Corruption, Legal Definition

Election Corruption

... Mr Clarkson had the right as the lessee of a building to display a sign on that building without including the market value of the display space as a campaign expense, as Mr Henry had said was necessary. The judges feared a "rash of electoral petitions" should the act be interpreted otherwise.

What does this mean? Untested Election law to prevent corruption says that there is a maximum level of advertising (spare us all from excessive election campaigns!) for an election candidate and Bob Clarkson took Tauranga by a slender vote majority with advertising deals such as the above.

This is unfair if it favours candidate that own prominently placed commerical property and free signwriters who want to support their candidate by painting commericals on such public property. The value of that advertising has to be assessed as a portion of the expenses of owning that land, as a value that could be otherwised realized if the owner so desired. The cost to the owner is the opportunity that such advertising creates by demonstrating that such advertising is effective, he is demonstrating that such advertising has a value, a cost upon our eyes - rather than a cost in the accounting sense. It is the exposure, not the bank account that the law addresses.

Singapore Legal Authority

A passage to death?

Social progress is achieved by development of individuals, not by a Government selecting who is to die. Eugenics has a lot in common with Execution. It is a Government deciding who has the "privilege" of life, ahead of creating conditions to "improve the general quality of life for everyone". It is the contradiction - by selecting the right people to die - a Government could "improve society". Eugenics is systematic racial selection for a similar purpose and effect. How can one separate the two? A system of justice? Well perhaps, but is that not worshiping a mental process of man, rather the the Divine that dispenses (justice). As if justice were actually a tangible commodity and there were a market for it? Singapore is exporting the death penalty. Singapore executes drug couriers who fly with via Singapore, whether they set foot in the Capital Punishment (legal) territory or not.

Singapore Airlines may reconsider marketing in drug based economies for moral reasons. Are they facilitating state sponsored entrapment? Or is this an act of war to take foreign nationals and execute them effectively as prisoners of [the] war (on drugs)?

That the Australian Government of the day does not mind is an act of selection - we do not want drug dealers as Australian citizens. People keep asking what if the man's name was Shane Warne (not the famous cricketer - but if that were his name) - the Australian voter may give a care.

Should flights be banned by the UN from drug kingdoms? That would be quite unfair to the majority of honest travellers! But, is it moral for Singapore to effectively extend its Capital punishment laws internationally with it's name on a public transport passageway (legally and effectively not Singporean soil) and so by casting a net providing routes into places a drug courier goes - knowing that couriers will be exposed to the CP laws of that country even if they are not nationals of that country and have never legally entered the country?

Crime Stopper Website

In the UK the police have launched a crimewatch style website aimed at finding the most-wanted criminals. Of course, a public rogues gallery give the police a huge number of eyes and ears. But what does it say about the rest of us?

Jury members change story

Entertainment - canada.com network Jury members of the Michael Jackson trial now "change their story" and declare that they were under pressure to vote not guilty.

Since they have a book in the marketing dept, their claims appear not without alterior motive.

The US Justice system allows jury members to benefit from the freedom of the media. It follows then that money is to be made, so they go for reaction, spinning a media storm from sealed jury deliberations. Who can argue?

How much did this trial cost America? Are these peoples' "revelations" of greater value than justice? A belief that someone may be guilty is not the point. In a criminal case the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt - and 12 people voting aquittal is an indication that the prosecution failed to achieve that.

For a jury member to say, post mortem, that the defendent is guilty of crimes other than those before the court, is to say that the prosecution did not do their job by bringing relevant charges. A conviction based on heresay is not justice. A weak case is not justice.

A conviction that follows the rules of the court is considered "safe" is it is proven that the accused is guilty. A conviction based on inadequate evidence or popular opinion is not a conviction.

Susan Drake, 51, said that during the deliberations, the two jurors who now changed their story "were clear in expressing their feeling he might be guilty but totally clear that the evidence wasn't there and reasonable doubt prevailed." She described the deliberations as "thoughtful and courteous," not intimidating.

Notoriety and Responsibility

Notoriety and Responsibility

A recent police action resulted in a drug bust and the arrest of David Henderson, twice self-made property millionaire. Famously, two former sports celebrities have been implicated despite public knowledge of their identity they remain at large and under "name-supression". This highlights not the side effect of name supression, but the main point - to bestow immunity from publication in the media. Although the media know who they are and although they are already in the media, the media can not discuss it and possibly can not make it in any way obvious as to the identity of the individuals concerned.

Meantime, word gets out. Perhaps that is a good thing. David Henderson's immediate return to NZ from overseas to plead guilty to the crime of possession of cocaine may or may not have been a good idea. Waiting until the dust settled may have had advantages, perhaps, but this man is putting himself at the mercy of the court.

The police operation also resulted in the arrest of the manager of a successful Auckland café - charged as a co-conspiritor to the "kin-pin" - a 55 year old company director. And eighth man has since been arrested.

Two sporting celebrities named in court documents have so far not been charged and their identities remain protected by suppression orders.

Meantime, the Police face random drug testing a measure to restore confidence in the force. The public apparently need their confidence restored in the police. One can imagine after all the attacks on George Hawkins, the Minister of the Police, the Government likely wish to be seen doing something about crime.

Aquittal and innocence

Aquittal and Innocence

Being let off a crime perhaps describes what happened with OJ Simpson. Although he was also found "not guilty" nobody really believed that he should have been. But the case against him must have failed for reasons rather than imagined reasons.

It is entirely different to the Michael Jackson case. For a start, the double OJ murder certainly displayed the usual elements of motive, opportunity and means. Tangible evidence was not presented that could determine guilt so it was the fault of the state that guilt was not established. A defendent does not have to prove that they did not commit the crime, if the prosecutor can not prove that they did. It is the job of the police to clearly establish guilt.

The case presented against Michael Jackson is also different as there is no forensic evidence, but not believeable "evidence" from the "victim". Or "lies" from the "con artist". Depending upon how one looks at it.

Many seem to want to believe that the Bashir documentary is "evidence enough" of abuse. But it is not. Michael Jackson said he "shared his bed" - the minor detail that he may not have been there himself - is not entirely clear. One can imagine all one likes. It is evidence presented by the prosection. And they had free run of Neverland and that means that the opportunity for evidence collection has been explored.

Now it is time to leave the poor man alone. Or he may develop more weird tendancies and it seems that America can not really cope with its modern day Osacar Wilde persecution trial. Lucky Michael Jackson did not take the stand or worse, try to defend himself.

NOT GUILTY

Michael Jackson was found NOT GUILTY on all ten counts.

What Money can't buy

Latest Business News and Financial Information | Reuters.com Citibank has the most money of all the banks, apparently, putting aside 6 billion dollars for contingent liabilities was a bit of a sneeze, but they will get over it. They just had to pay out 2 billion for Enron exposure. That 2 billion was effectively stolen from their customers with their consent and was less than their exposure to Worldcom.

If Michael Jackson had that much money, he of course could not buy his way out of conviction. The jury remains out, and its little wonder with over 20 conviction decisions to wade through. It sounds like the court has handed over a huge legal assignment to the jury in a 98 page complex agenda.

Enjoy, then, these quotable quotes from New Criminologist.

I think that the one that applies in this case may be:

"A man without money need no more fear a crowd of lawyers than a crowd of pickpockets." William Wycherley, "The Plain Dealer", 1674.

Police - Crime vs Traffic

The real job

There is plenty of outcry in New Zealand about police sitting at the side of the road pointing a speed radar gun at the passing population of frustrated and sometimes frightened drivers. Frightened? The aggression or misbehaviour of many Auckland drivers is indeed a factor in road safety. There is no doubt that road accidents causes more than a reasonable proportion of early death than other forms of human activity that involve motion or mechisation. Univesality exposes us to each other in a very risky way. Our behaviour patterns and reactions are the very key to our survival. It may or may not be like other forms of crime in that it can be a consequence of frustration that we become lacking in the self-control dept. But when our muscles respond to the release of certain hormones we hope this does not translate to an additional 50 kms per hour of volocity on top as the acclerator is pushed down in anger. When we become angry, we lash out seeking satisfaction. A foot to the floor kind of reaction is the most dangerous form of unpredictability on the road. It need not be in anger, but at times when our attention is gathered by other things than paying attention to the detail of how our own vehicle is functioning and in relation to other vehicles hurtling or crawling along the highway.

This still does not answer why we need police to sit in their cars aiming a portable radar gun at us? Are random vehicles appearing over the crest of a rise or behind a favoured moterway signage blindspot more of a hinderance to safety than an aid to good behaviour? Probably not, and that is why the police seek to better our patterns of behaviour on the road. If they can prevent 400 deaths per annum, then they are doing four times more good than if they stopped every single murder.

It is fairly reasonable to argue that the lives of people who are connected in someway, however casual, to a murdering psychotic are in more need of police attention. But then, so many of us become murdering maniacs behind a wheel when someone or something has pissed us off. Like a parking ticket. We get behind the wheel and start letting off steam by punching down on the accelerator. Everyone has done it.

It is that behaviour, if we learn to correct it in our selves, prevents the dangerous spread of frustration between drivers. It would certainly help if drivers were able to simply able to keep their distances at least two whole seconds apart at all times. There would be far fewer accidents. Driving would be less frustrating.

And the police could concentrate their efforts on real criminals. The real stars of the 6pm news. Why do we want them sitting at the roadside?