Labour: all sex is rape unless you can prove otherwise
 

This came up in the pre-election thread but it's so gobsmackingly bizarro that it deserves its own thread.

Guilty until proven innocent. That'll work.

similar to Part III (sections 49 to 56) of the UK's RIPA 2000 (another piece of poorly written legislation).

Surely this is the crux of the "problem" with rape cases at the moment. How do you prove consent or non-consent? Simply flipping it around doesn't solve that issue and shits all over "innocent until proven guilty".

There's already an assumed guilt by virtue of there being a case in the first place! Irrespective of what people might say, there has to be a doubt created "otherwise why are they on trial?".

Dumb shit is dumb.

Typical anti-Labour post from a well-known rightwing nutjob:

http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/20...innocence.html

I've been a juror on a rape case and the Crown how no difficulty convincing me the action undertaken was rape; the other jurors thought the same way too.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11291109

Are Andrew Little and David Cunliffe, you know, aware of each other?

What was the evidence?

This involved a series of incremental elements delivered as a well structured and entirely credible argument.

Shall I take that to mean that you don't want to give details?

I'm just curious whether it was based on physical evidence or on someone's "word". Clearly if it's a he says/she says situation that's where the difficulties lie and where a change like this would have a larger impact.

I'm not sure a juror is allowed to discuss those details. Could be mistaken, might be just during trial.

Yep it's just far too much effort for me to do that justice.

Just when you thought it was safe to let Labour back near law and order:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...used-denies-it

Yeah, that's what concerns most people. False accusations. Rapists acting with impunity? Well, that's just life isn't it. It's most definitely the status quo.

How about you get fucked, Ab?

What does she think that number should be? 100%? 50%? She says "One thing we have to do is find out the numbers of false allegations that have been made" YOU'RE GODDAMNED RIGHT YOU DO! Otherwise how can you be talking about percentages of convictions in any meaningful way?!

Yeah, protect the innocent from false accusations! Protecting the innocent from rape? Meh, whatevs.

Cunts.

HEY NO SHIT, LADY.

I would rather every single real actual rapist got away with it than one innocent person got treated as a rapist when he or she wasn't.

That's my limit. Zero innocent people treated as rapists.

What's yours?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental pillar upon which the entire criminal justice system stands. If any sane voter ever needed a reason not to let Labour anywhere near the government benches, this is one. This is Labour proposing a policy that breaches the Bill of Rights Act, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the history of sane laws since Magna Carta.

I think we can find some middle ground here. I personally know 4 girls who have been sexually assaulted in some way. Amount of convictions? 0. Because the current system does not make it easy for people (especially girls) who have been through a traumatic experience like that. I don't think that's fair.

What are Labour's proposed consequences for someone who makes a false complaint under the new law? Is there any consequence? Do they distinguish between 'false complaint' and 'not enough evidence to convict/prosecute'? Or does that not exist at all? On account of Poto Williams not having enough nous?

Does this proposal apply only to female complainants or or to males as well? If there is no consequence for false complaints, can I then accuse Poto Williams of having raped me? The police would be obliged to take me at my word and waste a lot of time and money investigating her only to find that I completely made it all up for shits n giggles just to cause her trouble, knowing that I would suffer no consequence. Is that cool? Is that choice?

I pretty much agree with all this. Your concern is sound.

It's your *lack* of concern over the last nine years about any of National's policies that directly interfere with that would seek justice, should they believe justice might be found, that disgusts me.

You're fucking quick to pick up on the impotent murmurings of the opposition, by what fucks do you give about what National's actually doing to screw over the country?

Since National came to power it is literally easier to perpetrate sex crime and get away with it. Can you tell I'm mad about that?

NZ seems to be in a bad way. From what I can see--at a distance--I am in complete agreement with your assessment that the mental health system is nonfunctional, although being distanced from it I don't have the level of personal rage that you exhibit.

But it's the same here in Australia. And fuck, check out the opioid epidemic in the USA, and Trump, and Brexit. Everything's going to shit all at once everywhere.

Rightish parties won't help because they're conservative. They're the "everything will be OK if we just stay the course" people. Leftish parties are crying THE END IS NIGH but can't help because Leftish internal purges have eliminated all the competent people, and only parties that win elections can do anything.

No shit, I'm closer to moving home than I have been at any time in the past 18 years because Australia feels fucking doomed. NZ actually looks like a country in better shape.

Ab raped me.

You would be so lucky.

crocos raped me.



I didn't feel it though, so it's all good.

While I appreciate the sensitive and traumatic side of having to relive the experiences in a court, there really isn't much in the way of middle ground as far as a conviction goes. You can't be a little bit innocent or a little bit guilty. It is black and white, as is the presumption of innocence.

4 girls assaulted with 0 convictions is awful, but 0 girls assaulted with 4 convictions is far worse.

What is fair is the right to a fair trial.

Oh it's Poto. Nuff said.

Hotdog / subway tunnel

More like "Is it in yet?"

Well, anything short of a blue whale...

I guess you're a grower, not a shower huh?

The way rape is treated in NZ is crap.

The knee jerk reaction would be "believe the accuser and assume the accused is guilty until proven innocent ... but just for rape"

The right then wring their hands "but then all the girls would accuse all the men of being rapists." Well, of course the would. But I would assume in roughly the same numbers of rapists that get away with it atm.

The last graphic I saw said that for every 100 rapes, 13 are reported, 5 go to trial and only 1 is a false accusation (or thereabouts).

So there is that knee jerk again "I would be happy for 1 innocent to be imprisoned if it meant the other 99 rapists also go to jail" (bonus points if you mention the French legal system)

No, as Ab mentioned, innocent unless proven guilty please. Because we're all fucking grown ups and can actually appreciate nuance.

No, what _needs_ to change, is the way the rape victim is treated when the accusation is processed. Hey, maybe, instead of treating the victim as a slutty man hater who was asking for it and also wants to ruin the accused's life. Just maybe, assume they are correct while also assuming the accused is innocent.

*GASP*

I have an idea on a better way, but I'm far from an expert, and I'm pretty sure the argument could be ripped to shreds.

1) Get the information needed for a conviction and then never bother the victim again.

Yea, that's the hard one. Most convictions drop because fuck reliving the rape over and over again while being aggressively questioned whether you're making it up. And then repeat that every 6 months for 3 years.

Instead the victim should have a statement taken, any physical evidence taken, and then be left alone forever (with name suppression). The prosecution should function from that point without the victim's involvement.

That's it. That's my fix.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/luke-lazar...04-gvyr4v.html

what a world

In the same way there are various "levels" of physical assault (assault with intent to injure, assault with a deadly weapon, common assault, injuring with/without intent, etc.), perhaps rape and sexual assault needs to be treated in a similar way.

While I admit I don't have the perfect set of categories, perhaps there could be recognition of deception used to gain consent, or consent given in an intoxicated state, or consent by intimidation (being too scared to say anything seems to be a common theme). These offenses might be met with fines/reparation rather than criminal conviction (like how speeding tickets are not crimes you declare to employers, although they are on your record). Repeat offences would establish a pattern of anti-social behaviour similar to being a rapist and could be dealt with as necessary.

It might set the bar a little lower so women are not afraid to speak up, men might find themselves having to think about their actions/morals, and if more women are speaking up about the same man repeatedly, corrective action can be taken. I don't know if less serious charges would spoil any of your weekend plans, but it does seem that too many sexual assaults go unreported/unconvicted.

Thoughts?

Mmm, such good character.

Come on, all us good character dudebros fuck 18-yr-old girls in the arse outside our daddy's nightclubs. That's what good character is all about amirite

Social policy in general is fucked. Partly due to the hole left by the sagging mental health system, but also due to the general policy decisions National seem to be making.

Young Offenders Responsible for Violent Crimes

Behaviour is impacted by complex factors it's true, and we have a good understanding of these factors and can be prepared with a complex response. Responses we're definitely capable of in NZ, most of which has been thrown out the window for the last 9 years.

You've got police dealing with lots more shit than they used to, CYF is all fucked up, now National is all "a wassa goin' on guys, we're all puzzled as shit, give us a hand eh?"

If I was cynical I would wonder about how this conveniently suits National's voter base. National can spin some more moderate version of whatever Winny cooks up, something consistent with their perpetual tough on crime stance, which now appears more important than ev4r.