Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
495 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 34


  Reply # 1114458 24-Aug-2014 10:53
Send private message

KiwiNZ:
SpookyAwol: That one has been explained already, or are we purely focusing on that one example?


you asked for an example, that is one that is very relevent


Im just wondering if that is the ONLY example - the OP seems to think its a major problem. Thats why I query for other examples



11170 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3539

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1114460 24-Aug-2014 10:56
Send private message

SpookyAwol:
KiwiNZ:
SpookyAwol: That one has been explained already, or are we purely focusing on that one example?


you asked for an example, that is one that is very relevent


Im just wondering if that is the ONLY example - the OP seems to think its a major problem. Thats why I query for other examples


I don't make a point of debating the size of the problem.

It merely seems a curious blip in the normal 'fairness' we hear so much about.





 
 
 
 


Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software
12168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5702

Trusted

  Reply # 1114461 24-Aug-2014 10:57
Send private message

SpookyAwol:
KiwiNZ:
SpookyAwol: That one has been explained already, or are we purely focusing on that one example?


you asked for an example, that is one that is very relevent


Im just wondering if that is the ONLY example - the OP seems to think its a major problem. Thats why I query for other examples


There is bound to be more a recall a rape case in Auckland where the guy was released after a few years innocent but cannot remember details. I am sure some of our member that are from the law profession will know of examples.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


12168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5702

Trusted

  Reply # 1114462 24-Aug-2014 10:59
Send private message

Geektastic:
SpookyAwol:
KiwiNZ:
SpookyAwol: That one has been explained already, or are we purely focusing on that one example?


you asked for an example, that is one that is very relevent


Im just wondering if that is the ONLY example - the OP seems to think its a major problem. Thats why I query for other examples


I don't make a point of debating the size of the problem.

It merely seems a curious blip in the normal 'fairness' we hear so much about.


It should not need to go to the Minister where political a decision is made, the Courts or the Justice Department should be able to approve compensation.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 




11170 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3539

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1114463 24-Aug-2014 10:59
Send private message

SpookyAwol:
 
And if a court of law finds someone not guilty (either at trial or later on appeal, releasing them), on what basis can those of us not present decide that the court was just wrong and we should therefore ignore what it said?


Im not sure what you are getting at here. Just because an individual who wasnt there disagrees, we should ignore the whole Court system?


No. I am getting at comments that more or less say  'because he/she got off on a technicality but there is no shining angel proclaiming innocence by Heavenly Writ we should not have to pay compensation'

My point was that if a court finds that a person should not have been in jail because there was doubt of the security of that conviction, that person ought to be entitled to compensation whether we, the press or the cabinet think that person was guilty.





495 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 34


  Reply # 1114467 24-Aug-2014 11:12
Send private message

 I don't make a point of debating the size of the problem.

Well you kind of need to. You are debating that an issue exists. The only current example of Bain is not a good one.

 

There may be some cases that others can present, but generally the media will only talk about high profile cases and other deals will be done behind closed doors.
If compensation is given, then its often not disclosed for privacy reasons. 

495 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 34


  Reply # 1114468 24-Aug-2014 11:15
Send private message

 
There is bound to be more a recall a rape case in Auckland where the guy was released after a few years innocent but cannot remember details. I am sure some of our member that are from the law profession will know of examples.


Teina Pora?

239 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 61


  Reply # 1114469 24-Aug-2014 11:19
Send private message

Geektastic:
networkn:
Geektastic:
networkn:
TimA:
Zippity: Any examples in mind?
  David Bain?


HAHA, well the issue there is his was not found to be innocent, it was simply that after they suppressed some of the evidence at the first trial, they didn't have enough to convict him. This does NOT make him innocent.

I do believe however that if you were TRULY innocent of the crimes you were imprisoned for, you would be compensated for, in NZ, regardless of legislation.



Well, to be more accurate, you MIGHT be compensated if the government of the day felt like it.

It seems fundamentally wrong that the State can deprive someone of liberty, family life and their career and get off scot free.

To take your example above, if we assume the evidence suppressed was suppressed because it was found to be inadmissible and to have been presented in court in error, we can reasonably extrapolate that the conviction may well not have occurred. The individual would have been found not guilty and released. He would have had his liberty, family life and career, even if we/the Press felt 'he still done it guv'.

There appears to be a mismatch between compensation rules and the standard of proof in court - if you get found not guilty in court even though circumstantially it appears you did it, you're free to resume your life - if you get convicted then freed later but there is murkiness as in this example, you get nothing, despite the fact that the same murkiness may have allowed you to be found not guilty had it occurred at the time of the trial.


Yah I can *sort* of see what you are saying, but as someone stated above, there is a world of difference between NOT Guilty because of a lack of evidence, and Innocent. I believe the first occurred, and he was found guilty the first time around, so as far as I am concerned at best it's one result each way, so he is out and free, but he served time for being found guilty. As I understand it, some of the evidence which was pretty damning was omitted due to minor technical issues of which there is still dispute over the courts ruling on. A lot of legal professionals believe had that evidence been 
presented, he would be back in prison now. In this case, I don't believe he would be due compensation. 

If however, evidence came to light to prove him categorically innocent, I would without a shadow of a doubt, be 100% behind a generous compensation package for him.

I do not beleive for one cold second in hell, that someone who commits a crime, gets away with it due to a tecnicality should be due compensation for spending time in prison for having committed said crime. 





But how is it fair that a person who 'gets away with it due to a technicality' in court and never goes to prison is effectively better off than the same person who does 20 years before the court arrives at that conclusion and thus loses any ability to have a family, earn a living etc which the other guy does get?

And if a court of law finds someone not guilty (either at trial or later on appeal, releasing them), on what basis can those of us not present decide that the court was just wrong and we should therefore ignore what it said?
i would rather someone guilty walk free on a technicality or lack of evidence then see 1 innocent person falsely imprisoned. As far as I'm conceded there is no amount of compensation that can make up for an innocent person being jailed, although I'm sure it would help

1228 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 147


  Reply # 1114488 24-Aug-2014 11:40
2 people support this post
Send private message

The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".





---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...


3049 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 902

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1114500 24-Aug-2014 12:14
Send private message

Fred99: If prosecution evidence is disallowed in a second trial resulting in acquittal -then there's a good reason for that - there are rules in place - and if the prosecution is caught breaking those rules, and that stuffs up their case with the result that a "guilty" person goes free, then that's just a price of justice - and a better result than giving the police and prosecutors so much slack that they can make up the rules (and in some cases evidence) on the fly any time they like. 

Not sure what 'rules' you are referring to here, Court procedure is very well established. Evidence is usually suppressed because it's deemed too prejudicial or unfairly (which can be unlawfully) obtained, not because it or 'the rules' are made up.

Edit: expansion of original sentence.

16881 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4755

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1114502 24-Aug-2014 12:26
Send private message

sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".



This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure. 

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression. 

2930 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1375




11170 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3539

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1114765 24-Aug-2014 20:07
Send private message

SpookyAwol:
 I don't make a point of debating the size of the problem.

Well you kind of need to. You are debating that an issue exists. The only current example of Bain is not a good one. There may be some cases that others can present, but generally the media will only talk about high profile cases and other deals will be done behind closed doors.
If compensation is given, then its often not disclosed for privacy reasons. 


Why? A problem can exist in absentio an extant example of it in practice. It's called theory!







11170 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3539

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1114767 24-Aug-2014 20:15
Send private message

networkn:
sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".



This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure. 

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression. 


However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge  with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!





16881 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4755

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1114771 24-Aug-2014 20:23
Send private message

Geektastic:
networkn:
sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".



This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure. 

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression. 


However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge  with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!


Well I guess I am talking about someone who gets their conviction overturned as a result of a thing like incorrect chain of evidence or something like that. The evidence shows they did commit the crime, categorically, but it can't be presented at trial due to a breach of the rules. 
Whilst I am not happy they are out, it falls into the way that the rules work, and I am prepared to accept it, however to then turn around and give that person money as compensation for spending time in prison, I'm afraid you'd never convince me that is the right thing to do. 

I will be very unhappy indeed if Bain gets compensated (As I believe he falls into the above category), however, we are a socialist country and will likely give him something I believe. 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

UpStarters - the New Zealand tech and innovation story
Posted 21-May-2018 09:55


Lightbox updates platform with new streaming options
Posted 17-May-2018 13:09


Norton Core router launches with high-performance, IoT security in New Zealand
Posted 16-May-2018 02:00


D-Link ANZ launches new 4G LTE Dual SIM M2M VPN Router
Posted 15-May-2018 19:30


New Panasonic LUMIX FT7 ideal for outdoor: waterproof, dustproof
Posted 15-May-2018 19:17


Ryanair Goes All-In on AWS
Posted 15-May-2018 19:14


Te Papa and EQC Minecraft Mod shakes up earthquake education
Posted 15-May-2018 19:12


Framing Facebook: It’s not about technology
Posted 14-May-2018 16:02


Vocus works with NZ Police and telcos to stop scam calls
Posted 12-May-2018 11:12


Vista Group signs Aeon Entertainment, largest cinema chain in Japan
Posted 11-May-2018 21:41


New Privacy Trust Mark certifies privacy and customer control
Posted 10-May-2018 14:16


New app FIXR connects vehicle owners to top Mechanics at best prices
Posted 10-May-2018 14:13


Nutanix Beam gives enterprises control of the cloud
Posted 10-May-2018 14:09


D-Link ANZ launches Covr Seamless Wi-Fi System
Posted 10-May-2018 14:06


Telstra, Intel and Ericsson demonstrate a 5G future for esports
Posted 10-May-2018 13:59



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.