Tb be honest, I struggle with the concept of 'good character' as a reason to discount a sentence. Unless a person acted under some sort of undue influence, it simply doesn't carry weight in context of such crimes.
I suggest it would be hard to argue that a person in possession of over 11k objectionable images is indeed of, good character. Those concepts are mutually exclusive.
And I agree , this case truly emanates the stench of corruption.
Previous good character is completely lost when convicted of a charge. Previous offending should be an aggravating factor in sentencing. By that logic, good character in the past should just mean you won't get extra penalties for not having learned your lesson.
Courage itself is pretty thin on the ground in the country everywhere it seems. Even the courage of your convictions. At least you don’t suffer from it.
Throughout the book of Proverbs there are numerous types of fool and how to deal with them. Apart from youthful innocuous stupidity they all have to endure public shame of some sort. Our Law makers and judges come close to falling into one of those categories.
Totally agree with Nigel's comment "Name suppression should be used only to protect victims of sexual offending. No other reason. No exceptions. Not even for underage offenders. Name suppression until conviction is the only way to uphold the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”
Name suppression should be used only to protect victims of sexual offending. No other reason. No exceptions. Not even for underage offenders.
Yes it is possible to imagine examples where it would be harder to have a fair trial if the accused was named in the media beforehand. But that is the tail wagging the dog. The benefits would be small compared to the cost.
As a woman I think that women are under performing (relative to non preferred counterparts) in many areas of society where they also get preferential treatment. I'm sick of the destruction they are causing to the point where I almost agree that women voting has had poor outcomes for our country. And that's speaking as a successful, independent non religious 45 yr old woman.
I'm saying I hear the issue. Personally I'd be outraged to lose the vote. But given that most of my peers are hell bent on destroying out country, I'd be prepared to give it up if all these middle class women who are swept away by a smile and a "be kind" and who lack any kind of understanding of how destructive they are, also lost their vote.
My wife is a better judge - look at Jacinda as another one that went too far, we are all equal but feminism made some more equal than others DEI? Maggie Thatcher, Elizabeth II were wonderful, examples of common sense it did not matter whether male or female
Fair comment Peter. There are arguments for and against. Problem is that only the most egregious cases get reported. Most of those appearaing neither seek nor are granted suppression.
Name suppression until conviction is the only way to uphold the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, something to which we are all entitled under the law. Wrongful accusations can be life ruining.
If you had not figured it out, Pedophilia is driving and behind almost all of these things. Its tentacles run deep and are seemingly well entrenched in high places of authority in most countries with NZ catching up fast. All pretty sad.
Tb be honest, I struggle with the concept of 'good character' as a reason to discount a sentence. Unless a person acted under some sort of undue influence, it simply doesn't carry weight in context of such crimes.
I suggest it would be hard to argue that a person in possession of over 11k objectionable images is indeed of, good character. Those concepts are mutually exclusive.
And I agree , this case truly emanates the stench of corruption.
Previous good character is completely lost when convicted of a charge. Previous offending should be an aggravating factor in sentencing. By that logic, good character in the past should just mean you won't get extra penalties for not having learned your lesson.
Courage itself is pretty thin on the ground in the country everywhere it seems. Even the courage of your convictions. At least you don’t suffer from it.
I've come across more fragrant rats than this judges decision! She's done nothing for trust in our current judicial system.
Throughout the book of Proverbs there are numerous types of fool and how to deal with them. Apart from youthful innocuous stupidity they all have to endure public shame of some sort. Our Law makers and judges come close to falling into one of those categories.
Totally agree with Nigel's comment "Name suppression should be used only to protect victims of sexual offending. No other reason. No exceptions. Not even for underage offenders. Name suppression until conviction is the only way to uphold the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”
Name suppression should be used only to protect victims of sexual offending. No other reason. No exceptions. Not even for underage offenders.
Yes it is possible to imagine examples where it would be harder to have a fair trial if the accused was named in the media beforehand. But that is the tail wagging the dog. The benefits would be small compared to the cost.
This sort of thing makes me wonder that the swings of feminism have gone too far when they get in positions of power and do not act rationally
As a woman I think that women are under performing (relative to non preferred counterparts) in many areas of society where they also get preferential treatment. I'm sick of the destruction they are causing to the point where I almost agree that women voting has had poor outcomes for our country. And that's speaking as a successful, independent non religious 45 yr old woman.
I'm saying I hear the issue. Personally I'd be outraged to lose the vote. But given that most of my peers are hell bent on destroying out country, I'd be prepared to give it up if all these middle class women who are swept away by a smile and a "be kind" and who lack any kind of understanding of how destructive they are, also lost their vote.
My wife is a better judge - look at Jacinda as another one that went too far, we are all equal but feminism made some more equal than others DEI? Maggie Thatcher, Elizabeth II were wonderful, examples of common sense it did not matter whether male or female
Yes DEI and the duming down of society we may still have a warship it wasn't for this nonsense give the best person the job
Fair comment Peter. There are arguments for and against. Problem is that only the most egregious cases get reported. Most of those appearaing neither seek nor are granted suppression.
Name suppression until conviction is the only way to uphold the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, something to which we are all entitled under the law. Wrongful accusations can be life ruining.
If you had not figured it out, Pedophilia is driving and behind almost all of these things. Its tentacles run deep and are seemingly well entrenched in high places of authority in most countries with NZ catching up fast. All pretty sad.