Thread: Hunter convicted

What about intent ? If the rugby players succeeded with their intention someone gets hurt, if the hunter succeeded in his he would have shot a deer.
Did the victims of the rugby players assaults ask for a discharge as the hunters victim did?
Is showing up and coming rugby players that they maybe insulated from the law because of the sport they play a good example to be setting?

WOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION

Horseshit... clearly you know nothing about sentencing..

Your personal situation is always part of the equation when the sentencing is determined.

Originally Posted by dannyb

Must be a rugby player.....I wasn't agreeing with you.
If your career involves the probability of overseas travel then you know the risk you take if you choose to break the law,
Breaking the law is a choice not an accident, it doesn't matter if your a rugby player, CEO or a night packer if you break the law thats on you.
If the consequences are greater because of your career well guess what that's also on you.
Entitlement thats all it is expecting to be let off with a lighter penalty because of who you are or what you do.

Wrong... I completely understood that you weren't agreeing with me on attempt.. even though you completely ballsed it up.. I also completely understand that you don't understand the issue..

the fact is that penalty for some is greater than for others and despite all the expert opinion on here, there is a requirement to consider that as part of the process.

Sentencing is a complex process that experts struggle to get right, and frankly you lot haven't got a clue. Opinions without capacity or even knowledge are only emotions.

Originally Posted by sneeze

What about intent ? If the rugby players succeeded with their intention someone gets hurt, if the hunter succeeded in his he would have shot a deer.
Did the victims of the rugby players assaults ask for a discharge as the hunters victim did?
Is showing up and coming rugby players that they maybe insulated from the law because of the sport they play a good example to be setting?

Nobody is insulated from the law when you have gone to trial. What are you talking about? Justice is the process of accountability not the outcome of it.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Wrong... I completely understood that you weren't agreeing with me on attempt.. even though you completely ballsed it up.. I also completely understand that you don't understand the issue..

the fact is that penalty for some is greater than for others and despite all the expert opinion on here, there is a requirement to consider that as part of the process.

Sentencing is a complex process that experts struggle to get right, and frankly you lot haven't got a clue. Opinions without capacity or even knowledge are only emotions.

WRONG, I understand it just fine and probably a little more than most around here as I have seen the process first hand many times.
I do however think it's not right, I could bang on all day about it a give examples but at the end of the day you have your opinion I have mine and I'm not about to have a keyboard war with you about it.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Nobody is insulated from the law when you have gone to trial. What are you talking about? Justice is the process of accountability not the outcome of it.

Im sure you know what Im talking about but Ill redefine and replace "insulated from the law" with "insulated from conviction"

WRONG, I understand it just fine and probably a little more than most around here as I have seen the process first hand many times.
I do however think it's not right, I could bang on all day about it a give examples but at the end of the day you have your opinion I have mine and I'm not about to have a keyboard war with you about it.

No you don't - you're attempting to claim equity without considering the effect of penalty. Thats impossible and there is nothing original about your opinion...

There is nothing that has ever worked in the application of your opinion... it only creates more injustice.

Originally Posted by sneeze

Im sure you know what Im talking about but Ill redefine and replace "insulated from the law" with "insulated from conviction"

OK - how could you possibly assume outcome before the event? Insulated? There has to be reason to escape conviction - do you think standing in the dock they feel insulated? Find me a statistical breakdown of repeat offenders who have been given a chance compared to those convicted in the first place. Pretty dam low I would think.

Establish the problem... because printing a list of rugby player who received that second chance is pure distortion isn't it? What about the numbers of gen pop people who also have that opportunity? Uni students, first time offenders, young offenders, out of character incidents, otherwise contributing members of society etc..

This is emotive crap couched in a misunderstood emotional appeal to equity, without considering the bigger issues.

Plenty get given a chance and go on to re offend don't have the stats but I can tell you know there's plenty that have been given the chance and go on to have illustrious criminal careers, only gotta look at the ever increasing prison population to know that.
But hey you know best...... And let's face it no matter what is said your gonna shit all over the chess board and strut around like your right anyway

Originally Posted by Sidney

This is emotive crap couched in a misunderstood emotional appeal to equity, without considering the bigger issues.

Huh!! I thought I was asking a couple of questions and it turns out I was emotionally, and with no regard for the bigger issues, appealing for equity.

Originally Posted by Sidney

What about the numbers of gen pop people who also have that opportunity? Uni students, first time offenders, young offenders, out of character incidents, otherwise contributing members of society etc..

.

And hunters with a promising career (not rugby) that accidently shoot their mate?

Originally Posted by Sidney

Find me a statistical breakdown of repeat offenders who have been given a chance compared to those convicted in the first place.

Im no where near bored enough to go sniffing down that trail.

Well I might just know something about that - and the results are more desirable than they are for conviction...

Your point of comparison is valid - that being penalty associated with an unintended outcome vs a "lack" of penalty for the example you provide...

but the point is not that the rugby player or whatever shouldn't perhaps benefit from a second chance, rather that the penalty for an unintentional event seems severe in comparison?

You are probably right... but it doesn't make the former wrong...

What a sad story, but not all of it. I feel deep respect for the relatives of the dead hunter who pleaded for the shooter.

On the other hand, a thoughtful conversation with a mother this month. Her son, a big fella my size, was killed in a traffic accident. HE got five lines' mention by the paper.

just saying but I'm pretty sure the guy that got put in a hospital wasn't happy when the judge let them off with a pat on the back and said, " go on mate represent the country"

Originally Posted by sneeze

He should have said he had a promising rugby career

Players who have avoided convictions

May 2015 - Blues player George Moala escapes conviction for his part in a boozy late-night brawl. Moala and his brother were jointly charged with assault with intent to cause injury and common assault following a fight which left a man in hospital. Judge Rob Ronayne found the impact of a conviction on Moala and the possibility he could lose his career outweighed the severity of the crime.

January 2015 - Blues player Tevita Li is discharged without conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol. The test revealed he had a reading of 45 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. Judge Andree Wiltens said Li had a "stellar" career that could lead to a place in the All Blacks, and a conviction could jeopardise that.

December 2014 - Dunedin rep rugby player Riley Tane McDowall avoids conviction after breaking a man's jaw. Judge Kevin Phillips said a conviction would end any possibility of a professional rugby career.

August 2014 - Rising netball star Sheridan Te Aorere Bignall is granted a discharge without conviction for defrauding StudyLink of $891 in allowance money she was not entitled to. Her lawyer successfully argued there was a realistic chance she could be asked to represent New Zealand overseas in the future and a dishonesty conviction would make it difficult to enter other countries.

August 2011 - Cancer-stricken former Blues player Kurtis Haiu is discharged without conviction after pleading guilty to possessing an offensive weapon and assaulting a property developer. Judge Gerard Winter said he was a role model in rugby, his battle with bone cancer and in accepting responsibility for his actions.

May 2010 - Young Waikato rugby player Bampino Vaa Mulipola is discharged without conviction on charges relating to an incident in which he cut another man's hand with a machete. Judge Melanie Harland said it was "a very narrow call" but a conviction would have real consequences to his potential rugby career.

December 2004 - An All Black receives a discharge without conviction after pleading guilty to assaulting his wife. He is granted permanent name suppression.

The Marlborough Express

since this has gone waaaay off the original thread topic and onto rugby players getting off light..... i have a question.... as i dont recognise any of those named above i was wondering have any of them actually moved forward on their professional playing "careers" or are they now driving forkhoists in the local warehouse?..... if the latter then i guess the judge got it horribly wrong...... instead of just wrong.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Wrong... I completely understood that you weren't agreeing with me on attempt.. even though you completely ballsed it up.. I also completely understand that you don't understand the issue..

the fact is that penalty for some is greater than for others and despite all the expert opinion on here, there is a requirement to consider that as part of the process.

Sentencing is a complex process that experts struggle to get right, and frankly you lot haven't got a clue. Opinions without capacity or even knowledge are only emotions.

Well Sidney we have plonkers making these decisions, if found guilty the punishment should be universal. No buts or ifs, clearly one size fits all. As mentioned before on here, a king hit on my son was treated by some idiot judge as so immaterial, the offender was given diversion? Fat useless Islander should have been charged with a min of grievous bodily harm. Sentences are crap!