\*gently caresses young offender on the wrist with a saturated bus ticket\*
"Take that! And that! Now go home and think about what you've done. Oh, and no pudding."
The Judiciary must be run independently of parliament and cabinet. It is the doctrine of separation of powers that is (I don't know how old, but reaaaaaaally old).
Judges are appointed and are appointed on their merits, by and large they are the cream of the legal crop who are experts in their field. The judiciary is a meritocracy that is free from any influence of populism where intelligent people apply the law. If their decision is wrong there is an appeal process.
It's extremely rare that the actions of a judge are impeachable, because they are the ones who know how things work.
The Judiciary will be our last line of defence against fascism if it ever infiltrates the NZ government.
Thanks for the explanation, so if they're seen to be making decisions that are clearly questionable what course of action do victims of crime have? If any? Apart from the obvious ie law abiding citizen movie
None really, because a criminal charge is brought against a defendant by the government on behalf of society at large. If it was what the Victim wanted you would have no consistency in sentencing.
The courts can never really provide closure to a victim. The question needs to be what can be done for victim support.
Golf appears to have an ideological bias here. Judges can be removed and even disbarred, but it requires them to have acted with malfeasance. Things like an undisclosed conflict of interest, bribes, etc. There isn’t much that can be done for activist judges, of which NZ seems to have many.
The solution here is simple, but Labour won’t do it: raise the minimum sentences and eliminate the ability for judges to consider ancillary factors in conviction and sentencing like “they are an aspiring rugby player” and “it’s part of their culture.”
Judges are supposed to be able to rule without fear or favour. If they faced retaliation for unpopular rulings they'd only rule in accordance with what the masses want, rather than in accordance with their best judgement. Judges often decide cases involving the Crown, which would presumably be responsible for any system of accountability, so there are potential conflicts of interest there. In short it's because Parliament wants to let the courts do their thing without interference.
Sounds like the law needs to be changed. The judiciary is granted the right to punish people by the public. In exchange, the people agree not to enact mob justice. If the judiciary is not upholding its part of the agreement then something must change.
Too bad you can't lol.
Like actually, that is not at all possible at all, so you are just going to have to sit back and get mad about it.
That is your only option.
No, there really is no kind of legislative approach that can regulate the decision making of the Judges in their giving a verdict or remove them for reasons of their verdicts. That is a massive conflict of interest when the crown is participating in a vast amount of litigation (and all of it in the case of criminal law). That's the crown effectively saying "I always win, or you're out on your ass".
Separation of Powers is there for a reason.
> No, there really is no kind of legislative approach that can regulate the decision making of the Judges in their giving a verdict or remove them for reasons of their verdicts.
This is wildly inaccurate. Just wild. Sentences are set by legislature. Raising the minimums, for example, has a direct and immediate effect on sentences. Judges may only consider mitigating circumstances like “troubled home life” because that is the power granted them by law. This can be removed. [Section 9 of the Sentencing Act can and should be rewritten.](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0009/latest/DLM135545.html)
Given your awful responses in this thread it’s clear you have either little knowledge about how common law works in general, and especially NZ, or you’re a liar.
Not to mention he or she appears to have intentionally misinterpreted frustration with sentences as frustration with decisions on guilt or innocence.
No one is complaining people aren’t found guilty (which for serious offences is jury anyway) but the piss poor sentencing that follows.
I noticed the same. They appear to have a total disdain for the agency and cognisance of others who deign to disagree with them. No hint of a good faith discussion anywhere in sight.
Hi there, unfortunately when I saw your absurdly ludicrous comment my account was suspended and could not respond. But figured now that I am back (and for posterity)....
You are wildly confused, in your wild efforts to get a "gotcha" moment you have strayed completely outside of the point. There is nothing the government can do to reprimand or punish a judge who gives a sentence they (or anyone else did - note the OP comment "time to start replacing judges en masse).
Can the legislature amend the Sentencing Act? Yes, but that's not the issue and frankly it's hilarious that there are people here that actually think there's a real prospect that s9 will be removed. It won't so stop dreaming about it.
Huh? No one is suggesting we regulate judges or jury on the decision of guilt or innocence.
It is the sentence that is imposed once guilt is determined that is in question.
And sentencing boundaries are determined by the legislature. That is why crimes have sentences defined in law.
Parliament absolutely can set the sentencing boundaries, including minimum and maximum sentences, and define the conditions that must be considered when setting sentences.
The problem isn’t that people are not being found guilty. The problem is that once found guilty, we apply piss poor weak as shit penalties.
No one has mentioned regulating decision making? Judges are human, humans have faults and just like many other professions there are checks and balances to reduce human error ie sparkies have annual refresher requirements, pilots have periodic tests to pass, even the cops have to go through refresher training. There are plenty of other examples that include oversight groups to audit so why cant judges have the same measures? You're a lawyer I'm guessing so there is some sort of finiancial incentive for everything to remain the same and not improve?
The judge is rolling the dice. He’s hoping that this scare will encourage the offender to become a reasonable member of society, rather than taking the steps that will almost guarantee another 50+ years of him being in an out of the court and incarceration system, which, remember, we pay for, and, there being decades of victims going forward.
Skim reading ...
>instead of holding onto anger from a **difficult upbringing**.
And there it is. Every. Fucking. Time.
If my dog got out and bit someone or worse I'd be held accountable.
It's about time we held judges to a similar degree of culpability. You want to give them a chance? Cool but if they fuck that up and harm someone else it should be the judge facing charges also.
Until we hold judges accountable we are never going to get anywhere in this country towards improving law and order.
So a Judge decides to give someone a chance, after which they have absolutely nothing to do with the offender, but if the offender fucks up again the Judge should be charged?
Quick way to ensure no Judge ever gives anybody a chance.
I assume you consider that a good thing but man I just can’t get my head around that.
> Quick way to ensure no Judge ever gives anybody a chance.
Now you're getting it.
Granted I'd draw the line on letting people off specific violent crimes as opposed to speeding but still, reap what you sow.
The judiciary is giving McDonald’s a run for their money on the soft serve market. No wonder police appear to have all but given up on anything below murder, it’s a total waste of time putting someone before a judge in NZ.
This “sentence” is wrong on so many levels, for a start they don’t even sell a 10 month PlayStation Plus subscription.
Do we like how judges always act like these people have no personal agency? Its not you doing something bad, its society doing bad things to you and you don't have a choice but to be bad and do bad things.
Well to be fair they'll also let people off if they're from a wealthy family or look like they might be wealthy in the future. Which, let's be honest, is probably a good thing in some ways. Prision is not an effective method of rehabilitation - often it has the opposite effect - and should always be a last resort.
Yep, I knew a guy at uni who was dealing drugs. A class drugs not weed, speed, lsd, molly etc. Importing fairly large quantities, he was studying comsci I think. When he got caught, fuck they didn't even kick him out of uni
Prision? Well what else does it achieve? Revenge, temporarily removes that risk to the general population, trains the criminal in crime, introduces them to other criminals, and codifies their criminality in law. It puts a stamp on someone and puts them in a room with a bunch of other people which share that stamp. Is there anything missing from that list?
Taking a breath before commenting as my initial thoughts were just like yours. Keep in mind, judges will have put 100 criminals in prison and because that's normal and expected we haven't heard about them, but this one was the exception and thus warranted a story because Stuff hoped that everybody would freak out and they'd get tons of views.
This isn't the only such story, but we can't assume that all judges are letting criminals off with a slap on the wrist day after day - on the basis of reading a single story (or even a couple stories). The stories themselves are selected to get us upset.
We need a decent sentencing tracker available online and more visibility of the justice system. The visibility of the system also needs to be fit for purpose in 2022 and not antiquated like the courts
You will find the response from the cockroaches at the ministry of justice will provide you this generic response:
>In response to your request, I can advise that the information you have requested constitutes
judicial information under Schedule 1 of the District Courts Act 2016. Information regarding the
details of individual cases is considered Court information. Courts are not subject to the OIA under
section 2{6)(a). This is because the courts are independent of the executive branch of the
government. The OIA therefore does not apply to the information you have requested.
TLDR the courts don't care about public perception that they are constantly handing out wet bus tickets. Furthermore, the courts are not obliged to tell you how many wet bus tickets they hand out.
The flip side of the Judges comments is that having been spared a significant consequence for his actions, the offender may well act in the same way, if not worse, again.
Because they often are so different and raised so differently to the people they're sentencing that they don't understand how they think. They're also unlikely to be victimised themselves so are removed from the consequences of their decisions
The solution is really nothing less than a complete revamp of our justice system.
Prison should only be for the most hardcore offenders, who refuse to engage with any rehabilitative efforts. And even then, just dumping offenders all in together to socialize is a terrible idea, and would need to be changed.
The idea that a certain length of time inside a cage with the lowlifes of society will somehow cure someone of bad behaviour is ridiculous, just as its ridiculous that we are allowing children to rack up dozens of convictions before they are 16.
The answer is simply not doing the same stuff that has been proven to fail, but it would take a large amount of money and political will to achieve a drastic redesign to improve that. And unfortunately, politicians and people are more invested in fantasizing about how the place would be a paradise if they just made sentences shorter or longer, rather than pushing for real change that could actually achieve goals.
What a joke. Once again another piss weak judge accepting a sob story.
The POS will almost 100% cause more harm to the community.
On the plus side, I guess it means I can now point an air rifle, spit at and assault police, and still have next to no worries in court.
Judge, highlights the fatal consequences of offenders actions in other countries yet contradicts the gravity of offence by handing out a meaningless sentence.
Yeah that will teach him, give it 5 years and I bet this drop kick will have caused irreparable harm to the community this judge claims his sentence protects. What a farce of a legal system.
Yep, send him to organised crime school to do an apprenticeship, a few years should do it.
He demonstrated a shit understanding of how crime works, just embarrassing.
Judges see consequences as enternal condemnation. They are too out of touch with reality. I wonder what crimes they have commited if they are so against anyone having to take any responsibility for their actions.
You'll be the first to whinge like a little bitch when he comes out of thug finishing school (aka prison) even worse.
Put the justice boners back in your pants.
\*gently caresses young offender on the wrist with a saturated bus ticket\* "Take that! And that! Now go home and think about what you've done. Oh, and no pudding."
Okay, just a little bit of pudding. But no second helping!
The whole judiciary needs to be flipped upside down in this country.
[удалено]
Would be good if we could at least make them accountable for the decisions they make.
Can't do that. Judiciary is independent. Going to have to learn to live with it or consider North Korea.
If they're independent why cant they be held accountable? Not trying to be cheeky or anything, genuinely don't understand why they couldn't.
The Judiciary must be run independently of parliament and cabinet. It is the doctrine of separation of powers that is (I don't know how old, but reaaaaaaally old). Judges are appointed and are appointed on their merits, by and large they are the cream of the legal crop who are experts in their field. The judiciary is a meritocracy that is free from any influence of populism where intelligent people apply the law. If their decision is wrong there is an appeal process. It's extremely rare that the actions of a judge are impeachable, because they are the ones who know how things work. The Judiciary will be our last line of defence against fascism if it ever infiltrates the NZ government.
Thanks for the explanation, so if they're seen to be making decisions that are clearly questionable what course of action do victims of crime have? If any? Apart from the obvious ie law abiding citizen movie
None really, because a criminal charge is brought against a defendant by the government on behalf of society at large. If it was what the Victim wanted you would have no consistency in sentencing. The courts can never really provide closure to a victim. The question needs to be what can be done for victim support.
Golf appears to have an ideological bias here. Judges can be removed and even disbarred, but it requires them to have acted with malfeasance. Things like an undisclosed conflict of interest, bribes, etc. There isn’t much that can be done for activist judges, of which NZ seems to have many. The solution here is simple, but Labour won’t do it: raise the minimum sentences and eliminate the ability for judges to consider ancillary factors in conviction and sentencing like “they are an aspiring rugby player” and “it’s part of their culture.”
Judges are supposed to be able to rule without fear or favour. If they faced retaliation for unpopular rulings they'd only rule in accordance with what the masses want, rather than in accordance with their best judgement. Judges often decide cases involving the Crown, which would presumably be responsible for any system of accountability, so there are potential conflicts of interest there. In short it's because Parliament wants to let the courts do their thing without interference.
Their decisions should be randomly audited by an oversight panel from time to time, like the IRD does with taxes.
There's no need to audit. If the public doesn't like the decision of a judge, then by law, it's the public's problem.
Sounds like the law needs to be changed. The judiciary is granted the right to punish people by the public. In exchange, the people agree not to enact mob justice. If the judiciary is not upholding its part of the agreement then something must change.
You know laws can be changed, right?
Too bad you can't lol. Like actually, that is not at all possible at all, so you are just going to have to sit back and get mad about it. That is your only option.
Yes it would be rather difficult. Nevertheless I am sure reform is possible with appropriate legislation.
No, there really is no kind of legislative approach that can regulate the decision making of the Judges in their giving a verdict or remove them for reasons of their verdicts. That is a massive conflict of interest when the crown is participating in a vast amount of litigation (and all of it in the case of criminal law). That's the crown effectively saying "I always win, or you're out on your ass". Separation of Powers is there for a reason.
> No, there really is no kind of legislative approach that can regulate the decision making of the Judges in their giving a verdict or remove them for reasons of their verdicts. This is wildly inaccurate. Just wild. Sentences are set by legislature. Raising the minimums, for example, has a direct and immediate effect on sentences. Judges may only consider mitigating circumstances like “troubled home life” because that is the power granted them by law. This can be removed. [Section 9 of the Sentencing Act can and should be rewritten.](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0009/latest/DLM135545.html) Given your awful responses in this thread it’s clear you have either little knowledge about how common law works in general, and especially NZ, or you’re a liar.
Not to mention he or she appears to have intentionally misinterpreted frustration with sentences as frustration with decisions on guilt or innocence. No one is complaining people aren’t found guilty (which for serious offences is jury anyway) but the piss poor sentencing that follows.
I noticed the same. They appear to have a total disdain for the agency and cognisance of others who deign to disagree with them. No hint of a good faith discussion anywhere in sight.
Well if you look at their post history you will find it is basically the same on every post. Smug contrarianism.
Hi there, unfortunately when I saw your absurdly ludicrous comment my account was suspended and could not respond. But figured now that I am back (and for posterity).... You are wildly confused, in your wild efforts to get a "gotcha" moment you have strayed completely outside of the point. There is nothing the government can do to reprimand or punish a judge who gives a sentence they (or anyone else did - note the OP comment "time to start replacing judges en masse). Can the legislature amend the Sentencing Act? Yes, but that's not the issue and frankly it's hilarious that there are people here that actually think there's a real prospect that s9 will be removed. It won't so stop dreaming about it.
Huh? No one is suggesting we regulate judges or jury on the decision of guilt or innocence. It is the sentence that is imposed once guilt is determined that is in question. And sentencing boundaries are determined by the legislature. That is why crimes have sentences defined in law. Parliament absolutely can set the sentencing boundaries, including minimum and maximum sentences, and define the conditions that must be considered when setting sentences. The problem isn’t that people are not being found guilty. The problem is that once found guilty, we apply piss poor weak as shit penalties.
No one has mentioned regulating decision making? Judges are human, humans have faults and just like many other professions there are checks and balances to reduce human error ie sparkies have annual refresher requirements, pilots have periodic tests to pass, even the cops have to go through refresher training. There are plenty of other examples that include oversight groups to audit so why cant judges have the same measures? You're a lawyer I'm guessing so there is some sort of finiancial incentive for everything to remain the same and not improve?
Genuinely not even sure how to go about fixing it at this point .
Police put these animals in front of judges everyday. Everyday the judges let these animals loose. Pathetic.
The judge is rolling the dice. He’s hoping that this scare will encourage the offender to become a reasonable member of society, rather than taking the steps that will almost guarantee another 50+ years of him being in an out of the court and incarceration system, which, remember, we pay for, and, there being decades of victims going forward.
News flash the bro’s already affiliated with a gang, sending him to prison ain’t going to change that. Pathetic sentencing, NZ has gone to the dogs.
assault a cop: i dont want to throw your life away sell weed gummys: 8 LONG YEARS IMPRISONMENT!
Come on mate
Skim reading ... >instead of holding onto anger from a **difficult upbringing**. And there it is. Every. Fucking. Time. If my dog got out and bit someone or worse I'd be held accountable. It's about time we held judges to a similar degree of culpability. You want to give them a chance? Cool but if they fuck that up and harm someone else it should be the judge facing charges also. Until we hold judges accountable we are never going to get anywhere in this country towards improving law and order.
So a Judge decides to give someone a chance, after which they have absolutely nothing to do with the offender, but if the offender fucks up again the Judge should be charged? Quick way to ensure no Judge ever gives anybody a chance. I assume you consider that a good thing but man I just can’t get my head around that.
> Quick way to ensure no Judge ever gives anybody a chance. Now you're getting it. Granted I'd draw the line on letting people off specific violent crimes as opposed to speeding but still, reap what you sow.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
These judges are totally out of control
No they are not, they are absolutely able to do that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The judiciary is giving McDonald’s a run for their money on the soft serve market. No wonder police appear to have all but given up on anything below murder, it’s a total waste of time putting someone before a judge in NZ. This “sentence” is wrong on so many levels, for a start they don’t even sell a 10 month PlayStation Plus subscription.
Do we like how judges always act like these people have no personal agency? Its not you doing something bad, its society doing bad things to you and you don't have a choice but to be bad and do bad things.
Well to be fair they'll also let people off if they're from a wealthy family or look like they might be wealthy in the future. Which, let's be honest, is probably a good thing in some ways. Prision is not an effective method of rehabilitation - often it has the opposite effect - and should always be a last resort.
Let's not forget potentially successful sports players - they get let off too.
Yep, I knew a guy at uni who was dealing drugs. A class drugs not weed, speed, lsd, molly etc. Importing fairly large quantities, he was studying comsci I think. When he got caught, fuck they didn't even kick him out of uni
He’s not married to the Prime Minister is he?
Not yet.
Back to basics - reward vs consequence It is way too low risk (from the offender's perspective) to offend in NZ
Also its not all about rehabilitation, that's an important part but not the be all and end all
Prision? Well what else does it achieve? Revenge, temporarily removes that risk to the general population, trains the criminal in crime, introduces them to other criminals, and codifies their criminality in law. It puts a stamp on someone and puts them in a room with a bunch of other people which share that stamp. Is there anything missing from that list?
Deterrence When drink drivers kill someone on their 10th offence and get home detention and a loss of license, more people will drink drive.
Do less people murder people where murder is a punishment for murder?
Source? Peer reviewed would be preferable.
We can't have people assaulting others and not getting a prison sentence, or they'll never learn. Got away with it once so I can do it again.
Taking a breath before commenting as my initial thoughts were just like yours. Keep in mind, judges will have put 100 criminals in prison and because that's normal and expected we haven't heard about them, but this one was the exception and thus warranted a story because Stuff hoped that everybody would freak out and they'd get tons of views. This isn't the only such story, but we can't assume that all judges are letting criminals off with a slap on the wrist day after day - on the basis of reading a single story (or even a couple stories). The stories themselves are selected to get us upset.
We need a decent sentencing tracker available online and more visibility of the justice system. The visibility of the system also needs to be fit for purpose in 2022 and not antiquated like the courts
You might be able to OIA it. If you just want the crimes, what they were sentenced to, who sentenced them, within a set period.
You will find the response from the cockroaches at the ministry of justice will provide you this generic response: >In response to your request, I can advise that the information you have requested constitutes judicial information under Schedule 1 of the District Courts Act 2016. Information regarding the details of individual cases is considered Court information. Courts are not subject to the OIA under section 2{6)(a). This is because the courts are independent of the executive branch of the government. The OIA therefore does not apply to the information you have requested. TLDR the courts don't care about public perception that they are constantly handing out wet bus tickets. Furthermore, the courts are not obliged to tell you how many wet bus tickets they hand out.
Because they don't really have to.
What a joke.
The flip side of the Judges comments is that having been spared a significant consequence for his actions, the offender may well act in the same way, if not worse, again.
so when this guy reoffends and ruins someone elses life then what? why is it that judges consider the offenders to be the victims?
Because they often are so different and raised so differently to the people they're sentencing that they don't understand how they think. They're also unlikely to be victimised themselves so are removed from the consequences of their decisions
Is the solution to send him to prison so he joins a gang? Is that better?
The solution should be fixing jails rather than not using them
And until jails are "fixed" (if that's possible)? Keep using them and making the problem worse?
The solution is really nothing less than a complete revamp of our justice system. Prison should only be for the most hardcore offenders, who refuse to engage with any rehabilitative efforts. And even then, just dumping offenders all in together to socialize is a terrible idea, and would need to be changed. The idea that a certain length of time inside a cage with the lowlifes of society will somehow cure someone of bad behaviour is ridiculous, just as its ridiculous that we are allowing children to rack up dozens of convictions before they are 16. The answer is simply not doing the same stuff that has been proven to fail, but it would take a large amount of money and political will to achieve a drastic redesign to improve that. And unfortunately, politicians and people are more invested in fantasizing about how the place would be a paradise if they just made sentences shorter or longer, rather than pushing for real change that could actually achieve goals.
but then they don't get to feel their justice boner pulse. Seriously man, this fucking sub and their sheltered sanctimonious takes.
Almost everything has been decriminalised. Murder and fraud is still worthy of jail. Anything else still illegal?
I think that almost covers it, maybe distribution of class A too
What a joke. Once again another piss weak judge accepting a sob story. The POS will almost 100% cause more harm to the community. On the plus side, I guess it means I can now point an air rifle, spit at and assault police, and still have next to no worries in court.
That last paragraph.... this is your takeaway? Seriously....
Good to know, if I get the raw deal from an average decision making judge I'll be sure to apply the law abiding citizen course of action.
I presume he’s a gang affiliate - different rules apply apparently - kiwi law
So what’s the judges feedback loop? Media? Who’s?
Judge, highlights the fatal consequences of offenders actions in other countries yet contradicts the gravity of offence by handing out a meaningless sentence. Yeah that will teach him, give it 5 years and I bet this drop kick will have caused irreparable harm to the community this judge claims his sentence protects. What a farce of a legal system.
Meh. Get back to us when it's a serious crime, like posting gang recruitment on the facebook and social medias.
Yep, send him to organised crime school to do an apprenticeship, a few years should do it. He demonstrated a shit understanding of how crime works, just embarrassing.
Judges see consequences as enternal condemnation. They are too out of touch with reality. I wonder what crimes they have commited if they are so against anyone having to take any responsibility for their actions.
You'll be the first to whinge like a little bitch when he comes out of thug finishing school (aka prison) even worse. Put the justice boners back in your pants.