Smacking Children

Smacking Children

A culture of threat and violence harms children, and parents definition of "light" may vary when justifying an actual crime. Our children should not be political punchbags. The law should never condone "light smacks", but it does need to outlaw violence and foster a culture of non-violence.

Of course light smacks are relatively harmless to the child, but parental light smacks may condition the child that it is quite okay to hit their children. That appears to be the problem, now.

Experimentation on Prisoners

... see also

Human Rights vs Efficiency?

Being human is a basic right and the Law may not remove that right.

"Legal adventures" that stretch or challenge the Law as it is so may establish precidents that allows more erosion of the power of the word decreed by Government. Once nobody follows Law it becomes irrelevant and unenforceable. It may still exist to dumbfound future lawyers, but for the present a law seems rendered ineffective if it is constantly broken.

That may be a misapprehension. It takes the bringing of action to bring the law to the attention of the courts. Citizens have a right to protest, this can also be an effective way to bring about law changes, though requiring the intervention of an afflicted or converted politician. We can withdraw our labour and change things.

But who is going to go on strike or protest for the human rights of those behind bars who willingly enter a medical experiment? Considering the case of a New Zealander (not a prisoner, but the next best thing, a tourist) in London who was paid about five thousand dollars to try out a new drug that nearly killed him and has left him with cancer.

Would it have been less difficult for us to digest if that were a prisoner who was also being paid to be experimented upon?

Of course, if medical testing were always that dramatic, there would be no drugs. Most of the time, the test may not have a life threatening aspect to it. The prisoner is as (un)safe as any volunteer.

War on Terror

Plots about to unfold, involving foreign national based in foreign lands, little more than discussions about possible attack scenarios are now being busted by the US Authorities. Of course it is a good idea to prevent terrorism going ahead, but to get a conviction, there used to have to be a crime. Not just talking about it.

The actions of this US Adminstration include kidnapping sweeps of their enemy based on "intelligence" (perhaps the admissions of prisoners under some form of extreme torment), leading officials who do not question torture as a strategy and who also engage in imprisonment without trial of hundreds of foreign nationals. Either these acts are wrong, or international law is wrong.

Police Videotape Evidence

Lawyer Marie Dyhrberg expressed concern about police conduct in a case where video taped evidence was handed over to TVNZ who has since (permanently) lost a bid to broadcast it.

That the police have an interest in broadcasting evidence would appear to be an effort to add the weight of public opinion to denigrate a defendent and is thus prejudicial and a danger to the integrity of the Law. To allow evidence to be displayed in an effort to inform the public achieves exactly the reverse by setting up a forum for discussion that assumes guilt. That the government owned broadcaster is appealing this decision is even more extraordinary. Asserting freedom of the press is one thing. Broadcasting police evidence is quite another. How will we be sure anyone is guilty if the government can just show us a video taped "confession". What is next, toture and public humiliation? Do we have a system of justice - or would the public prefer a return to the dark ages? In this age of reality TV are we so jaundiced that we must be spoonfed"official truth" or would we prefer a system that more effectively discovers truth by sticking to the rules of evidence?

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.