| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 139953 | 2015-07-29 01:00:00 | Is name suppression a farce? | Zippity (58) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1405553 | 2015-07-29 04:11:00 | I don't know if it was this lowlife, or some other loser- they showed them on tv but couldn't name them. What the hell is up with that? | Renegade (16270) | ||
| 1405554 | 2015-07-29 08:05:00 | Robertson needs to be removed from society - permanently! | Zippity (58) | ||
| 1405555 | 2015-07-29 08:32:00 | I don't know if it was this lowlife, or some other loser- they showed them on tv but couldn't name them. What the hell is up with that? You can't do a Google search on his face (at least not yet) but you can on his name. |
decibel (11645) | ||
| 1405556 | 2015-07-29 21:34:00 | I don't know if it was this lowlife, or some other loser- they showed them on tv but couldn't name them. What the hell is up with that? Yes it was... because if they released his name and you searched it in google it would come up with the news of his previous conviction. |
lordnoddy (3645) | ||
| 1405557 | 2015-07-29 22:13:00 | And they expect those who know him to keep quiet? That'll work. | Renegade (16270) | ||
| 1405558 | 2015-07-29 22:14:00 | So, every crim for up for trial must also get name suppression, for the same reasons. Juries really need to be able to see past history of the accused, so they can clearly see a pattern of offending -showing that the accused was quite likely to do this sort of crime. Court systems covering up similar offending in the past doesnt make any sense. |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1405559 | 2015-07-29 22:20:00 | employers need past history to see what the prospect will behave like in the future, why not criminals as well. its not fair, criminals have too many rights. |
Gobe1 (6290) | ||
| 1405560 | 2015-07-29 22:50:00 | The Judges who let him out should be sharing a cell with him. :mad: If only it were so, we might get better sentences. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1405561 | 2015-07-29 23:27:00 | Oh and if you're a "famous" person in NZ you get name suppression and let off by a slap with a wet bus ticket... | lordnoddy (3645) | ||
| 1405562 | 2015-07-30 05:44:00 | Back in the day in our (well, British) legal history, people were tried in front of a jury of their peers - jurors were required to know the defendant. The belief was that to determine someone's guilt or innocence you had to know them, so you could judge the likelihood of them committing the offence. Over time, with the development of the principle of people being deemed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, this idea was eroded. Jurors were (and still are) required to be independent of the accused so they should determine guilt based on the facts rather than a person's reputation or criminal record. Personally I think it is far better to have this system, otherwise it would be too easy for the State to stitch people up on the basis of their record or reputation. I think the decision made by the Robertson jury is much stronger because they decided the case on the facts and didn't know his record. |
John H (8) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||