I retired from personal blogging in July 2008.
But you can find me over at http://blog.xero.com.
Heading into territory I’m not that comfortable posting about here but I feel really strongly about it, so here goes.
I’m going to talk about the Kahui case.
Yeah I know that my situation is different from that family, but most of us with busy careers are parents as well. I’ve got 3 under 5 and like many busy working parents you can’t cheat your kids. No matter how much money you have or don’t have it’s all about spending time with them. I try to be there for bath time, read stories at night and try not to work to much in the weekends.
Regardless of who eventually killed the twins it was clear from the evidence that the kids had been beaten regularly throughout their short lives. That is unacceptable in New Zealand or anywhere.
When the event occurred it sickened us that the ‘tight twelve’ held out for so long. They should have locked them all up immediately.
Something has to happen here. One parent is most likely a killer. Both failed to protect their kids. They both need to be locked up. If not for murder then for abuse. The wider family need to be charged for obstruction and repeatingly not protecting the most defenseless of their whanau.
Given the timing I suspect the police are making a political statement by not pressing further charges immediately. These matters must be concluded quickly.
blog
Totally agree! Its not the first time that a family of a killed kid has grouped together to work out stories, if the mother is charged she will blame the father and establish enough reasonable doubt that it wasn’t her. How can the lead detective say the case is closed the whole family needs to be charged with accessory to murder and given the maximum sentence, the hard part for me is that these people will continue to have kids and are likely to breed the next William Bells.The sad and awful reality is that those kids are better off dead then growing up in that family.
I feel I understand why the ‘tight twelve’ were not locked up on the spot. The Police were presumably looking for their resolve to weaken, leading to someone eventually realising that perhaps in the case of two dead children that justice should be served. Locking people up rarely leads to a softening of attitude.
Quite what they’re doing not in prison now, however, defeats me. Especially since their attempt to pervert the course of justice has proven effective. They have also provided a neat, well packaged template for anyone wishing to literally get away with murder. Perhaps a respected public figure - a business leader maybe - could have a word with Annette King?
This sort of action is bringing alot of shame on the maori culture ( not that its only maori family’s do this ). As far as I am concerned this whole family was guilty but Due to political correctness they got away with regularly beating children and killing them. Where is sue Bradford now with her child smacking bill? She needs to add a few more paragraphs to it.
The sad thing is that this is not a once off and happens a lot, just the killing has brought it to the medias attention.
Having served on two jury trials in the last ten years, it comes as no surprise to me that a verdict was reached within 10 minutes.
I regret to say that in both cases there were two factors that frustrated the integrity of the process.
The first was that in many cases the other jurors were not used to using facts for the purpose of making decisions. So they were distracted by how they felt about the people involved.
The second was a preoccupation with getting home on time or go out to the pub with friends.
Had this case been tried by a panel of learned men and women, more time would have been taken, and perhaps we would have seen a different outcome.
I have to say I disagree with Peter’s comments. It’s true that it’s no surprise that the decision was reached in 10 minutes, but those reasons are over-simplified.
I have to say I don’t understand why the police have opted not to pursue the case any further. While it might not be possible to convict either the mother or father in this case (and I use those terms in the loosest possible senses of the words), the fact remains that they are still both guilty of neglecting those children. The mother was a P addict and the father neglectful, abusive and had little self-control. They both failed those children and yet it seems the idea of charging them with Failing to Provide the Necessities of Life is not an option.
It’s a cruel irony in this society (and others) that you need a licence to drive, you need a licence to use a firearm, you even need a licence to get married (although there’s no exams or training for that one…) but no licence for parenting. Some people will always be poor parents, but they will also always be able to repeat those same mistakes with every new child they bring into the world. Perhaps that could be a focus of punishment? If you are ever charged with this sort of crime, any rights you have as a parent are revoked.
Having said that, do we really have confidence in CYFS these days?
It’s outrageous, and those of us who are parents of course shake our heads and wonder how anybody - especially parents - could do this to children.
But that thought is central to all of this: we can’t relate to this way of treating children (or anyone), and I venture that those parents can’t relate to us. Also, those around them pretty much all have some degree of acceptance of child abuse, violence, drinking to excess, etc. This is the problem: that for a large number of people, violence and abuse is something that happens, and is perpetuated.
Yes, this is an “academic” view, but it reveals how deeply-ingrained the problem is. It’s dysfunctionality in a section of society. These people have no role-mobels of how to behave, including how to be a responsible parent. Even when these kids were dying, they went to MacDonalds. Hello? This isn’t because they are the devil incarnate, but because they are on a different planet.
The people who are standing between what happened and those responsible being brought to justice are reprehensible, cowardly failures of people who somehow see themselves as “staunch” and “right”. They are deluded. However, somebody breaking from this group probably represents the only legal avenue of finding the killer or killers.
Wake up New Zealand: “addressing” problems with violence doesn’t solve anything: it’s heading in the wrong direction. I think that attitudes towards violence are central to most of this dysfunctionality, and a non-violent way of resolving problems is central to what we teach our kids.
Just my $0.02 …
NB: 2nd to last para, when I say “our kids” I’m referring to *my* (three) kids.
Hi Rod
I think you qualify to speak on this issue just as much as anyone else who feels responsibility for their contribution to our society.
I have always believed that the difference between a community and a mob is the existence of law and order. Clearly, in this case, the law has decided that it is right, and order wrong (if you accept the American version of the separation of the two).
When the police say there is no new evidence, and so they will not pursue any further investigation, what I hear is that the police are of the opinion that they were right and the jury were wrong, and as a result there is no point in doing any more work!
In any system of natural justice, there is a punishment effect for an illegal cause. That must be the case here as well as for young men who daub their tags on private property or race down streets and three times the speed limit. Or even for old f**ts (without old f**titus) who race down the same 50 k limit street at 61 k ans incur a nice $80 fine and pay it.
For the police to say they will not continue the investigation, is for them to say that the breakdown in law and order, which has preceded every systemic societal failure in history, is under way here. They need to be TOLD to get on with their job and solve an unsolved case, they also need to be told that no one person, or group of people, may be afforded special rights and privileges over and above those of society at large. The cultural sensitivity shown to the tight 12, and many other similar groups I am sure, is not appropriate for Maori or any other cultural group, and should never happen again.
Like 99.99998% of the New Zealand population, I don’t know who killed the twins, like the 12 jurors, I do not believe the state fulfilled its duty of proof in the trial. Like what feels like few others, I believe the fault lies in the police force’s procedures and practices, and that they should not be allowed no to abdicate their responsibility. THere is guilt in the case of the murder of the twins, probably for many offences, and that guilt must be brought to justice and dealt with.
Perhaps it is time to bring safety and order to New Zealand, in the way it was brought to New York. A policy of Zero Tollerance, for any offense against society, will carry a short-term cost burden for society, but the long term return on investment will be well worth it I think.
Here is another perspective on the Kahui case:
Problem is Keystone cops, not the right to silence
Also, I think that one of the problem is the state welfare that provided money for the likes of the Kahui babies parents to breed & reproduce. It amazes me to read the Herald that the mother afforded to party every week (from state welfare handouts) while the babies are being neglected. Welfare handouts should be time-limited (say 6 months or so), and these problems of child abuse will certainly decrease over time. The following is an interesting blog post on the subject:
Working for benefits
I lived in Cannons Creek from the age of 4 through to 19. In an effort to get workers in the factories housing was offered and the money was good. Unfortunately no education occurred as to how best save your money and not throw it away at the top or bottom Tav (TAB too!!). Because the parents themselves had not been educated as to the “new world” teachers were left to do what a lot of parents should have done, therefore a lot of kids were missed, no, a massive amount of kids were missed. My view is that successive Govt’s have reaped what they have sown, they neglected the people who in turn neglected their children. This neglect has been on a scale far beyond what is morally and socially acceptable.
Mark in Mbne
Well said. The education system has a lot to answer for, most especially those experts that, over the last three decades, have thrown away the wisdom and knowledge acquired over hundreds of years and replaced them with new theories that have little to do with practicality and lots to do with ego!
Back when I was struggling with the system as a “pupil” (I know this is starting to sound like the ‘good old days’ but bare with me a moment), we had the pleasure of beeing streamed up to three times in our progress through the system.
In our 6th year in the schooling system we sat the 11 plus exam. This was a standard written test given to all kids, that essentially was an IQ test, and sorted us into three ‘types’ of person. THe academically gifter were called ‘grammars’, those with technical cogency were designated ‘techies’ and those others were called ‘moderns’. Naturally there were those on the borderlines and they were called (by us, not the system) curiosities.
The schools in the system were alos graded. There were those that were Grammar Schools, those that were Technical Colleges, and those that were Secondary Moderns. There were also Technical Grammars and technical secondaries, but not many of them. The binding force of the system was its development focus. The students at the Secondary Modern schoools were taught the things that would be important for a life expected to be lived in a world of people who worked in factories, shops and other environments where their contribution was predominantly practical/physical and contained limited intellectual expectations. THe predominant benefit of this type of education was that it graduated people who had learned about budgetting, practical crafts and other things that they needed to both survive and be happy in their area of contribution and lifestyle. Technical colleges graduated people who were likely to mainly contribute to the practical physical environment; the engineers, architects, practical sciences that created progress and comfort in the physical world based on numerate capabilities. The grammar schools graduated the so called ‘intellectuals’ who dealt primarily in the wortld of ‘Arts’ and looked after the work that required cognitive capabiolity, such as civil servants, managers, doctors, lawyers, etc.. The borderline schools delivered combined curriculae, which allowed students to exploit their abilities as they developed.
During the 8th year, and again during the 11th, chances to identify and provide opportunities to students whose prime capabilities were latent were afforded through the 13+ and “o” level examinations, and many children moved school at the end of these years to take advantage of those opportunities.
Today, we have a system best labelled as ‘comprehensive’, where the area you live in, rather than the true potential you hold, determines the type of education you will receive from the state. I despair of this approach for a VERY simple reason - it dooms the bright child in a ‘low decile’ area, and the less bright child in a ‘high decile’ area to a less than appropriate education and the lifetime of resentment that that might cause.
I was lucky. I sat the privarte school version of the 11 plus exam, (called the Common Entrance exam and used to create the same grading for children whose parents were paying for an education at equally graded schools!) and got into an upper level grammar school. As a border, I shared a ‘dorm’ with two other boys, one was heir to some fancy title, the other came from the toughest, most ‘down the scale” area of Manchester.
Our Mancunian had received a ’scholarship’ to our school from the government, his marks in the 11+ having caused the powers to be that he would most appropriately fit into ‘our’ school. He was clearly in the wrong place because he beat every one of us at everything we did, both academically and in sports and recreation. He went on to be a pillar of business in Britain, and accumulated more money than even young Rod has (so far). His brother, who did ‘OK’ in the 11+, and a bit better at 13, ended up in the software world, and has managed a good lifestyle and a very happy family. I am still in contact with both of them, and their friendship has always meant a lot to me - they are great people.
In general, I think my generation is happier than those of our children, at all levels. We all had opportunities to ‘get ahead’ and ‘achieve our potential’. None of us was held back, in our schooling’ so as not to lose the ‘less bright’ of our schoolmates in the class. No one was unpreparted for the life they were likelty to lead, and few of us ended up in jail or with chips on our shoulders.
My children have had similar opportunites to me, I’ve bought them; they are all happy with their lot in life and that, to me, is the greatest gift I have been able to give them. However, I am frightened for my grandchildren now, to the point where I am establishing education trusts for each of them so that they have to opportunity to go to schools that suit their abilities, as opposed to their houses or suburbs.
It’s time for New Zealand to abandon experimenting with the education of our youth, and apply the benefits of evidence-proven outcomes to drive the way we prepare our society for the challenges of the 21st and 22nd centuries. It won’t happen (hence my trusts,) but it would solve som of the desparate problems that young people of today will face when they leave behind ‘every one is equal’ schooling, and enter the ‘best person for the job’ real world. We have enough peo-ple suffering from the deep depression that transition causes - we don’t need anymore.
But that’s just my opinion, and what do I know, I’m just a tax-payer!
Dave: which is “your generation”? (just interested, because being happy - internally - I see as something that is core to a good life).
Erm, as many here who know me would say, my generation is ‘old’ (though I will deny for ever having caught that dredded disease - oldfartitus.
I am an early member of the Baby boom generation, and have children aged 25, 27, 32 & 37. My schooling started in 1952 and I attended university and graduate school. I am old enopugh to remember valve memory, and young enough to update my home technology every six to eight months.
I hope that helps you understand my perspective Robin.
Hi David - yes, gives me an idea. It is very difficult to compare generations I think. Being “happy” is so relative.
I suspect, too, that experimentation with systems and suchlike is part of the NZ psyche. Tinkering. Short political term. Short-term thinking. Lack of investment. Living for today. All part of the same head, and all very hard to change.
True
And in many ways that’s what I love about NZ and why I’m a citizen. BUT there are many good lessons from the past that are being thrown away, and many bad ones that are having to be relearned.
THere’s a group in the Ministry of Education who are doing researching best practice in teaching using an evidence based approach. In the main they are being ignored, despite the fact that the ‘delivery’ world thinks their results are accurate and beneficial. Why? Because the latest theory says that children don’t need to learn anything but how to learn! (Don’t ask me to explain that I can’t.) So taking your pre-schooler and teaching them to count, or read or play well with others is (I guess) a waste of time, as they aren’t learning how tolearn they are learning.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I am no expert on education but from first principles it seems that the ability to change and adapt is key to continual learning. That said, it would seem that one needs a base (means all sorts of things: basic knowledge, experience, etc.) upon which to build. If I had my way home-schooling combined with regular social exposure to others would be my approach. I am certainly not leaving it up to the system here to educate my children but at the same time I’m not about to head out and buy Baby Beethoven or whatever.
Learning to learn - sounds like PLAYING?
Easy to blame parents, not so easy to blame ourselves.
I’ve been involved in bad situations where people who could help or stop it have instead done nothing. We all do.
Education, government, taxes, law, everything means nothing unless we as a group do our bit to uphold it. And in New Zealand we are much happier to put it down to someone else’s personal business and leave them to struggle on than get involved.
“The sad thing is that this is not a once off and happens a lot, just the killing has brought it to the medias attention.” I agree completely. You see abuse on small and large scales all over this country, I’m 24, white and from a middle class background. I’ve seen tonnes. I would suggest that as well as looking for people to blame, we also look at what we have done. I am yet to see a situation where throwing people in jail has stopped something this inherent in society, but I do see our tendency to look the other way leading to it continuing.
Got a colleague here from Singapore at the mo. It is that safe there they will go anywhere at any time of the day or night. Quite a regimented society from what I can glean, however no (or absolutely negligible) violence beats any violence in my mind.
New York solution would be a worth a big try as it is working here in Mbne (where inner city drug, alcohol and violence has increased alarmingly in recent years.)
Robin - I agree, a great way to play
Natalie, I’m sorry, but the nanny state has brought about that ‘ignore other peoples’ issues’ situation! I’m going to sound old again (and I hate that,) but I remember when I was a youngster my Father went out with a group of neighbours to ‘talk’ to a man down the road who had beaten his wife. The man in question walked funny for a few days, and the bruises on his face from where he ‘walked into a lamp post’ took a few days to vanish, but I don’t remember any other stories about him hitting any one. (I should note that my Father abhored physical violence of any type.)
Similarly, I was involved in a bit of skullduggery when I was about 11, with a bunch of mates. Nothing outstandingly evil, just one of those stupid things kids do. The local cop found us, clipped us all around the ear (when I remember it I feel that clout again,) took us all home and every one of us was belted again by our dads.
The point? Communities sorted out their own. Today, the men, including my dad, who sorted out a neighbour would be charged with assault, as would the cop who sorted out us boys; so those things don’t happen. Worse, most parents don’t care any more that their kids have done something antisocial, they get them free counselling to get over the clip of the cop and tell them to carry on.
We have allowed the state to take over from each other responsibility for our behavior towards one another, and the state has take things too far. Why too far? A peer of my son, (they did teaching degrees together, is a pretty young thing and quite a fashion horse. At her first job as a teacher, she (stupidly) went to work one day without a bra on, and a couple of senior (about 16 year old) boys egged each other on to find out if that was the only item of underwear she had ‘forgotten’. One knealt down behind her, while another walked into her and ‘accidentally’ pushed her over his mate’s back, upending her. Cleverly, she has the presence of mind as she fell backward to grap the hair of the one who had pushed her (personally I think it was instinct) and keep hold. She marched said youth off to the headmasters office, and quickly aprehended the other youth, so delivering both of them for reprimand. Two days later, after the school had ‘investigated’, she was given a written final warning for assaulting a child, and the child (whose hair she had held as she fell) started attending victim counselling. She left, and works now in the hospitality industry; my son, and several of their graduatin cohort also resiged from teaching on the basis that it was too dangerous an occupation.
Riddle me that if you will.
> Similarly, I was involved in a bit of skullduggery when I was about 11, with a bunch of mates. Nothing
> outstandingly evil, just one of those stupid things kids do. The local cop found us, clipped us all around
> the ear (when I remember it I feel that clout again,) took us all home and every one of us was belted
> again by our dads.
I’m all for responsibility but don’t accept for a moment that belting/smacking/whatever is the way to instil it. In fact, I think such approaches are ingrained in the culture here in NZ (and elsewhere) and without doubt, part of the problem.
Forget about the anti-smacking debate. Clipping kids around the ear or whatever is lazy and whatever lesson is learned the lesson that violence wins/prevails is also learned. It’s not smart - it’s lazy, and I think, destructive.
Note I am not defending the current state of affairs in NZ (or the UK, Australia, US, Canada, etc. etc.) where the systems designed to protect people often have quite unintended, destructive results such as the situation you describe.
No, I don’t hit/smack/clip/whatever my kids. Never will I imagine. I’m not seeking any special status or recognition for managing to make a more thoughtful/creative approach work - just noting that it is absolutely possible with a bit of thought (I take credit for that though!).
This has opened a hornet’s nest! Well done Rod for bringing up the subject.
The thing with the Police and prosecution is that there seemed to be very little evidence other than circumstantial evidence. i.e. no witness came forward so there is no silver bullet and the Police would find it even more difficult to put together another case.
The weakness is in the Justice system that can’t put pressure on the people involved. It should be a “tell us or..” system. A bit like speeding tickets that put the onus of proof on the car owner that it wasn’t them driving.
As to benefits, how about cutting off the incentive of child welfare benefits to those parents who consistently show a lack of responsibility with kids. You could put the money into a foster child scheme - match kids to parents who really want children.
> The weakness is in the Justice system that can’t put pressure on the people involved.
Agreed, but the question of how to address this weakness is not clear at all.
> It should be a “tell us or..” system.
Tell us what? Huh? How can they tell you if they don’t know? How do you know what they know? Come on - I suggest you think for a few seconds before making suggestions like this. What if they tell you something that is totally bogus? What if 11 of 12 people conspire to tell you something bogus?
> A bit like speeding tickets that put the onus of proof on the car owner that it wasn’t them driving.
There is a reasonable amount of evidence in the case of speeding that a vehicle was breaking the law. Part of the presumption in the rules is that somebody who owns a car should know who is using it. If somebody let/encouraged somebody to use their vehicle to drink and drive resulting in the death of an innocent family - for example - you (I guess) would be first to claim that the owner had some degree of responsibility, no?
Don’t get me wrong - I don’t think the system works as well as it could by a long shot but it is quite complex to strike workable balances between freedoms and responsibilities, etc.
On the topic of a clip round the ear - or whatever - I’ll save comment till I hear how old your children are. In my view, that’s a better ‘legal’ remedy than a police record!
However, on the topic of changing the system I am a lot more empassioned Mr Widdicombe! You see, I disagree with you on the smacking bit, but will argue to the death for your right to hold that opinion. Why, because freedom of speech is something I passionately agree with. In the same way, I hold dear a person’s right not to have to give evidence against themselves, it goes against nature to do that. But let’s think for a minute. Does this mean, Mr. W. that you are in favour of torture and capital punishment? Certainly your ‘or else’ infers that you are! So at what point would you like it to end?
Scenario. Mr. W. arrives home at 7:30 pm on Friday night after a drink with colleagues. He greets his family and sits down for a well earned feed. Just as the first forkfull is steering for his mouth, the front door crashes open and two burley policemen storm into the dining room. “Was it you that ran the red light on any street?” says one, pointing menacingly at Mr. W. “No way” says Mr. W. “Yes it was”, says the other policeman, “come on, tell us or else”. “It wasn’t me”, says Mr. W. “Right”, says the first policeman, “we’re taking you to the cells for interrogation, and anything you don’t say will be written down and givern in evidence against you”.
I think the best thing for you to do Mr. W. is go listen to Billy Connolly’s version of ‘two little boys in blue’. For you it may be a theme song, for me it’s just a right laugh.
Don’t know if you’re asking me or somebody else Dave but my kids are 4, 2 and 0.
I don’t accept the argument of clip round the ear or a police record - that’s a false simplification, and a cheeky one too, and you know it :O)
My last thought on this topic: the law is a blunt instrument that most people believe to be something that can be used to extract a just, good and fair outcome from any situation. Reality shows us that it is far from that as we only need to consider the relative aspect of “just” (etc.) to see that it can never please a wide range of views.
Cheeky indeed, :-) however far fewer people went on to ‘worse’ things after learning you can’t get away scott free me thinks!
Your kids, 0 2 & 4, you are indeed blessed! My grandchildren are 7 days, 6 months, 2 and 3, and I dote on them and would sacrifice anyone who laid a hand on them. But when they get to the age where they start answering back, demandin and refusing to make a contribution I won’t assault my children (inclding in- and out- laws) for a clip round the ear, as I believe in consequences. The naughty corner doesn’t work for a teenager believe me, and one clip round the ear may save you a few million ineffective words.
ANyway. Enjoy your younsters while they are beautiful (which the will always be) and mouldable (which has a long pause between 12 and 23. Lets have thuis conversation again in 20 years’ time (hopefully not by seance).
The family played the system, and we are now in a position of no justice.
I have never heard such a ridiculous situation as what Dave describes. To correct you, I believe that in the case of the traffic infringement, the Police send a nice letter instead of the SWAT team; the “or else” is the fine for an infringement that you may not have committed, but you should know who is driving your car (or caring for your kids).
As for evidence Robin, there is clear evidence that some babies are dead!
The “tell us or..” comment was in relation to my frustration that someone has got away with murder. It may be a silly idea, but this is a silly situation where the Police and justice system were powerless to get sufficient evidence.
Freedom of speech, or freedom to murder?
rediculous - NO
Sorry Charles, but when you open the bottle its impossible to get the genie back in without supernatural help. As soon as you advocate an ‘or else’ regime you have to live with the consequences.
Just look at the bruhaha over the EFA right now. The Labour Party and its government minority parties, let the genie out of the bottle, and which party is getting caught in breach of the law? The Labour Party!
Let the police have a ‘talk or else’ ability, and before you know it there won’t be any polite letters, there will be the goons at the door filling their arrest quotas. Jay walking - confess or else; kids wagging school - confess or else.
If you want a true to life example, look at the difference between the constitutional rights of ANYONE on USA soil, and those of the people on not quite USA soil in Guantanamo.
While I, like you, am horrifed by what has (and has not) happened over the deaths of those two babies, I cannot accept a change in the rule of law just because of it. Sane minds must not throw away the learning of a thousand years of criminal and common law development, just because someone has yet to be punished for what they did. If that were to happen, we’d have the death penalty back, and innocent people again being murdered by the state when the system fails. Something I doubt that you really want after sober reflection.
Dave, why do you think I want the death penalty back, and how do you make that link? You yourself suggested it, not me. That’s going too far.
Maybe there is a middle ground - I don’t have the answer, otherwise I’d be a politician. All I was suggesting was that someone (community leaders/politicians/police) should have persuaded someone to come forward and provide evidence. How they do that it the question (not by the threat of “being murdered by the state when the system fails”). No further comment.
Charles
“The weakness is in the Justice system that can’t put pressure on the people involved. It should be a “tell us or..” system. A bit like speeding tickets that put the onus of proof on the car owner that it wasn’t them driving.”
I’m simply taking your own comment to its natural conclusion. When youhave a “tell us or ..” system there has to be a SOMETHING after the or. Once you go that far, the rest is an easy step, guilty till proven inncent, no right to silence, no right to anything other than a minute in court at which time you are sentenced because you’re guilty.
Our system, with all its faults, is geared to let a guilty person go free rather than penalise an innocent one, and I quite like that.
As you say though, enough on this topic, I think we might be on the same side of the debate in the cold light of day.
[...] post follows from one written by Rod Drury about baby twins who were murdered after a very short life of constant abuse. Rod was uncomfortable [...]
8 years ago I intervened in a knifepoint attack – attempted rape/abduction/murder – he gets out this month I think. I felt for the victim absolutely, and the event changed my life, but at the end of the day I could not despise the assailant.
Why not? – because, when I looked on his side of the court room, all I could think was “How are you ever going to escape that?” At the very least Chris Kahui was naïve and stupid. Everything else is speculation. Prosecution isn’t the place to start nor is it the place to finish. If we locked them all up it might assuage a want for justice but it wouldn’t change a jot in terms of what happens next.
So Richard
What is your solution?
Stop them in their tracks (as you did)
Slap them on the wrist and tell them to go away and not be naughty any more?
Oh, sorry, we can’t slap them, maybe we just send them to the naughty corner for 1 minute for every year of their age!
When an ‘offender’ gets to the point of attempted rape/abduction/murder, surely the time has come for prosecution and protection of the community from his predeliction for personal gratification. (Given the oft-quoted luxury of today’s prison system, I doublt we can say we ‘punish’ by incarceration any more.).
I willingly believe that incarcerating the offender, and dealing with them under a rule of law, may punish their family more than them, and lead to excessive cost to me - the tax payer. However, unless we are willing to adopt a more direct form of punishment (such as Saudi Arabian society has,) we have to accept that incarceration is the most appropriate form of punishment for people with desires, be they sexual, financial or community-gubernatorial, that are deemed by elected law-passers as anti-social.
WHat else would you have society do, to the offender and for the victim?
Dave
My point being that in isolation incarceration is no solution. I do think it was appropriate that in the case I was involved in ‘8 years time’ was served.
I don’t believe we should let the non-conviction in the Kahui case distract us from the main issue which is - where does this all comes from?
though probably not the solution in this case Oliver James in his book Affluenza proposes parents for under 5’s get the minimum wage if they are not working, with some refinement this would have merit - I have 2 under five and I know my wife has a full time job to care for them - that is what we agreed - and it is still difficult even with no finanical worries and effective relationship/ communication skills. I expect many including Rod can relate to that.
Yes I think somebody or some persons should be convicted, but I would not believe for one instant it changed anything much.
Then, Richard, I applaud your sentiments and subscribe to them.
No crime can be undone by punishment, but the criminal must be punished, otherwise the message is that crime is OK.
I have four children, and have worked to support them and their full-time mother in a life-style that was comfortable and educational. I have, as someone said to me recently, nice children I am not ashemed to take anywhere or introduce to anyone. The point - we had a family we could afford to raise in the way we thought best, with no assistance from the state. I’m afraid the idea of paying someone from taxes to be a parent is, to me, abhorent unless ‘we the people’ can have dictatorial rights over HOW they are raised; something I expect no parent to give and don’t actually want.
Take a quick cross section… a double murderer in a house with 12 family member accomplises… no conviction.
David Bain - a conviction ! But then the police made up the evidence at they went along. Nice. Now a retrial. You pay for that.
Prisons are full. Nation is crippled by the welfare state genius.
Not enough Judges to complete the court day.
Underpaid junior doctors [leaving NZ everyday]. Over paid senior doctors. Over paid Locums [who are by the way the very same junior doctors as they do locum work on their days off and get triple the pay.]
19,000 RE agents working currently ! In a market that has little if any regulation.
500% increase in debt collections in recent months.
Huge increase in teenage suicide in recent months [three i know of personally in the last 10 days].
Demoralised Police force that like the idea of the job, but hate the job and the name they get.
Go to a party, what do you say you do ? Police ? Doctor ? Lawyer ? RE Agent ?
Now listen carefully… BOTH the Kahui twins are lucky in my view that they are gone. Lucky to not have to ever tell anyone their surname. Lucky to not have to live with, under or near that disgusting woman or that stupid fool. My only desire is that she be sterilised, which would happen in modern Europe.
Does Macsyna WANT any more children ? She’s not the greatest mother so far. Not even seen her third child since she has been separated from it. But who am I to judge ? I’m only someone that loves little kids and can not understand how she remains at liberty.
I propose some parents on benefits should have to go into their WINZ office and set there weekly budget eg -$250 on rent, $30 on power and $80 on food ect. then all that info gets lodged onto a smart card and the person then has to spend the money according to there budget. No money on booze, smokes ect. Thats the price you pay to live off the state. This way the benefits get spend on there kids and not on themselves, as was the case with the kahuis and others. The reality is parents such as the kahuis can not be trusted to care for there kids and have to be closely monitored. This isn’t a miracle cure - but surely limiting booze and drugs in these families and making sure there kids get feed will help in some way.
SOME SOLUTIONS
A double murderer in a house with 12 family member accomplises… no conviction.
CHARGE THEM ALL WITH CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
David Bain - a conviction ! But then the police made up the evidence at they went along. Nice. Now a retrial. You pay for that.
LET’S NOT PAY, JUST CALL IT QUITS AND FORGET IT
Prisons are full.
BUILD MORE AND LAUNCH A ZERO TOLLERANCE CAMPAIGN. WHEN THEY’RE EMPLTY TURN THEM INTO CONFERENCE CENTRES FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Nation is crippled by the welfare state genius.
THE GENIUS WASN’T WRONG, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO SAID ‘LET’S PUT ALL THE MONEY INTO THE GENERAL FUND RATHER THAN A WELFARE SPECIFIC ONE’ WRECKED A POTENTIALLY GREAT CONCEPT.
Not enough Judges to complete the court day.
APPOINT MORE JUDGES, AND MAKE THE ASSETS (THE BUILDINGS ETC.,) MORE PRODUCTIVE BY RUNNING THEM 24 HOURS PER DAY
Underpaid junior doctors [leaving NZ everyday].
WHEN DID YOU DO YOUR OE? AND IF YOU’D BEEN OFFERED THREE TIMES THE LIFE-STYLE TO STAY OVERSEAS, WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN IT?
Over paid senior doctors.
A SENIOR SPECIALIST WHO WORKS EXCLUSIVELY IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR EARNS $136,000 PER DAY, WITH SOME PERKS LIKE THREE WEEKS STUDY LEAVE - COMPARED TO PAs IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR WHO EARN $55,000 FOR FILING THEIR NAILS I THINK THE PUBLIC GETS THE BETTER PART OF THE DEAL. (THAT, BTW, IS WHY THEY ALL HAVE PRIVATE PRACTICES).
Over paid Locums [who are by the way the very same junior doctors as they do locum work on their days off and get triple the pay.]
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. IF SOMEONE OFFERED YOU THREE TIMES YOUR CURRENT WAGE, TO DO EXACTLY THE SAME JOB AS YOU ARE DOING NOW, WITH NO LACK OF WORK FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE, AND WITH THE ONLY DOWNSIDE BEING YOU DON’T HAVE THE ‘BENEFITS’ OF A PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, YOU WOULD SAY NO!
(THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DOING THIS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE, IF THEIR A DOCTOR THEY’RE CALLED A LOCUM, IF THEIR AN ACCOUNTANT, PROJECT MANAGER, TYPIST, CLERK, DOOR OPENER OR RECEPTIONIST THEY’RE CALLED CONTRACTORS, AND IN ALL CASES THE HOURLY RATE IS ABOUT TWICE THAT OF A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE.
19,000 RE agents working currently ! In a market that has little if any regulation.
REALTORS WORK! - YEAH RIGHT!
500% increase in debt collections in recent months.
THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT COMES TO ROOST, i.e. I’LL BUY THE HOUSE BUT THE TENNANTS WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
Huge increase in teenage suicide in recent months [three i know of personally in the last 10 days].
I KNEW TWO TOO. NEEDS WORK, NEEDS LESS PC, NEEDS CHANGES IN SCHOOLING THAT MAKE IT OK TO COMPETE. ONE I KNOW TOPPED HIMSELF BECAUSE HE DIDN’T GET A JOB HE APPLIED FOR, HE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT ‘THERE WERE BETTER CANDIDATES THAN YOU’MEANT, THEY NEVER COVERED IT IN SCHOOL.
Demoralised Police force that like the idea of the job, but hate the job and the name they get.
NEEDS LOTS AND LOTS OF WORK - LAW AND ORDER, BUT ORDER ISN’T WORKING SO LAW CAN’T.
Go to a party, what do you say you do ? Police ? Doctor ? Lawyer ? RE Agent ?
NO WAY MAN “CAREER CRIMINAL” IS THE BEST ANSWER! IF THEY BELIEVE YOU YOU GET RESPECT, IF THEY DON’T YOU GET KUDOS FOR THE ANSWER
“Over paid Locums [who are by the way the very same junior doctors as they do locum work on their days off and get triple the pay.]
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. IF SOMEONE OFFERED YOU THREE TIMES YOUR CURRENT WAGE, TO DO EXACTLY THE SAME JOB AS YOU ARE DOING NOW, WITH NO LACK OF WORK FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE, AND WITH THE ONLY DOWNSIDE BEING YOU DON’T HAVE THE ‘BENEFITS’ OF A PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, YOU WOULD SAY NO!
(THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DOING THIS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE, IF THEIR A DOCTOR THEY’RE CALLED A LOCUM, IF THEIR AN ACCOUNTANT, PROJECT MANAGER, TYPIST, CLERK, DOOR OPENER OR RECEPTIONIST THEY’RE CALLED CONTRACTORS, AND IN ALL CASES THE HOURLY RATE IS ABOUT TWICE THAT OF A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE.”
You assume that I am complaining about the doctors. I actually think its a stupid system that the short sighted DHB ‘employer’ can not bite the bullet and be bothered paying younger doctors to work in NZ for more. Thereby KEEPING them in NZ. Retention is the problem that is solved by juniors working as locums [which costs more than the solution would]. I know they are called contractors. But the letter I got from David Cunliffe last week fails to identify that he has any idea how the system really works at a cost level. So he doesnt care. He will be out of a job in a few months anyway.
Back to Kahui… you can only charge them with a crime when you have evidence that they committed it. Saying “it must have been one of you - will the innocent please take one step back” and the guy left standing there is guilty is not how it works. The cops need to HAVE the evidence. Not assume it, reasonable doubt is a high standard and trust me, you will expect nothing less when you are in the dock. Wrongly charged. The real winner is that MAYBE the justice system MIGHT get a kick in the pants SOMEHOW… by the fact that no one will EVER see prison for the murders of those little boys. There were two separate murders here, not one of twins. But one boys was killed in two events… any less than no doubt is not guilty.
Actually I agree with you.
However, if the police can prove
a) that there were crimes
b) that the so called ‘tight twelve’ know and knew who committed those crimes
c) that the tight twelve agreed not to tell anyone who did the crimes
then there is a conspiracy to pervert the course or Justice and arrests can be made. Proving those three things may be easier than identifying the killer and proving they did it, and if found guilty they would ALL be eligable for a goal sentence.
BTW I have been wrongly accused in the past, have had a jury trial and been acquitted; which is perhaps more experience in the field than you have had?
You would be right if you knew the requirements for the charge to be upheld. The crown knows or certainly the police know, they can not, or they would have done it.
Wrong again. But don’t be sad. It just not your day.
There was an “if” in there
Nevermind, you can respond and I won’t - I don’t need that last word ^^i^^