Thread: Discharge Without Conviction

Originally Posted by kotuku

well it seems lawyers run NZ or are in prime positions in the system running it ,wether a lot of us like that or not .BTW-ive got a perfectly good brain Ill thank you to know ,again thats not the eclusive domain of lawyers (although obviously some think so).the world is complex-try workoing in mental health and see the resu;lts of its complexity!

Lawyers, or legally educated people, form a large portion of people that run most western democracies. This is the necessary outcome of having any proper governance system that observes the rule of law. Law is very difficulty, it takes a lot of training to understand the Law. The law is probably the most complex "purely-man-made" science. Our laws today is the product of 1000 years of legal thinking of past lawyers, judges, and politicians.

25 past US presidents has passed the Bar, that is about 60%. that list includes most of the better ones such as Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR.

Originally Posted by ebf

So why is it then that "MOST NZers" have not taken the opportunity given to them every couple of years to vote in a party that stands for hard-line justice standards ?

Like we voted for 99 MPs and the anti-smacking law? And got ignored.

BTW, in 1999 we voted on:

""Should there be a reform of our Justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?". This measure passed by 91.78%, still got ignored.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Lawyers, or legally educated people, form a large portion of people that run most western democracies. This is the necessary outcome of having any proper governance system that observes the rule of law. Law is very difficulty, it takes a lot of training to understand the Law. The law is probably the most complex "purely-man-made" science. Our laws today is the product of 1000 years of legal thinking of past lawyers, judges, and politicians.

25 past US presidents has passed the Bar, that is about 60%. that list includes most of the better ones such as Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR.

Bob Mugabe, Castro, Bill and Hilary Clinton.

Because whether you like it or not, the masses don't have a friggen clue, they get it right by chance, if ever, and typically the only response they are capable of is the predicable emotional and retributional response. Democracy requires leaders who are capable of ignoring the masses when reason and logic is absent. They don't get that right all the time either.

Here is a treatise on the dangers of stupidity in society based on 5 formulated laws which are as follows:

Law 1: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
Law 2: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
Law 4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

Part of the conclusions reached -

The only way a society can avoid being crushed by the burden of its idiots is if the non-stupid work even harder to offset the losses of their stupid brethren.

Its an interesting proposition but it ties into that which we all intrinsically should know and to which we are constantly advised - to not just follow the crowd, to do the opposite of the investment trend, to not get on the band wagon nor to join the mob.

For your enlightened consideration...https://qz.com/967554/the-five-unive...man-stupidity/

Originally Posted by Tommy

Bob Mugabe, Castro, Bill and Hilary Clinton.

I would not call Mugabe and Castro's countries western democracies.

Yes the Clintons are both legally educated, so is Obama. In fact Obama was a bit of a legal scholar, president of of the law review of the number 1 law school in the world.

Btw no one is arguing that legally trained politicians are necessarily the best. Just that top politicians are often legally trained, due to the nature of the job.

Originally Posted by Tommy

Like we voted for 99 MPs and the anti-smacking law? And got ignored.

BTW, in 1999 we voted on:

""Should there be a reform of our Justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?". This measure passed by 91.78%, still got ignored.

There are two separate response to this.

Firstly, depending on who you ask, some people would say that that referendum did result in a change in direction in this country in terms of criminal justice system:

"In 1999, 92 percent of people voted ‘yes’ to the question, 'Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?'

The government listened, and changed the law, making it harder for violent offenders to be released back into the community.

Fast forward to 2018. The crime rate has dropped steadily since 1992, and is currently at levels last seen in the late 1970s. But, in 2016, the number of prison inmates topped 10,000 for the first time. It now sits at about 10,600. New Zealand’s imprisonment rate is about 220 per 100,000, compared to the OECD average of 147 per 100,000, and it’s rising."

Secondly, it would be a correct observation that referendums quite often fail to result in immediate or material law change. That is partially because referendums are often knee jerk reaction to a issue that may have been blown out of proportion. Most western democracies have now subscribed to a system where the public do not vote on a policy directly, but vote on the party that best share the same value and vision as each voter, then let the parties armed with their votes, negotiate and decide on law and policy.

There are minority parties who champion far harsher criminal justice system, but they usually only have very small support.

Originally Posted by Tommy

Bob Mugabe, Castro, Bill and Hilary Clinton.

What's the point you are trying to make @Tommy ? In that list only 2 studied law... Mugabe was a teacher, Bill Clinton studied Politics, Philosophy & Economics.

Originally Posted by Tommy

Like we voted for 99 MPs and the anti-smacking law? And got ignored.

BTW, in 1999 we voted on:

""Should there be a reform of our Justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?". This measure passed by 91.78%, still got ignored.

Citizen Initiated Referenda are not binding. For good reason. Imagine for a minute what the likely result of a "should MSSA's be banned ?" CIR would be, given that legal firearm license holders make up less than 5% of the voting population...

If you look at the results of Government Referenda, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find examples that were not implemented.

Originally Posted by ebf

Citizen Initiated Referenda are not binding. For good reason. Imagine for a minute what the likely result of a "should MSSA's be banned ?" CIR would be, given that legal firearm license holders make up less than 5% of the voting population...

If there were appropriate penalties for breaking the law, I doubt there would be the same hysteria we have now (think back to the 2016/2017 MMSA inquiry), as the recidivist pricks that prompted most of that were career crims, and it's much harder to accumulate a pile of AR15s and USCs in a prison, which they ought to have been. Ditto various other cases that brought firearms into public debate.

What's the point you are trying to make @Tommy ? In that list only 2 studied law... Mugabe was a teacher, Bill Clinton studied Politics, Philosophy & Economics.

Mugabe was initially a teacher, but has TWO law degrees from the University of London
Bill Clinton has a Juris Doctor from Yale, he met HRC at that Law School in fact. He was also Attorney General for Arkansas.

If you look at the results of Government Referenda, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find examples that were not implemented.

Yeah, leave it to our betters eh?

Ok cool, so they all had law degrees... Whether they all practiced law is something I don't know, maybe you can enlighten us.

What I still am trying to understand is why you pick those 4 specifically ? As someone else mentioned already, the majority of politicians are lawyers.

Originally Posted by Tommy

Yeah, leave it to our betters eh?

Not at all Just pointing out that there is a difference between binding and non-binding referendum, and the ones you chose to mention were all non-binding.

Originally Posted by ebf

What I still am trying to understand is why you pick those 4 specifically ? As someone else mentioned already, the majority of politicians are lawyers.

I was replying to Ultimitsu "Lawyers, or legally educated people, form a large portion of people that run most western democracies. This is the necessary outcome of having any proper governance system that observes the rule of law. Law is very difficulty, it takes a lot of training to understand the Law. The law is probably the most complex "purely-man-made" science. Our laws today is the product of 1000 years of legal thinking of past lawyers, judges, and politicians.

25 past US presidents has passed the Bar, that is about 60%. that list includes most of the better ones such as Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR."

Just saying that having studied law doesn't make you somehow worthier of deciphering "Law is very difficulty", esp seeing as the discipline isn't A) a science, and B) only 1000 years old (maybe he means dating back to the Magna Carta, which was very difficulty to read-y). Maybe Lee Kuan Yew should have got a mention, with his double starred first class honours in law from Cambridge, Soe Bais next 20 years may have looked a little different.

Not at all Just pointing out that there is a difference between binding and non-binding referendum, and the ones you chose to mention were all non-binding.

was answering:

So why is it then that "MOST NZers" have not taken the opportunity given to them every couple of years to vote in a party that stands for hard-line justice standards ?

Politicians lie cheat and steal. Binding referendum is the only way to get them to do what they were fucking elected to do. Ask any Winston First voter.

Originally Posted by Tommy

was answering:
Politicians lie cheat and steal. Binding referendum is the only way to get them to do what they were fucking elected to do. Ask any Winston First voter.

Looking forward to any response to this

Originally Posted by ebf

Interesting thread

So many people wanting to be judge, jury and executioner it seems...

And yet so little understanding of how the justice system actually works... I wonder how many of you guys have been inside a court during a criminal trial - as a spectator, or even as a defendant ? Would you have the same hard-line views if it was your son or brother who acted in a rash way and made some stupid mistakes ?

Sentencing guidelines reflect a county's societal values. What this thread very clearly demonstrates is that the forum contains a lot of people who are pretty far out of step with current-day NZ. That's not a bad thing... it is just an observation.

Guilty as decreed, current-day NZ will take a lot of digesting and observation.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

The forum contains a representative sample of NZ firearms owners, as it is a firearms crime (weather or not the air rifle is classified as such) the views of firearms owners are surely much more relevant to this case than those of non firearms owners, for the simple reason that owners are fully aware of the risk to another persons life that the defendants actions posed. We are not looking at a situation where the defendant rocked up with a paintball gun and splattered a car

An air rifle is classified as a firearm in NZ. Just shoot a tin can in the backyard and your neighbor takes exception by been frightened, threatened, or having found a way to officially retaliate for some or other grievance. Bam!...license gone and grandpa's double .375 gone along with every firearm you own. A pellet gun wields a big stick alright,when it fits the description.

Originally Posted by Tommy

Just saying that having studied law doesn't make you somehow worthier of deciphering "Law is very difficulty", esp seeing as the discipline isn't A) a science, and B) only 1000 years old (maybe he means dating back to the Magna Carta, which was very difficulty to read-y). Maybe Lee Kuan Yew should have got a mention, with his double starred first class honours in law from Cambridge, Soe Bais next 20 years may have looked a little different.

Strictly speaking, Law is not science, since it does not deal with things of objective truth, but more about things of human construct. I used the word "science" to get a point across.

I am not sure what you mean by "only" 1000 years old. 1000 years is a long time. When we are talking about laws like victim's conduct mitigating factors for the purpose of sentencing, what I want to remind people is that this law did not come into existence just now, just for Soe Bais. It has been around for a long time, and there would been scholars, lawyers, judges, and politicians debating extensively on something like this. So when you say I want this law changed, you probably need to first look at the debate that already occurred, consider the pros and cons that has already been debated and then decide or formulate some arguments to take the matter further.

I did not mention Lee plainly because he has nothing to do with western democracy.

Legally educated people form large portion of politicians is not really because laws can be hard to decipher (although from time to time this could play a part). But it is mostly because, as this thread illustrates, legally trained people are able to better understand why we have the laws we have today, what considerations have been taken into account for the law to become what it is, and how the law should change to address a new problem, what will work and what will not work based on past considerations.

Further. legally trained people are often better at articulate a view, with reference to relevant law/debate/public policy (which, interestingly, also evidence in this thread), and deliver more comprehensible speeches. This makes them better at running for offices. Lincoln.