Co-Operating with Police!

Forums › Off topic › Co-Operating with Police!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836855 14-Jun-2013 14:27

1080p: It is morally reprehensible to sleep with your neighbours wife but not many people will turn down the opportunity if she is attractive and good to go. Should they also be in prison?

I am stuggling to find the similarities between this example you have supplied and the right for someone to always be silent?? Don't know how the neighbours wife came into the discussion?

Moving on...
In this case we have the following:

1) I think there is proof enough already that these witnesses were at the house and they know something. It says so in the article.
2) Because of the above, that witness should not have the right to silence.

And when I say deny that person the right to silence, where did I say throw them in jail?

Lets take a step back. These witnesses should actually be charged with being an accessory to murder. (see point 1 above) Why were there no charges? Is that right? I don't believe so. They know something, they are refusing to talk. The case remains unsolved, a women is dead, no charges laid against anybody. life goes on. Everybody sings Kumbaya.

If there is proof. And I believe that in this case there is sufficient proof already that these witnesses know something, then maybe jail is sufficient for them. But nowhere am I saying that people should be put in jail for simply keeping quiet. You seem to have run off on a tangent on this one? Im only suggesting jail (point 2), if we already have proof of (point 1)

1080p: Nine times in ten people will speak with Police if they witness criminal activity. This is already the case and incredibly unlikely to change. Simultaneously it is also true that there will be people who refuse to speak for whatever reason and that should be their right. Tragedies like the Kahui case do occur but they are not common and should not be the basis to remove one of the most fundamental rights a citizen of a free society possesses.

Nine times out of ten?
Should I be taking anything you say seriously? Where did you pull those numbers from?

Half of your post above is presuming that we throw everyone in jail for not talking. And nobody is suggesting that.

networkn

Networkn
32365 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#836857 14-Jun-2013 14:30

Klipspringer:
1080p: It is morally reprehensible to sleep with your neighbours wife but not many people will turn down the opportunity if she is attractive and good to go. Should they also be in prison?

I am stuggling to find the similarities between this example you have supplied and the right for someone to always be silent?? Don't know how the neighbours wife came into the discussion?

Moving on...
In this case we have the following:

1) I think there is proof enough already that these witnesses were at the house and they know something. It says so in the article.
2) Because of the above, that witness should not have the right to silence.

And when I say deny that person the right to silence, where did I say throw them in jail?

Lets take a step back. These witnesses should actually be charged with being an accessory to murder. (see point 1 above) Why were there no charges? Is that right? I don't believe so. They know something, they are refusing to talk. The case remains unsolved, a women is dead, no charges laid against anybody. life goes on. Everybody sings Kumbaya.

If there is proof. And I believe that in this case there is sufficient proof already that these witnesses know something, then maybe jail is sufficient for them. But nowhere am I saying that people should be put in jail for simply keeping quiet. You seem to have run off on a tangent on this one? Im only suggesting jail (point 2), if we already have proof of (point 1)

1080p: Nine times in ten people will speak with Police if they witness criminal activity. This is already the case and incredibly unlikely to change. Simultaneously it is also true that there will be people who refuse to speak for whatever reason and that should be their right. Tragedies like the Kahui case do occur but they are not common and should not be the basis to remove one of the most fundamental rights a citizen of a free society possesses.

Nine times out of ten?
Should I be taking anything you say seriously? Where did you pull those numbers from?

Half of your post above is presuming that we throw everyone in jail for not talking. And nobody is suggesting that.

To be honest, I am suggesting that. I think in situations where you know who committed a capital crime and you refuse to speak up, then it should be considered.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836860 14-Jun-2013 14:41

networkn:
To be honest, I am suggesting that. I think in situations where you know who committed a capital crime and you refuse to speak up, then it should be considered.

The way I would see this working

- Police gather sufficient evidence and must prove to the court that someone is withholding information on a case.
- Police prepare a case against the non talker, providing substantial evidence that he/she knows something. Ie, proof that the witness was in the house at the time of the murder (As in this case)
- Police get special warrant, or court order, to bring the non talker into custody (Its already proven that he/she is withholding evidence)
- Jail sentince, or time in the cells. Maybe conviction for a new type of crime (withholding information from police)

My biggest gripe here is that even if its proven that someone knows something, or can help with the case, these people are under no obligation to say anything. And thats unacceptable.

networkn

Networkn
32365 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#836865 14-Jun-2013 14:51

Klipspringer:
networkn:
To be honest, I am suggesting that. I think in situations where you know who committed a capital crime and you refuse to speak up, then it should be considered.

The way I would see this working

- Police gather sufficient evidence and must prove to the court that someone is withholding information on a case.
- Police prepare a case against the non talker, providing substantial evidence that he/she knows something. Ie, proof that the witness was in the house at the time of the murder (As in this case)
- Police get special warrant, or court order, to bring the non talker into custody (Its already proven that he/she is withholding evidence)
- Jail sentince, or time in the cells. Maybe conviction for a new type of crime (withholding information from police)

My biggest gripe here is that even if its proven that someone knows something, or can help with the case, these people are under no obligation to say anything. And thats unacceptable.

With the Cru situation, many members of the family knew and wouldn't talk. In that case, I believe the situation should be, put them all in separate cells. Offer the first one to speak immunity unless they committed the crime themselves, and everyone else gets 30-90 days in Jail for obstruction of justice :)

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836869 14-Jun-2013 14:54

networkn:

With the Cru situation, many members of the family knew and wouldn't talk. In that case, I believe the situation should be, put them all in separate cells. Offer the first one to speak immunity unless they committed the crime themselves, and everyone else gets 30-90 days in Jail for obstruction of justice :)

I would support that.
We too soft on these people.

Remember they have PS3's, xboxes, and Sky in Prison. Jail is not that bad.

networkn

Networkn
32365 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#836870 14-Jun-2013 14:56

Klipspringer:
networkn:

With the Cru situation, many members of the family knew and wouldn't talk. In that case, I believe the situation should be, put them all in separate cells. Offer the first one to speak immunity unless they committed the crime themselves, and everyone else gets 30-90 days in Jail for obstruction of justice :)

I would support that.
We too soft on these people.

Remember they have PS3's, xboxes, and Sky in Prison. Jail is not that bad.

LOL, I think we should grab a beer and talk about how we could jointly ruin err I mean run this country :)

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836908 14-Jun-2013 16:18

Klipspringer:
networkn:
To be honest, I am suggesting that. I think in situations where you know who committed a capital crime and you refuse to speak up, then it should be considered.

The way I would see this working

- Police gather sufficient evidence and must prove to the court that someone is withholding information on a case.
- Police prepare a case against the non talker, providing substantial evidence that he/she knows something. Ie, proof that the witness was in the house at the time of the murder (As in this case)
- Police get special warrant, or court order, to bring the non talker into custody (Its already proven that he/she is withholding evidence)
- Jail sentince, or time in the cells. Maybe conviction for a new type of crime (withholding information from police)

My biggest gripe here is that even if its proven that someone knows something, or can help with the case, these people are under no obligation to say anything. And thats unacceptable.

Is this not already possible as an obstruction of justice charge? Consider the difficulties to the Police in this situation. There were x people at the party, how do you prove which of them saw something in a court of law?

Klipspringer:
1080p: It is morally reprehensible to sleep with your neighbours wife but not many people will turn down the opportunity if she is attractive and good to go. Should they also be in prison?

I am stuggling to find the similarities between this example you have supplied and the right for someone to always be silent?? Don't know how the neighbours wife came into the discussion?

This is called an analogy. I took your idea (making a moral obligation law because it is the moral thing to do) and compared it to another commonly accepted moral obligation to highlight the utter stupidity of the idea. Hint: moral values are not the same for everybody and change over time, this is why they are not laws for that reason alone.

Klipspringer: Moving on...
In this case we have the following:

1) I think there is proof enough already that these witnesses were at the house and they know something. It says so in the article.
2) Because of the above, that witness should not have the right to silence.

And when I say deny that person the right to silence, where did I say throw them in jail?

Lets take a step back. These witnesses should actually be charged with being an accessory to murder. (see point 1 above) Why were there no charges? Is that right? I don't believe so. They know something, they are refusing to talk. The case remains unsolved, a women is dead, no charges laid against anybody. life goes on. Everybody sings Kumbaya.

If there is proof. And I believe that in this case there is sufficient proof already that these witnesses know something, then maybe jail is sufficient for them. But nowhere am I saying that people should be put in jail for simply keeping quiet. You seem to have run off on a tangent on this one? Im only suggesting jail (point 2), if we already have proof of (point 1)

And if being at the party is 'proof' that they saw something they should have to speak to the Police regardless whether they actually saw something or not? This is all the 'proof' that exists so far. There is plenty of speculation and conjecture but no real proof yet.

You argue that those who have been proven to have seen something should not be permitted to stay silent. How would you enforce that? After all, the only way to 'compel' someone to talk would be to penalise them with prison time if they fail to comply. Unless you advocate deducting some of their air points or revoking their OneCard.

My position remains unchanged, I think this situation is tragic and there does need to be justice but the sort of disregard you appear to have for proper procedure and lack of understanding for consequences down the road makes me feel like you would have been leading lynch mobs in a past life.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

gzt

17160 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#836968 14-Jun-2013 18:46

I've asked this question before and no one answered. What exactly should the penalties be for 'refusing to cooperate'? How long should the sentence be in what cases? As long as it takes? At Her Majesty's pleasure?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836988 14-Jun-2013 19:02

1080p:
And if being at the party is 'proof' that they saw something they should have to speak to the Police regardless

You still missing my point. Forget about the party mate.

I said when its already proven (ie by a court. Not the police) that they are a valid witness and that they are genuinely withholding information.

Why is that not a crime? Why cant someone be prosecuted for that?

People go to jail for all sorts of things. Dishonesty, failing to appear in court? minor offence? But hey. Its OK to withold critical information from the police and courts?

Its OK to rock up in court, not talk when being questioned, sit there and blatantly withhold information.

gzt: I've asked this question before and no one answered. What exactly should the penalties be for 'refusing to cooperate'? How long should the sentence be in what cases? As long as it takes? At Her Majesty's pleasure?

I would say that would have to depend on the seriousness of the crime. In this case I believe these "witnesses/unproven possible murderers" at least 6 months jail time (without xboxes, ps3 and sky), unless they came clean and spoke up.

From the article:

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the inability of police to interview reluctant witnesses or suspects was "appalling".

"The law should be changed so the police have the opportunity to speak with witnesses or suspects at the earliest opportunities," he said.

"At present you are getting the accused, or witnesses who do not want to finger the accused, colluding to take the police off the scent."

Police can only detain people for questioning if they are under arrest. Suspects under arrest still had the right to silence.

You think the above is fare? I don't
The above law is a joke. Some people may think its the outcome of moving forward. I see it as the outcome of moving backwards.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836997 14-Jun-2013 19:19

Klipspringer: From the article:
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the inability of police to interview reluctant witnesses or suspects was "appalling".

"The law should be changed so the police have the opportunity to speak with witnesses or suspects at the earliest opportunities," he said.

"At present you are getting the accused, or witnesses who do not want to finger the accused, colluding to take the police off the scent."

Police can only detain people for questioning if they are under arrest. Suspects under arrest still had the right to silence.

You think the above is fare? I don't
The above law is a joke. Some people may think its the outcome of moving forward. I see it as the outcome of moving backwards.

What you're saying is that you would be fine with Police having the power to haul anyone to the station for an interview if the Police suspect them of witnessing something illegal? This is more ludicrous than I imagined.

There is incredibly good reason we don't allow our Police to simply detain anyone without cause: this power is abused all over the world!

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#837000 14-Jun-2013 19:29

1080p:

What you're saying is that you would be fine with Police having the power to haul anyone to the station for an interview if the Police suspect them of witnessing something illegal? This is more ludicrous than I imagined.

There is incredibly good reason we don't allow our Police to simply detain anyone without cause: this power is abused all over the world!

Oh my word. Jeez mate! you still missing my point .... Im not saying the police should be able to detain anyone without a cause.

gzt

17160 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#837005 14-Jun-2013 19:41

Klipspringer:
gzt: I've asked this question before and no one answered. What exactly should the penalties be for 'refusing to cooperate'? How long should the sentence be in what cases? As long as it takes? At Her Majesty's pleasure?

I would say that would have to depend on the seriousness of the crime. In this case I believe these "witnesses/unproven possible murderers" at least 6 months jail time (without xboxes, ps3 and sky), unless they came clean and spoke up.

No maximum time?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#837006 14-Jun-2013 19:45

gzt:
Klipspringer:
gzt: I've asked this question before and no one answered. What exactly should the penalties be for 'refusing to cooperate'? How long should the sentence be in what cases? As long as it takes? At Her Majesty's pleasure?

I would say that would have to depend on the seriousness of the crime. In this case I believe these "witnesses/unproven possible murderers" at least 6 months jail time (without xboxes, ps3 and sky), unless they came clean and spoke up.

No maximum time?

If its proven that the person is deliberately withholding information.

No maximum time sounds good - let them out when they talk

loceff13

1065 posts

Uber Geek

#837012 14-Jun-2013 20:16

Klipspringer:

If its proven that the person is deliberately withholding information.

How would you ever prove such a thing?

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#837027 14-Jun-2013 20:27

Klipspringer:
1080p:

What you're saying is that you would be fine with Police having the power to haul anyone to the station for an interview if the Police suspect them of witnessing something illegal? This is more ludicrous than I imagined.

There is incredibly good reason we don't allow our Police to simply detain anyone without cause: this power is abused all over the world!

Oh my word. Jeez mate! you still missing my point .... Im not saying the police should be able to detain anyone without a cause.

Detaining a witness because you suspect they may know something and aren't telling you is about as close to holding without cause as you can get.

You quote a portion of the article that deals with the inability of the Police to arrest without cause saying the law is 'a joke' while simultaneously saying you only want to force people who have been convicted by courts for withholding evidence? Make up your mind.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7