Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 102454	2009-08-19 13:30:00	Judges do not make law.	Sweep (90)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
802650	2009-08-22 14:44:00	I think when people get all frothy-mouthed over judges knowing their place and not making law they miss a big point - which is that the judiciary is a fully-fledged branch of government. The three branches of govt - Legislature; Executive; Judiciary. Judges make law - and the law that they make is often subject to the review of a higher court. The Legislature (that is, parliament sitting as the whole House) is the supreme law-making body in this country. But it isn't the only law-making body. There are several such bodies that sit at a lower place than parliament in the pecking order (local bodies for instance) - but the judiciary sits very near the top of it.	Deane F (8204)
802651	2009-08-22 21:46:00	How come the judges in New Zealand are so useless?	prefect (6291)
802652	2009-08-22 23:06:00	How come the judges in New Zealand are so useless? Wow! There's a comment full of insight and intelligence. :thumbs:	Richard (739)
802653	2009-08-22 23:52:00	How come the judges in New Zealand are so useless? I spent a lot of my early career working in Courts and was a prosecutor for a time. Judges do a great job in New Zealand and the kind of things that get written on here are largely uninformed BS by people who have never stepped inside a court. Victim Impact reports and emotional harm reparation reports came into New Zealand law in 1985 (from memory) and we used to interview victims about crimes, and arrange meetings with the offenders (where they were wanted) and put the reports before the Judges at sentencing. The Sensible Sentencing Trust whips up hysteria about the Court system, but if anything the system here is overly punitive and would be more effective if the sentences involved more rehabilitation and were shorter. The sensible sentencing trust don't seem to get that their approach is likely to lead to more serious offending, but in the years since they've been around it does seem the implementation of their policies is having the opposite effect to what they intend. Judges have a tough job to do, we're fortunate in New Zealand we have very good judges who consistently do a good job.	Twelvevolts (5457)
802654	2009-08-23 00:23:00	The Sensible Sentencing Trust showed their mettle when they opposed the sentencing of the guy who murdered the tagger. They're not a "Trust" - they're a lobby group driven by the narrow ideas and self-promoting character of Norm Withers.	Deane F (8204)
802655	2009-08-23 01:33:00	Not picking on you Sweep - just a tiny bit of history. Trusts date from the days of the Crusades. They were formalised by the Statute of Uses 1535. A holds property for the use (benefit) of B. In the days when women and youth could not own land it was very useful. Today trusts are used for intellectually handicapped children, elderly people with dementia, situations where people are unable to look after themselves. I know that isn't the type of trust you are thinking of but trusts are important instruments. I agree with you 100% but we no longer live in the days of 1535 do we? Women and Youth can hold land now. I agree that a trust should or may be held for an intellectually held child and if you are intellectually challenged you may not use a Power of Attorney because you would not have the capability to understand the document you sign. Do we, as a Society, have the right to protect people from themselves? I know I personally have the right of a Citizens Arrest or at least I used to have. But in that case I had better be very sure about what I was doing. Back in 1535 a person was executed for treason for simply expressing an opinion. www.worldtimelines.org.uk Personally I have signed a Power of Attorney to cover any events where I become unable to function as a reasonable person. Some people here may have the opinion that I'm sometimes not reasonable and the same people have a right to that opinion in my view. In the event the Judges MAKE law why can't the Judge in my link above get the law changed PDQ? Just to remind you:- home.nzcity.co.nz I am trying to get the discoloured herrings out of the debate if you do not mind.	Sweep (90)
802656	2009-08-23 02:23:00	The sensible sentencing trust in New Zealand are heroes. I hope the judges think about them when they sentence if they do its win win. The tagger was committing a crime (vandalism) and paid the price.	prefect (6291)
802657	2009-08-23 03:54:00	Perhaps I should just stop tilting at windmills. Perhaps I have more sense of what I think should be Justice, fair play, honour, moral values and other virtues the human race in general should aspire to and therefore I may annoy some people here because of my attitude. If so, then I still make no apology for my actions or words. I try to read and interpret and try not to make assumptions without knowing the facts. This because news stories are often not based on fact but rather speculation which does not help at all.	Sweep (90)
802658	2009-08-23 05:25:00	Yes, judges do make law "...by applying or extending established rules to novel circumstances... (Justice Michael McHugh, Aus) The judge in the article is doing exactly as he ought - recommending a specific change in the law to Parliament so that the law is able to reflect changes in society. But I could recommend a change in law but this does not mean such an amendment or change in the current law would be enacted does it! Recently the people voted on a referendum and in spite of the fact that some 88% of the ones who did take the time to actually vote ticked the "no" option and others ticked the "yes" option. Still there were something close to 10,000 votes that were informal or spoiled and therefore can't be counted on either side. A large number of people who were entitled to vote did not do so therefore they can't be counted on either side. If we exclude the apathetic people who did not vote then I still do not believe that this is a mandate for the current Government to change the current law as it stands or for that matter change it in any way. But a smack on the tail end is different to causing brain damage by a smack on the head. Usual story:- Define a "smack" The question did not ask whether the Govt should repeal the current legislation did it? The newer legislation in my view only gives proper and caring parents of whatever sexual persuasion less tools to discipline a child in the event they feel it necessary. The current law was just a sop to other political parties in order to get votes or snuggle in as a Government. When John Key was in opposition he helped to get a law passed when the Labour Govt was in power. Of course it was the Greens who got this lot before Parliament so that Labour could push it through. You bring up changes in Society and do you realise we now have a rather large number of Asian members who are Citizens so I assume accordingly Asian citizens have more rights or may be treated differently than those who consider themselves as of Maorii descent because in your view the laws change according how Judges view Society as a whole. What is "novel circumstances" Each and all people will normally react to a new set of circumstances in different ways and this will depend on upbringing, moral values, teachers and hopefully due regard to the laws in the place in which they live.	Sweep (90)
802659	2009-08-23 09:56:00	Actually, I believe that being a Judge in this country invariably means she or he has made the law. Same way some chickens make the other side of the road.	R2x1 (4628)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7