What's your take on this whole no conviction rugby thing.

Forums › Sports › What's your take on this whole no conviction rugby thing.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 10

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1642758 29-Sep-2016 15:46

Sideface:

"Filipo said in a statement earlier this week that he had made a huge mistake and had apologised for his actions."

Is this a new definition of "mistake"?

He violently assaulted four people.

And he went after them, no provocation, stomped on his head. Mistake? Its a million miles from being young and drunk, and giving him a black eye

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1642761 29-Sep-2016 15:56

MadEngineer: This will annoy a few people but it's been proven that jail time is not constructive and young males frequently make the odd poor decision for which they shouldn't automatically be jailed for as this will actually just turn them into hardened crims. It's proven better to chalk up their first mistake as a learning experience for them. Repeat offenses of course show another story however and should be treated differently.

In this case I do wonder if it would have had a different outcome should he have lost the contract before the court sentence.

No doubt if he makes another mistake the court won't be so lenient.

That highlights a bigger problem in Nz and that is our prison system.

thinus

34 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1642763 29-Sep-2016 16:12

MadEngineer: This will annoy a few people but it's been proven that jail time is not constructive and young males frequently make the odd poor decision for which they shouldn't automatically be jailed for as this will actually just turn them into hardened crims. It's proven better to chalk up their first mistake as a learning experience for them. Repeat offenses of course show another story however and should be treated differently.

Lenient? As in walking away without a conviction? That is way more than just leniency. Isn't a suspended sentence the way that first time offenders are kept out of jail? I am not versed in NZ law but most judicial systems allow the judge to suspend a sentence.

So in the past, you commit a first crime, you get convicted and your sentence is suspended.

But now, you commit a first crime, you don't get convicted because that may impact your career prospects and complicate international travel and you walk away with a clean record. How does this work on a second offence? Is it a second offense? He wasn't convicted the first time.

It is just ridiculous, especially considering that this was a violent crime with serious injuries inflicted.

MadEngineer

4591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2570

Trusted

#1642767 29-Sep-2016 16:23

Sideface:
"Filipo said in a statement earlier this week that he had made a huge mistake and had apologised for his actions."

Is this a new definition of "mistake"?

He violently assaulted four people.

If he can prove to us that he has learnt from the experience and hopefully he has then yes it could be called that

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

Blurtie

487 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#1642769 29-Sep-2016 16:28

Personally I'm in two minds about this...

Yes what he did was a terrible act. The pictures of the victims do not paint a good picture and the public has rightly jumped up and down about it, so he should be at least convicted. But I'd like to point out that the full judgement has not been released, what was released was only the judges sentencing summary - which we all know was a discharge without conviction. The full judgement should give more reasons why the judge came to the decision he did.

On the other hand, the fact that he was 17, and had somewhat of a rough upbringing (Waitangirua is about as rough as you can get in Porirua); but he was a pretty good sportsman (in particular rugby, but he was also pretty good at league) with a promising career ahead of him - which make me question whether would a conviction and jail time is right punishment for his crime? The prison system is supposed to be all about rehabilitation. As @MadEngineer has pointed out, jail time is not constructive for young males. Locking him up with other criminals and potentially taking him away from sports and his support network could have disastrous consequences and he could end up going off the rails and being a repeat offender. What purpose would sending him to jail serve? I certainly don't think it would rehabilitate him.

That's where i think the judge was coming from with his verdict. Nothing's guaranteed, Losi (before his contract was terminated) would have still needed to go out and train and commit himself if he was to make it as a professional rugby player. The people involved and the routine of it all surely would have helped kept him out of trouble in the future? The judge didn't want to stifle that by sending him to prison, seems like he wanted to give him a chance to succeed. But now that i think about it, maybe a discharge without conviction was too lenient, conviction maybe, but I certainly don't think jail would be appropriate.

FWIW - the reports of his 150 hours of community service was not a condition of his sentencing, it was voluntary work he under took himself.

Out of interest, a lot of people think it was too lenient but what do people think should have been the verdict? Conviction and jail time? Conviction and community based sentence?

thinus

34 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1642773 29-Sep-2016 16:33

Blurtie:

Out of interest, a lot of people think it was too lenient but what do people think should have been the verdict? Conviction and jail time? Conviction and community based sentence?

Conviction with suspended sentence. The severity of the offense still bothers me as well as the fact that it was a violent offence.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

darylblake

1172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 410

Trusted

#1642775 29-Sep-2016 16:38

The whole thing is a joke. This actually made me extremely cross that 4 people had some major life changing stuff happen to them, due to an unprovoked encounter.

Another round of time wasted in the legal system because these rugby head's think they are too big for their boots. I hope the public backlash causes a permanent change of behaviour for the better.

I loved Paul Henry's tearing up of Steve Tew yesterday. I absolutely hate arrogance, and arrogant people. They need to have a good hard look at themselves as an organisation. And lead by example. It sounds like they are just trying to get away with it.

That league player Russel Packer or whoever in Australia got 2 years Jail for a similar sort of offence, this is what we need here.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1642776 29-Sep-2016 16:39

Punch 4 people and the Rugby union stands by you vrs ASB bank - some dodgy texts and you are sacked.

The accountant to did the hit and run with his Porche got sacked for bringing his employer into disrepute. Regardless of what the courts said.

The politician who was rude to the waiter got sacked by Key.

I always wonder if how much keeping the player on their books rather than sacking them and "risk" another team signing the player plays a role.

I wonder if my employer would stand by me if I assaulted 4 people - not a hope in hell. Out would the "bringing the company into disrepute" clause of my contract come and I would be shown the door.

Would my ultimate employer, a government minister, appear on national telly to argue for me keeping my job???? No.

If Rugby didn't keep going on about how great their professional player were and their role models to the youth in general was, whether there would be a much outcry.

At the end of the day, these players just kick a ball round a field while being coddled by the organisations that condone what every they get up to and long as they can get the ball across the line and keep sky tv's subscribers happy.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1642781 29-Sep-2016 16:46

I agree with the publics unhappiness with the court decision, but I dont agree with the medias chewup of the NZRU. I assume its because they have noone else that can be the scape goat for the justice system.

The courts are responsible for the conviction and punishment and until sentence has passed it has not a lot to do with the NZRU.

vexxxboy

4339 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2077

#1642785 29-Sep-2016 16:50

trig42:

vexxxboy:

people are also forgetting he was only 17 when the offense occurred, and as such he is classed as a child under the law. Different rules apply .

I was always told at 17 you are an adult in terms of criminal charges.

Oldest age for Youth Court is 16

not quite NZ follows

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Children and young people aged 0 to 17 years old have special rights under the law, and are covered by different laws to adults. Everyone in New Zealand - families, communities and the Government - must work together to make sure your rights are protected.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1642789 29-Sep-2016 17:01

Sorry but if you are 17 and go bashing adults then you should be treated as an adult. Who is looking after the victims in all this , Nobody certainly not our justice system.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1642821 29-Sep-2016 17:07

"It's not okay. Unless you play rugby."

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1642826 29-Sep-2016 17:14

This was extreme violence and I believe it required a conviction to reflect that, jail no but certainly home detention and or community service and reparation.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1642863 29-Sep-2016 18:07

Mspec:

This was extreme violence and I believe it required a conviction to reflect that, jail no but certainly home detention and or community service and reparation.

Wouldn't that sort of conviction prevent him working overseas, which is what most top rugby players end up doing eventually.

This was discussed on Radio NZ today, and one panelist said this sort of thing happens all the time with well off families, who want to protect their children, where people will ask for name suppression, and will ask for discharge without conviction to protect their future employment opportunities, and most would get it. It is just never reported. I was somewhat surprised to hear that. Is that true? They also said they think there is a race element to the story, and more to it than is being reported.

thinus

34 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#1642880 29-Sep-2016 18:32

mattwnz:

Mspec:

This was extreme violence and I believe it required a conviction to reflect that, jail no but certainly home detention and or community service and reparation.

Wouldn't that sort of conviction prevent him working overseas, which is what most top rugby players end up doing eventually.

This was discussed on Radio NZ today, and one panelist said this sort of thing happens all the time with well off families, who want to protect their children, where people will ask for name suppression, and will ask for discharge without conviction to protect their future employment opportunities, and most would get it. It is just never reported. I was somewhat surprised to hear that. Is that true? They also said they think there is a race element to the story, and more to it than is being reported.

If you commit assault don't you think that other countries should be informed of this before you travel there? And don't you think they should have the right to refuse you entry?

As for more to it than being reported, all I can think is that there may have been abuse in his childhood and weighed up against the glowing character references and opportunities, the judge decided that a conviction would have an overly negative effect on him. I still don't agree with it.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 10