A Crushing Blow for the Leftist Lynch Mob
James Delingpole
Breitbart London
The release of Cardinal George Pell from prison and the quashing of his sentence by Australia’s High Court is a long overdue correction for one of the greatest miscarriages of injustice in Australian history. Also — and very nearly as satisfyingly — it represents the most tremendously crushing blow to leftists, Social Justice Warriors, eco-loons across the world.
These people wanted Cardinal Pell in prison because he represented everything they hated: old, white, outspoken, Christian, conservative, and climate sceptic. The fact that he was entirely innocent of the outrageous crime of which he had been accused was neither here nor there to the left-liberal lynch mob. They just needed a scalp — a ‘Great White Defendant’ — and poor George Pell fitted the bill just perfectly.
Pell’s ordeal — described as ‘one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in Australian history’ — began in December 2018 when at the age of 78, he was convicted of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old choirboy and molesting his friend after a Sunday Mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne in 1996.
Cardinal Pell spent 404 days in prison for a crime of which he was wholly innocent.
Showing posts with label Injustice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Injustice. Show all posts
Friday, 17 April 2020
Monday, 23 December 2019
Judicial Tyranny in the UK
The Opinion That, ‘Men Cannot Change Into Women’ Is Now Illegal
Such an Opinion ‘Not Worthy of Respect In a Democratic Society’: It is Therefore Verboten
Kurt Zindulka
Breitbart London
In a blow to free speech protections in the United Kingdom, a judge in an employment tribunal has ruled that there is no right to question whether a transgender person is a man or a woman.
Maya Forstater, a former tax expert, who was fired from her job at the Centre for Global Development after tweeting that “men cannot change into women“, lost her legal challenge against her firing. The ruling found that the Equality Act 2010 did not protect Ms Forstater’s right to express the philosophical belief that there are only two genders and therefore her firing was legal, reports The Telegraph.
In his ruling, employment Judge Taylor said that Ms Forstater’s gender-critical position “is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others”. Judge Taylor argued that the legal rights of a transgender person override Ms Forstater’s right to express her opinions, saying that she was responsible for “enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering a person”.
“If a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), that person is legally a woman. That is not something [Ms Forstater] is entitled to ignore. [Ms Forstater’s] position is that even if a trans woman has a GRC, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society,” Taylor said.
“Even paying due regard to the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be protected if their core belief involves violating others’ dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them,” he concluded.
In response to the ruling, Ms Forstater said: “I struggle to express the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment, which I think will be shared by the vast majority of people who are familiar with my case.”
Such an Opinion ‘Not Worthy of Respect In a Democratic Society’: It is Therefore Verboten
Kurt Zindulka
Breitbart London
In a blow to free speech protections in the United Kingdom, a judge in an employment tribunal has ruled that there is no right to question whether a transgender person is a man or a woman.
Maya Forstater, a former tax expert, who was fired from her job at the Centre for Global Development after tweeting that “men cannot change into women“, lost her legal challenge against her firing. The ruling found that the Equality Act 2010 did not protect Ms Forstater’s right to express the philosophical belief that there are only two genders and therefore her firing was legal, reports The Telegraph.
In his ruling, employment Judge Taylor said that Ms Forstater’s gender-critical position “is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others”. Judge Taylor argued that the legal rights of a transgender person override Ms Forstater’s right to express her opinions, saying that she was responsible for “enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering a person”.
“If a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), that person is legally a woman. That is not something [Ms Forstater] is entitled to ignore. [Ms Forstater’s] position is that even if a trans woman has a GRC, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society,” Taylor said.
“Even paying due regard to the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be protected if their core belief involves violating others’ dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them,” he concluded.
In response to the ruling, Ms Forstater said: “I struggle to express the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment, which I think will be shared by the vast majority of people who are familiar with my case.”
Saturday, 3 August 2019
We Must Set the Record Straight
Peter Ellis--An Unsafe Conviction
At Contra Celsum we have previously called people's attention to what appears to be one of the worst violations of criminal due process and justice in New Zealand. It has been dubbed the Christchurch Creche Case. It involved the trial and conviction of one Peter Ellis.
Ellis is now dying of incurable cancer. His days upon earth are coming to an end. He wants to be vindicated before he dies. It should have happened years ago--but it is always hard for a justice system which has so many reputations to protect to admit a gross miscarriage of justice. For our part, we became convinced of the innocence of Ellis upon reading Lynley Hood's A City Possessed--a book demanding to be read.
During the trial of Ellis events were witnessed by a young court reporter, Martin van Beynen. Now, much older, Beynen recounts the Ellis trial(s).
Peter Ellis, seen here in 2003, is making a last-ditch attempt to clear his name, and Martin van Beynen believes that should happen.Ellis worked as a childcare worker at the Christchurch Civic Creche.
Friday, 3 May 2019
A Most Wicked Court
Authorities To Arrest Canadian Father If He Refers To Trans Child As Her Real Sex
Clark will be subject to arrest if any police officer has 'reasonable' grounds to believe that he's referred to his daughter as female in public or private.
Jeremiah Keenan
The Federalist
Last Wednesday, The Federalist reported that the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, declared a father guilty of family violence for his polite refusal to refer to his daughter as a boy in private, and his repeated choice to affirm in media interviews that she is a girl.
At about the same time that story was published, the Supreme Court issued an additional, more heavy-handed “protection order” from the same ruling. The three-page document declares that the father, Clark*, will henceforth be subject to arrest, immediately and “without warrant” if any police officer has “reasonable” grounds to believe that he has in any way referred to his daughter as a girl in public or in private. [Emphasis, ours. Remember the Good Old Days when liberals assured all and sundry they were only interested in restraining public speech--that is, speech uttered in the "public square". Certainly, most indubitably private speech would remain free as a bird. Now, in that bastion of liberty, Canada an individual cannot go into his closet and whisper an incantation to himself without Big Brother's control.]
The new order further stipulated not only that Clark must not discuss his daughter’s sex or gender identity in public, but also that he cannot share court documents describing his own gag order. On the one hand, this demand may seem ironic, since it covers a publicly available court ruling. On the other hand, the injunction is so broad that it naturally includes the very document upon which it is written and that document–with its threats of immediate arrest without warrant–has not, as of yet, been made available on the court’s website.
Clark will be subject to arrest if any police officer has 'reasonable' grounds to believe that he's referred to his daughter as female in public or private.
Jeremiah Keenan
The Federalist
Last Wednesday, The Federalist reported that the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, declared a father guilty of family violence for his polite refusal to refer to his daughter as a boy in private, and his repeated choice to affirm in media interviews that she is a girl.
At about the same time that story was published, the Supreme Court issued an additional, more heavy-handed “protection order” from the same ruling. The three-page document declares that the father, Clark*, will henceforth be subject to arrest, immediately and “without warrant” if any police officer has “reasonable” grounds to believe that he has in any way referred to his daughter as a girl in public or in private. [Emphasis, ours. Remember the Good Old Days when liberals assured all and sundry they were only interested in restraining public speech--that is, speech uttered in the "public square". Certainly, most indubitably private speech would remain free as a bird. Now, in that bastion of liberty, Canada an individual cannot go into his closet and whisper an incantation to himself without Big Brother's control.]
The new order further stipulated not only that Clark must not discuss his daughter’s sex or gender identity in public, but also that he cannot share court documents describing his own gag order. On the one hand, this demand may seem ironic, since it covers a publicly available court ruling. On the other hand, the injunction is so broad that it naturally includes the very document upon which it is written and that document–with its threats of immediate arrest without warrant–has not, as of yet, been made available on the court’s website.
Monday, 25 February 2019
Judiciary's l Disregarding of Three Strikes
Mockery of the Law
It is universally acknowledged, with few exceptions, that one of the core objectives of penology or punishment for crime is protection of the public. If repeatedly violent criminals are locked up for longer, the public are safer, less likely to be struck down by knife or gun.
Despite New Zealand having a Three Strikes law, an increasing number of justices it seems believe they have a right to override the black and white sentencing requirements of the law. The mandatory, longer sentences are deemed "manifestly unjust". But in whose eyes? In the eyes of the judge. For some reason there appears to be plenty of judges in New Zealand who want to second guess the law.
Let's be clear. We are all for treating prisoners with decency and respect. We believe strongly in every project or service which helps prisoners develop self-criticism and personal integrity. We strongly believe in every rehabilitation project, whether in the prisons or outside, that works. But we also believe that repetitive violent criminal behaviour must result in consequences--and the core consequence must be to apply the mandatory, longer sentences for repeated criminality. Facing these heavier consequences is an intrinsic part of giving prisoners the opportunity to become self-critical.
Friday, 16 November 2018
Crime and Punishment
Faux Pity and Cheap Grace
In New Zealand we seem to be afflicted with a gaggle of justices who are failing in their duty. They appear to be imposing upon the law their liberal prejudices, rather than being faithful servants of the law.
The latest example is a judge who refused to impose the required sentence upon a recidivist criminal because, according to the abacus of the judge, it would have been manifestly "unfair".
In New Zealand we seem to be afflicted with a gaggle of justices who are failing in their duty. They appear to be imposing upon the law their liberal prejudices, rather than being faithful servants of the law.
The latest example is a judge who refused to impose the required sentence upon a recidivist criminal because, according to the abacus of the judge, it would have been manifestly "unfair".
An Auckland robber has been sentenced, under the controversial three-strikes law, to prison for more than twice as long as the sentencing judge would have given him if the three-strikes law had not been in place. But, the judge did not impose the 14-year maximum sentence with no possibility of parole because it would be manifestly unjust. [NZ Herald]"Manifestly unjust" in whose eyes? In the eyes of the judge, of course. The Three Strikes law allows for judicial discretion in those (rare) cases where the imposition of the maximum sentence for a crime, without parole would be "manifestly unjust". But far too many judges seem to be confusing "manifestly unjust" with their personal prejudices and bias.
Friday, 2 November 2018
Care and Caution Required
Righting Judicial Wrongs
Former PM, Helen Clarke and Margaret Wilson abolished New Zealand's right of appeal to the UK Privy Council. With a sneer of self-satisfied hubris they explained that the Privy Council was a relic of colonialism and that New Zealand was a now a grown up. It could have a perfectly sound justice system, with our own Supreme Court as the highest court in the land.
But the smallness of the country has meant that the institutions and arms of justice can all too readily fall into group-think. Even more likely is this to be the case when the Ministry of Justice gets too close to politicians and political parties. Stubborn mindsets have too easily congealed around guilt and innocence. Since every country carries risks of "unsafe judgements", and since New Zealand is small, exacerbating the risks of "group-think" influence, special care needs to be taken.
The UK Supreme Court helped provide a vital check and balance, which has now gone, courtesy of Clarke and Wilson. Yet unsafe convictions continue to be identified or alleged. Therefore, we are supportive of the proposal to set up a committee or commission to focus upon convictions which appear unsafe.
There are huge risks in this, of course. But we are pleased (at least initially) that some checks and balances will apply.
Former PM, Helen Clarke and Margaret Wilson abolished New Zealand's right of appeal to the UK Privy Council. With a sneer of self-satisfied hubris they explained that the Privy Council was a relic of colonialism and that New Zealand was a now a grown up. It could have a perfectly sound justice system, with our own Supreme Court as the highest court in the land.
But the smallness of the country has meant that the institutions and arms of justice can all too readily fall into group-think. Even more likely is this to be the case when the Ministry of Justice gets too close to politicians and political parties. Stubborn mindsets have too easily congealed around guilt and innocence. Since every country carries risks of "unsafe judgements", and since New Zealand is small, exacerbating the risks of "group-think" influence, special care needs to be taken.
The UK Supreme Court helped provide a vital check and balance, which has now gone, courtesy of Clarke and Wilson. Yet unsafe convictions continue to be identified or alleged. Therefore, we are supportive of the proposal to set up a committee or commission to focus upon convictions which appear unsafe.
There are huge risks in this, of course. But we are pleased (at least initially) that some checks and balances will apply.
Tuesday, 30 October 2018
Disproportionate Racism Against Black Men on College Campuses
Black Men Understand the Stakes
By David French
National Review Online
Earlier today, freshly minted Atlantic writer Jemele Hill published a piece that broke new ground in the Brett Kavanaugh debate. She revealed that, in her experience, black men were more sympathetic to Kavanaugh than she anticipated:
In fact, according to a report she cites, while black men account for 22 percent of sexual-assault convictions, they account for a whopping 59 percent of exonerations. And that’s just criminal convictions and exonerations. Hill doesn’t even delve into the ongoing scandal of campus Title IX adjudications, where the stakes, like those of a judicial confirmation hearing, aren’t criminal but nevertheless remain high: An accused student’s enrollment in school is often on the line.
Last September Emily Yoffe wrote a troubling essay (also in The Atlantic) detailing how preliminary evidence indicates that campus courts are disproportionately punishing black men.
By David French
National Review Online
Earlier today, freshly minted Atlantic writer Jemele Hill published a piece that broke new ground in the Brett Kavanaugh debate. She revealed that, in her experience, black men were more sympathetic to Kavanaugh than she anticipated:
On Tuesday night, I was in an auditorium with 100 black men in the city of Baltimore, when the subject pivoted to Brett Kavanaugh. I expected to hear frustration that the sexual-assault allegations against him had failed to derail his Supreme Court appointment. Instead, I encountered sympathy. One man stood up and asked, passionately, “What happened to due process?” He was met with a smattering of applause, and an array of head nods.Hill says this support makes a “twisted kind of sense,” because, “Countless times, black men have had to witness the careers and reputations of other black men ruthlessly destroyed because of unproved rape and sexual-assault accusations.” But there’s nothing “twisted” about it. Their experience highlights the vital importance of due process and the presumption of innocence.
In fact, according to a report she cites, while black men account for 22 percent of sexual-assault convictions, they account for a whopping 59 percent of exonerations. And that’s just criminal convictions and exonerations. Hill doesn’t even delve into the ongoing scandal of campus Title IX adjudications, where the stakes, like those of a judicial confirmation hearing, aren’t criminal but nevertheless remain high: An accused student’s enrollment in school is often on the line.
Last September Emily Yoffe wrote a troubling essay (also in The Atlantic) detailing how preliminary evidence indicates that campus courts are disproportionately punishing black men.
Thursday, 18 October 2018
Terrible College Case
The High Cost of ‘Believe Women’ Mantra
By David French
National Review Online
There is no substitute for evidence and due process.
Through much of the last month, the American people have been treated to a version of the emotional and ideological argument that’s dominated the American academy for much of the last ten years. The argument goes something like this: Women rarely lie about rape. Thus, the failure of criminal or civil justice systems to achieve overwhelming rates of conviction or impose liability at the rates of predation means that fundamental reform is mandatory.
Consequently, we must make it easier for women to bring claims, protect them from the rigors of proving claims, and utilize decision-makers trained to understand and respond to the unique trauma of victims. Moreover, when considering sexual-assault claims outside of courts, understand that due process is less important when a man’s liberty isn’t at stake. After all, a campus court isn’t a criminal trial. It’s an evaluation of academic suitability.
The result of this argument has been wholesale national reform — part of it mandated by the Obama administration’s Department of Education, and part of it willingly undertaken by colleges themselves — that has caused universities to lower burdens of proof, channel serious claims into summary proceedings, restrict the ability to cross-examine witnesses, and even limit access to evidence in an effort to streamline the process of punishing sex offenders.
It’s been a disaster.
By David French
National Review Online
There is no substitute for evidence and due process.
Through much of the last month, the American people have been treated to a version of the emotional and ideological argument that’s dominated the American academy for much of the last ten years. The argument goes something like this: Women rarely lie about rape. Thus, the failure of criminal or civil justice systems to achieve overwhelming rates of conviction or impose liability at the rates of predation means that fundamental reform is mandatory.
Consequently, we must make it easier for women to bring claims, protect them from the rigors of proving claims, and utilize decision-makers trained to understand and respond to the unique trauma of victims. Moreover, when considering sexual-assault claims outside of courts, understand that due process is less important when a man’s liberty isn’t at stake. After all, a campus court isn’t a criminal trial. It’s an evaluation of academic suitability.
The result of this argument has been wholesale national reform — part of it mandated by the Obama administration’s Department of Education, and part of it willingly undertaken by colleges themselves — that has caused universities to lower burdens of proof, channel serious claims into summary proceedings, restrict the ability to cross-examine witnesses, and even limit access to evidence in an effort to streamline the process of punishing sex offenders.
It’s been a disaster.
Saturday, 15 September 2018
A Nation Going Gently Into the Night
The Star Chamber Makes a Comeback in the UK
A fundamental ethical principle that underscores freedom is: not all sins are crimes. Imagine if this were not observed and protected in a country. Since sin is pervasive in all human communities the criminal code would expand to cover all areas of human life--leading to an extreme totalitarian state.
To lie is to commit sin. Imagine, however, if all lies were criminalised. Imagine a child lied to his parents about where he got the fifty cent coin that has been discovered in his pockets. Off to court, guilty conviction, and a criminal sentence for the child. Or, imagine an adult embellishing his employment record. His "exaggeration" is discovered and he is arrested on the spot for the "crime" of lying.
But in the UK, things are even more extreme. The definition of what constitutes a "sin" is entirely in the "eyes and ears" of the observer. One female may regard a male's wolf whistle as harmless, and a bit of fun. The next may regard it as and offensive hate crime because it demeans and degrades her. That legitimately qualifies as both a sin and a crime in the United Kingdom--even if the "crime" is not written up in the statute book.
The only upshot possible from such legal abuse is an eventual tyranny over its citizens. But the form in which this tyranny is unfolding is unique to our generation. In the United Kingdom sins--and what constitutes a sin--are in the eye and ear of the observer. Not only are sins crimes, but the definition of a sin lies entirely with the complainant.
This, from The Federalist:
A fundamental ethical principle that underscores freedom is: not all sins are crimes. Imagine if this were not observed and protected in a country. Since sin is pervasive in all human communities the criminal code would expand to cover all areas of human life--leading to an extreme totalitarian state.
To lie is to commit sin. Imagine, however, if all lies were criminalised. Imagine a child lied to his parents about where he got the fifty cent coin that has been discovered in his pockets. Off to court, guilty conviction, and a criminal sentence for the child. Or, imagine an adult embellishing his employment record. His "exaggeration" is discovered and he is arrested on the spot for the "crime" of lying.
But in the UK, things are even more extreme. The definition of what constitutes a "sin" is entirely in the "eyes and ears" of the observer. One female may regard a male's wolf whistle as harmless, and a bit of fun. The next may regard it as and offensive hate crime because it demeans and degrades her. That legitimately qualifies as both a sin and a crime in the United Kingdom--even if the "crime" is not written up in the statute book.
The only upshot possible from such legal abuse is an eventual tyranny over its citizens. But the form in which this tyranny is unfolding is unique to our generation. In the United Kingdom sins--and what constitutes a sin--are in the eye and ear of the observer. Not only are sins crimes, but the definition of a sin lies entirely with the complainant.
This, from The Federalist:
Monday, 12 March 2018
Justice Minister Little Vs Reality
Up Close and Personal With Thuggery
A harrowing story has been published in the NZ media. The case involved a private individual going about his lawful business only to be struck down by a "coward's punch". Here we have a completely innocent victim being singled out for a sneaky sucker punch, just for the "pleasure" of the perp being able to show how powerful and significant he is.
Tanner - a professional chef who has still (been) unable to return to work - said the assault came on an evening of celebration with his partner Charleen Trass with the couple having just realised years of hard work to buy their first home. "We had been working so hard to achieve our goals. It was a rare night out," said Tanner.A local Northland MP, Matt King happened to be at the same event when he saw the perpetrator, Jaydin Locke commit a heinous crime. He described what he saw:
The Kerikeri couple had bought tickets to go to the Marley NZ All Stars Show, a reggae collective playing at Waipapa's Kainui Road Vineyard. They had arranged care for their four children and were going with family and friends to the midday soundcheck - care of tickets won by Trass' sister - before the evening's entertainment. [NZ Herald]
Thursday, 4 January 2018
Unjust Judges Who Rule The Church of England
Dishonouring the Name of Christ
The Mail on Sunday
If we won't fight injustice wherever we see it, then we are not safe from suffering injustice ourselves. If a man's reputation can be destroyed in an afternoon by a secret kangaroo court, then we too can one day be propelled into a pit of everlasting shame by the same process.
If it can happen to anyone, it can happen to you. And it does happen. Accusations of long-ago sexual crime have become a sort of industry in this country. People are so horrified by them that they almost always believe them.
Because the crime is so foul, we stop thinking. To their shame, police and prosecutors use our horror to get easy convictions, when they must know that their cases are weak. The less actual evidence they have, the more they stress the disgusting nature of the alleged crime. And they forget to remind us that it is alleged, not proved.
Equally shamefully, judges do not stop these trials and juries leave their brains at the door. They convict not because they are sure the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, but because they are angry and revolted.
I am miserably sure there are disturbing numbers of people in British prisons now, prosecuted on such charges, who are innocent of the accusations against them. It is our fault, because we have forgotten what justice is supposed to be like, and that, if we do not guard it in our hearts, it will perish in the country.
If a saintly man can be branded a sex abuser, none of us is safe
By Peter HitchensThe Mail on Sunday
If we won't fight injustice wherever we see it, then we are not safe from suffering injustice ourselves. If a man's reputation can be destroyed in an afternoon by a secret kangaroo court, then we too can one day be propelled into a pit of everlasting shame by the same process.
If it can happen to anyone, it can happen to you. And it does happen. Accusations of long-ago sexual crime have become a sort of industry in this country. People are so horrified by them that they almost always believe them.
Because the crime is so foul, we stop thinking. To their shame, police and prosecutors use our horror to get easy convictions, when they must know that their cases are weak. The less actual evidence they have, the more they stress the disgusting nature of the alleged crime. And they forget to remind us that it is alleged, not proved.
Equally shamefully, judges do not stop these trials and juries leave their brains at the door. They convict not because they are sure the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, but because they are angry and revolted.
I am miserably sure there are disturbing numbers of people in British prisons now, prosecuted on such charges, who are innocent of the accusations against them. It is our fault, because we have forgotten what justice is supposed to be like, and that, if we do not guard it in our hearts, it will perish in the country.
Wednesday, 6 December 2017
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow (On Criminal Justice)
False Witness
Douglas Wilson
Blog & Mablog
INTRODUCTION:
For Christians who want to be biblically grounded, the sin and crime of bearing false witness is a very big deal. It is serious for two great reasons. The first is that it is a violation of God’s holy law, which reflects His character. It was by means of this particular evil; technique that the Lord Jesus was railroaded, and so all Christians who love Jesus should hate the kind of lies that took Him to the cross. The first reason is therefore love of God.
The second reason is that the tables of the law are connected, and we cannot love God whom we have not seen without loving our neighbor, whom we have seen (1 John 4:20). But who is my neighbor? as the fellow once asked. Your neighbor is of course the one who might be falsely convicted on the basis of a lie—and this really is a grievous evil.
But our neighbor is also the person who really has been violated, but who has difficulty getting people to believe her story. Genuine victims are abused by the one who abused them directly, but they are also abused by those liars who make every genuine accusation more difficult. And the problem here is not the responsible officials who suspend judgment until the investigation of a reported crime is complete. That is what Scripture requires of them. The problem is made worse by the liars who have corrupted the system. Victims who effectively cannot come forward are the victims of the perpetrators who violated them in the first instance, and in the second they are also victims of those who traffic in deceit.
Douglas Wilson
Blog & Mablog
INTRODUCTION:
For Christians who want to be biblically grounded, the sin and crime of bearing false witness is a very big deal. It is serious for two great reasons. The first is that it is a violation of God’s holy law, which reflects His character. It was by means of this particular evil; technique that the Lord Jesus was railroaded, and so all Christians who love Jesus should hate the kind of lies that took Him to the cross. The first reason is therefore love of God.
The second reason is that the tables of the law are connected, and we cannot love God whom we have not seen without loving our neighbor, whom we have seen (1 John 4:20). But who is my neighbor? as the fellow once asked. Your neighbor is of course the one who might be falsely convicted on the basis of a lie—and this really is a grievous evil.
But our neighbor is also the person who really has been violated, but who has difficulty getting people to believe her story. Genuine victims are abused by the one who abused them directly, but they are also abused by those liars who make every genuine accusation more difficult. And the problem here is not the responsible officials who suspend judgment until the investigation of a reported crime is complete. That is what Scripture requires of them. The problem is made worse by the liars who have corrupted the system. Victims who effectively cannot come forward are the victims of the perpetrators who violated them in the first instance, and in the second they are also victims of those who traffic in deceit.
Thursday, 26 October 2017
Criminal Nonfeasance
That Which Beggars Belief
There are aspects of the New Zealand penal system which are despicable. We long ago abolished the death penalty for murder. Life imprisonment without parole is the most severe judicial sentence available. The penal authorities strenuously labour to ensure that no-one spends the rest of their natural life in prison.
Dunedin student killer George Charles Trounson paroled for seventh time
Hamish McNeillyHis first release resulted in the longest period of freedom--five years. Since that time he has been paroled another five times, and the longest time out was only nine months. But--and this is the class working definition of insanity--the Parole Board decided that he should once again be paroled. This time, things will be different.
Stuff
A man who bashed his teen flatmate to death has been granted parole for the seventh time.
George Charles Trounson, 45, is serving a life sentence of imprisonment for the murder of Russell Neil, 17, in Dunedin in June 1990. Trounson was 18 when he bashed Neil to death with a broken balustrade. He was sentenced on February 26, 1991.
The New Zealand Parole Board noted Trounson's "unsatisfactory history on parole" in a decision released this week. Trounson was previously released six times and recalled to prison after breaching the terms of his parole. He was first released in March 2001 and was recalled in February 2006 – the longest time he spent in the community in recent years. Subsequent recalls varied between three-and-a-half months and nine months.
Saturday, 24 June 2017
A Case That Screams Out for Appeal
The Philando Castile Verdict Was a Miscarriage of Justice
David French
. . . a Minnesota jury acquitted St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer Jeronimo Yanez of second-degree manslaughter charges in the shooting of Philando Castile. In considering the rightness of the verdict, pay close attention to the transcript of the fatal encounter.
Here it is, via CNN:
9:05:00 p.m. — Castile’s vehicle came to a complete stop.
9:05:15 – 9:05:22 p.m. — Yanez approached Castile’s car on the driver’s side.
9:05:22 – 9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez exchanged greetings with Castile and told him of the brake light problem.
9:05:33 p.m. — St. Anthony Police Officer Joseph Kauser, who had arrived as backup, approached Castile’s car on the passenger’s side.
9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez asked for Castile’s driver’s license and proof of insurance.
9:05:48 p.m. — Castile provided Yanez with his proof of insurance card.
9:05:49 – 9:05:52 p.m. — Yanez looked at Castile’s insurance information and then tucked the card in his pocket.
9:05:52 – 9:05:55 p.m. — Castile told Yanez: “Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and replied, “Okay” and placed his right hand on the holster of his gun.
9:05:55 – 9:06:02 p.m. — Yanez said “Okay, don’t reach for it, then.” Castile responded: “I’m… I’m … [inaudible] reaching…,” before being again interrupted by Yanez, who said “Don’t pull it out.” Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out,” and Reynolds said, “He’s not pulling it out.” Yanez screamed: “Don’t pull it out,” and pulled his gun with his right hand.
Yanez fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. The seventh shot was fired at 9:06:02 p.m. Kauser did not touch or remove his gun.
9:06:03 – 9:06:04 p.m. — Reynolds yelled, “You just killed my boyfriend!”
9:06:04 – 9:06:05 p.m. — Castile moaned and said, “I wasn’t reaching for it.” These were his last words.
9:06:05 – 9:06:09 p.m. — Reynolds said “He wasn’t reaching for it.” Before she completed her sentence, Yanez screamed “Don’t pull it out!” Reynolds responded. “He wasn’t.” Yanez yelled, “Don’t move! F***!”
If you read carefully, you’ll note that it appears that the officer shot Castile for doing exactly what the officer told him to do.
Saturday, 25 March 2017
Asset Forefeiture
Malleable Justice in An Atheistic World
In the United States civil forfeiture is a great evil. Police can seize assets from citizens on suspicion of criminal wrong doing. The assets seized usually go towards funding the police. Not that one would ever know that's what it was used for. Need a few more sophisticated equipment in the squad cars? Just get out into the community and rattle a few branches. Pick on any likely dumbos. Seize their vehicles, houses, whatever. Sell them off, and voila. Leather seats in the squad cars all around.
In New Zealand, we have our own variant. In some critical ways it is not quite as bad as the US monstrosity. In NZ, the police can only seize assets when someone has been prosecuted and convicted of crime. Theoretically, the only assets seized are to be those which have been garnered through crimes.
Nevertheless, the New Zealand variant of civil forfeiture has noisome aspects. Recently one of our local rags took up the case of a guy who was convicted of being a fence, a receiver of stolen property--in particular, gold.
In the United States civil forfeiture is a great evil. Police can seize assets from citizens on suspicion of criminal wrong doing. The assets seized usually go towards funding the police. Not that one would ever know that's what it was used for. Need a few more sophisticated equipment in the squad cars? Just get out into the community and rattle a few branches. Pick on any likely dumbos. Seize their vehicles, houses, whatever. Sell them off, and voila. Leather seats in the squad cars all around.
In New Zealand, we have our own variant. In some critical ways it is not quite as bad as the US monstrosity. In NZ, the police can only seize assets when someone has been prosecuted and convicted of crime. Theoretically, the only assets seized are to be those which have been garnered through crimes.
Nevertheless, the New Zealand variant of civil forfeiture has noisome aspects. Recently one of our local rags took up the case of a guy who was convicted of being a fence, a receiver of stolen property--in particular, gold.
Monday, 27 February 2017
Caught in the Maw of Judicial Prejudice
 |
| Brian Franklin as a young |
Fighting for the Falsely Accused
A former Texas police officer had his jail sentence dropped but is still fighting to establish his innocence.
By Michelle MalkinNational Review Online
Former Fort Worth, Texas, police officer Brian Franklin is finally free. But he is still fighting to clear his name.
“I’ve been vindicated,” he told me in an interview last week, “but not yet exonerated.” Franklin served 21 years in prison — a harrowing 7,700 days — of a life sentence after he was convicted of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in 1995. But he steadfastly maintained his innocence, studied law in the prison library, and won a reversal of his conviction last spring. In December, a jury acquitted him after a second criminal trial.
“It’s been a roller-coaster ride up and down,” Franklin reflected. Hellish doesn’t begin to describe the journey. His accuser had lied that she was a virgin before Franklin allegedly raped her. Prosecutors produced physical exam results of damage to her genitals as proof of his crime. In fact, she had been the victim of molestation by her stepfather for years.
Moreover, the young accuser’s story of when she was allegedly raped changed to fit a timeline developed by prosecutors. That timeline was debunked when Franklin’s employment time records and time-stamped and dated store receipts showed he was nowhere near the alleged rape location — the backyard of her biological father, who was a friend of Franklin’s.
There were no witnesses. There was no DNA. Yet, the cop with “law enforcement in my blood” lost his job, reputation, and freedom.
“It’s the easiest crime to be falsely accused of,” Franklin told me. Prosecutors “used my position as a police officer against me.” His family and church stood by him. But as soon as he was arrested, he had already been branded a “RAPIST” in the court of public opinion. His original jury “prejudged me,” Franklin recalled. Given the reckless witch hunts in cases like his and the Duke lacrosse case, he observed, “I’m surprised anybody gets acquitted these days.”
Tuesday, 14 June 2016
Failing the "Smell" Test
Both Inexplicable and Noisome
A copy of a guest post published at Kiwiblog.
Why were Moko’s killers’ charges reduced to manslaughter?
A guest post by David Garrett:Why were Moko’s killers’ charges reduced to manslaughter?
It is now almost a month since it became publicly known that the people who stomped and bashed and strangled little Moko Rangitoheriri to death over a two week period had had their murder charges reduced to manslaughter, to which they no doubt very gratefully pleaded guilty. Despite commendable media scrutiny, the public are still none the wiser as to how this seemingly inexplicable decision came to be made.
And inexplicable it is, to a number of senior criminal defence barristers I have consulted. The statement of facts has now been leaked. I am told it is a dreadful tale of lengthy abuse and multiple life threatening injuries, any one of which could have caused Moko’s death. There is absolutely no doubt that all of those injuries were inflicted by Tania Shailer and/or her boyfriend David Haerewa. Unlike the Kahui twins’ debacle, no-one else is in the frame.
One early story quoted “a family member” having been told by the Crown Solicitor in charge of the prosecution that because Moko did not die immediately, but later in hospital, a murder charge could not be pursued.
Thursday, 28 January 2016
Progress Against Civil Asset Forfeiture, Part II
State By State
Civil Forfeiture Now Requires A Criminal Conviction In Montana And New Mexico
Forbes
Nick Sibilla
Just in time for the Fourth of July, states are declaring their independence from civil forfeiture.
Enabled by civil forfeiture laws, police can seize and keep property without the government ever filing criminal charges. Innocent Americans actually must prove their own innocence in court if they ever hope to regain their property. Local, state and federal law enforcement agencies routinely seize property and pad their budgets with forfeiture revenue. Outlets as diverse as The New Yorker and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver have detailed this travesty of justice.
But thankfully, civil forfeiture’s days may soon be numbered. Starting July 1, two major reforms from Montana and New Mexico will go into effect.
Earlier this year, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock signed a law that requires the government to first obtain a criminal conviction before taking and keeping someone’s property through civil forfeiture. This legislation also shifts the burden of proof onto the government—where it belongs—when spouses, neighbors and other innocent owners try to get back property used by a suspect without their knowledge. Montana’s civil forfeiture reforms are vital to restore due process and protect the property rights of the innocent.
New Mexico went even further and abolished civil forfeiture outright.
Civil Forfeiture Now Requires A Criminal Conviction In Montana And New Mexico
Forbes
Nick Sibilla
Just in time for the Fourth of July, states are declaring their independence from civil forfeiture.
Enabled by civil forfeiture laws, police can seize and keep property without the government ever filing criminal charges. Innocent Americans actually must prove their own innocence in court if they ever hope to regain their property. Local, state and federal law enforcement agencies routinely seize property and pad their budgets with forfeiture revenue. Outlets as diverse as The New Yorker and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver have detailed this travesty of justice.
But thankfully, civil forfeiture’s days may soon be numbered. Starting July 1, two major reforms from Montana and New Mexico will go into effect.
Earlier this year, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock signed a law that requires the government to first obtain a criminal conviction before taking and keeping someone’s property through civil forfeiture. This legislation also shifts the burden of proof onto the government—where it belongs—when spouses, neighbors and other innocent owners try to get back property used by a suspect without their knowledge. Montana’s civil forfeiture reforms are vital to restore due process and protect the property rights of the innocent.
The Montana State Legislature.
New Mexico went even further and abolished civil forfeiture outright.
Thursday, 29 October 2015
Justice Denied
Police Corruption In the UK
Doubtless for all of us there are some things which set the blood to boil. Here is one of ours. We despise the "perp walk" where the presumed guilty are paraded in public, before the media, to have their arrest or interrogation blazoned across the skies. The Americans have made a fine art of this spectacle employed when a public figure has been apprehended. Let none doubt that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is long gone.
The UK police have adopted similar practices. Remember the "tip off" from the police to the media that singer, Cliff Richards's home was about to be raided. (Richards was absent at the time.) But the media had a helicopter in the sky to record it all. Recently it was a New Zealander who suffered under their corrupt behaviour. Mils Muliaina is a famous All Black--at least in rugby circles. However, recently his name has been dragged through the mud because of the UK version of the "perp walk". He was arrested at the conclusion of a rugby game in which he had played and charged with sexual assault. "Naturally" the TV cameras were present to record the arrest. Mmmm. We wonder how the Repeaters knew that was going to go down.
Sexual assault is a charge which covers a broad spectrum of activity.
Doubtless for all of us there are some things which set the blood to boil. Here is one of ours. We despise the "perp walk" where the presumed guilty are paraded in public, before the media, to have their arrest or interrogation blazoned across the skies. The Americans have made a fine art of this spectacle employed when a public figure has been apprehended. Let none doubt that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is long gone.
The UK police have adopted similar practices. Remember the "tip off" from the police to the media that singer, Cliff Richards's home was about to be raided. (Richards was absent at the time.) But the media had a helicopter in the sky to record it all. Recently it was a New Zealander who suffered under their corrupt behaviour. Mils Muliaina is a famous All Black--at least in rugby circles. However, recently his name has been dragged through the mud because of the UK version of the "perp walk". He was arrested at the conclusion of a rugby game in which he had played and charged with sexual assault. "Naturally" the TV cameras were present to record the arrest. Mmmm. We wonder how the Repeaters knew that was going to go down.
Sexual assault is a charge which covers a broad spectrum of activity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)