Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 116031	2011-02-14 05:36:00	Name the judge and sack him	Digby (677)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1178182	2011-02-14 18:50:00	Maybe we should bring back public flogging/stoning.	wmoore (6009)
1178183	2011-02-14 18:50:00	There is no need to be rude even if, or especially when, one is correct. The point Twelvevolts is making is that the problem actually belongs with the government of the day not the judicial system. We should get what we vote for. Unfortunately democracy is not perfect even if it does beat any other system in a so called advanced society. Also we have to pay to keep people locked up forever. We cannot afford that. Correct on all points - including not being rude.	Twelvevolts (5457)
1178184	2011-02-14 20:18:00	You're an idiot, you clearly didn't realise the information was available and now you're basically showing you're a gutless bag of wind as well. You clearly don't understand the law, that the Parole Board had no legal choice but to let him out and all you've got really is the ability to call anyone who explains it to you a liberal to mask your lack of a brain. That’s odd, that’s how I see you. :lol:	B.M. (505)
1178185	2011-02-14 20:40:00	Judges are rarely liberal, they are generally very conservative in fact. This means they generally follow the law, which you seem to have no comprehension of. And yes sometimes they have discretion, and probably 99.9% of the time they get it right. No one is infallible, and of course the only cases that ever get in the media are when they do get it wrong. Anyone can find out who a Judge is for a case and the Parole Board actually publishes the outcome of high profile cases here (www.paroleboard.govt.nz)including who sat on the board for the case. So you don't have to be a very bright journo to find that although apparently not very bright members of the public do have difficulty locating it. So off you go Mr Courageous - name and shame away. Oh dear, I laughed when I saw this...99.9% of the time would mean we dont have repeat criminals...	SolMiester (139)
1178186	2011-02-14 21:28:00	My OP was more about the judge that granted him bail just before he killed that poor woman and attacked another one. Exactly if the judge hadn't been stupid enough to allow bail when all indications were not good then that girl would not have been murdered. His offending (quite a string of offences) was getting more violent.	mikebartnz (21)
1178187	2011-02-14 21:28:00	Yes I'd like to see the figures. 99.9 - you might as well say 100% There is probably at least one case a month on tv where a guy on parole or bail breaks the law. (and that's just the major ones that get reported) If I had to guess I'd say its more like 50%.	Digby (677)
1178188	2011-02-14 21:55:00	Yes I'd like to see the figures. 99.9 - you might as well say 100% There is probably at least one case a month on tv where a guy on parole or bail breaks the law. (and that's just the major ones that get reported) If I had to guess I'd say its more like 50%. 99.9% of statistics are made up on the spot to support a specious argument. I just made that up by the way because I can!	Snorkbox (15764)
1178189	2011-02-14 22:24:00	As for the release, it looks like the Parole Board would have had no choice but to release him as his sentence was completed . We don't have a law here that says you can keep people in jail just because you think they might offend . So if you conclude the law was wrong, why point the finger at the Judge or Parole Board who were clearly following the law as it stood . Then maybe twovolt you may care to explain if release was inevitable, why he was appearing before a Judge or Parole Board at all? Silly me was thinking that if one appeared before a Judge or Parole Board there had to be a choice of release or remand . ;) I look forward to your explanation oh learned colleague .	B.M. (505)
1178190	2011-02-15 03:56:00	Then maybe twovolt you may care to explain if release was inevitable, why he was appearing before a Judge or Parole Board at all? Silly me was thinking that if one appeared before a Judge or Parole Board there had to be a choice of release or remand. ;) I look forward to your explanation oh learned colleague. Agreed it is silly you, learn the law and then you won't need to ask.	Twelvevolts (5457)
1178191	2011-02-15 03:59:00	Twelve Volts As I have said twice before. The Judge let him out on bail. When he had a long history of violence and the police opposed it. (yes we all know the parole board "had" to let him out.) But the judge did not have to grant bail.	Digby (677)
1 2 3 4 5