a genuine case to answer and there was simply insufficient evidence.

These situations are not helped by some of the psychos (and they are only a very small minority at Women's Refuge) who tell women that if you LATER regret the encounter . . . then it was rape.

speedy_thrills said:

• The Police and Crown Prosecution service should not be in bed together . . .

Well they need to work together as a team. You simply can't prosecute genuine crimes without that.

Which is not to say that the Police should not be accountable, by way of review, for the way in which they investigate crimes.

[GravelBen]

Kiwi XTR2 said:

These situations are not helped by some of the psychos (and they are only a very small minority at Women's Refuge) who tell women that if you LATER regret the encounter . . . then it was rape.

WTF? Mind you, I guess that attitude should be no surprise in a country where if members of a certain ethnic group decide they regret their ancestors selling land they can claim compensation for it.

[Kiwi XTR2]

There was a skit on a comedy show (possibly MadTV ?? ) of a young couple getting hot-n-heavy on the couch. Just as the girl was unbuttoning her top the guy pulls out a contact and asks her to specify the 'acts' to which she is consenting.

"Is this necessary?"

"Yes."

"Is it legal?"

"Don't worry . . ." (the door opens) ". . . my Mum's a notary public." (standing there in a dressing gown & curlers holding a stamp)

Kind of kills the moment


But where do you draw the line ?¿?

If one party was so drunk that the next morning they can't remember . . . did they consent?

If they were both beyond giving competent consent?

If one party stupified the other with drugs and/or alcohol?

If it's a full moon, on Friday the 13th, at an abandoned lakeside youth camp . . .

[HTSD]

Kiwi XTR2 said:

If it's a full moon, on Friday the 13th, at an abandoned lakeside youth camp . . .

Fond memories? Or not-so-fond memories?

More seriously... Is there a test of 'is this in the public interest' for prosecutions relating to crimes in the distant past? I would hate for anyone to get away with rape, but surely this comes into it?

Certainly for drunken encounters that one party regrets, it is hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Its very often a witnessless crime, there won't necessarily be any forensic evidence, its a tricky one. The problem with being heavy with false complaints is that it would discourage genuine victims from coming forward... although having said that, using a rape charge as a revenge tool cheapens the perception of the crime...

[speedy_thrills]

Kiwi XTR2 said:

speedy_thrills said:

• The Police and Crown Prosecution service should not be in bed together . . .

Well they need to work together as a team. You simply can't prosecute genuine crimes without that.

The police should investigate the crime in full and then hand over their findings to the prosecution and defence.

[speedy_thrills]

HTSD said:

More seriously... Is there a test of 'is this in the public interest' for prosecutions relating to crimes in the distant past? I would hate for anyone to get away with rape, but surely this comes into it?

I agree, rape is such a difficult crime to prosecute as well (that’s not to say that a jury should lower their standards of needing to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt before they sentence someone to a crime that carries a minimum of 5 years).

I think you are right as well that prosecuting every case (luckily quite a few get kicked out before a jury can even pass a verdict) and the number of obviously flawed cases being brought does devalue the seriousness of the crime.

I know that in the past the Police have brought very few cases and have faced major criticism from women’s rights groups but they really need a way to trial the basis for a case to be brought, even if it involves sitting down with a judge and looking at statements and evidence in brief. I can’t see how it’s in the best public interest to spend (however much a court case costs, $100,000+ usually?) just to bring a case that has no hope of standing up to any degree of scrutiny or completely lacks material evidence. Also with these cases I feel that the standard procedure subject the accused party to a very sour deal, particularly if the judge is very lenient and doesn’t throw the case before the jury pass their verdict (I believe in this situation you cannot seek to bring a case against the complainant for deformation etc.).