If National wins ...

[dobby41]

BlackPeter - I don't think we are on a different page.
She has her view (which I don't agree with by the way) and has expressed it.
Labour has allowed her to express it and maybe they should comment.
I wouldn't vote for her but some might.
I wouldn't vote for Trump but many did.

[Bjauck]

... Proposing to treat accused people as guilty unless proven innocent might fly in some third world dictatorship, but it is absolutely unacceptable in any free society. If that's what Labour stands for, than they belong onto the garbage heap of history.

Shame on her and shame on Labour for not immediately distancing themselves from this nutcase.

Inquisitorial systems such as used in Continental Europe do not accord the defendant a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Likewise the rights of the defendant (including the right to remain silent) are secondary to the inquisition of the court. The defendant's past history is more fully examined and taken into account in inquisitorial systems.

[craic]

It is next or near to impossible to prove innocence in many cases, hence the presumption of innocence. If a couple have sex for whatever reason one partner then reports rape and the other partner denies rape on the grounds it was normal consentual sex and the other insists that they said no several time, where does that leave us. I know of two cases where that was just the case and in both, the "offender" was imprisoned. In those two cases, the "offender" was nowhere near the scene and eventually managed to be released. Can you prove that you were at home on your own on a date a month or two ago? The worst cases, in my view, are middle aged women who come forward with an allegation of an offence that they claim happened when they were teenagers. There should be a statute of limitations because human memory is flawed and neither party will know exactly what happened and in some cases identities are switched.

[BlackPeter]

Inquisitorial systems such as used in Continental Europe do not accord the defendant a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Likewise the rights of the defendant (including the right to remain silent) are secondary to the inquisition of the court. The defendant's past history is more fully examined and taken into account in inquisitorial systems.

You lost me - and your point is ...?

[Bjauck]

You lost me - and your point is ...?

A presumption of innocence and protection of the rights of the accused is the bedrock of the adversarial approach taken in NZ criminal law. Perhaps she was trying to encourage debate on whether the adversarial approach, in conjunction with that presumption and protection, is the best way of protecting the victim of rape whilst trying to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused.

Some democratic countries, as in civil code administrations in Europe, take a different approach. Perhaps NZ could learn from their approach.

I have not found anywhere that reports Poto Williams as saying that the accused should be presumed to be guilty. She wants the approach to change so that the police will initially believe the rape victim. That is a different emphasis. She has said "Now, I know that runs up against 'innocent until proven guilty', and that would be one of the issues that we'd really have to consider long and hard, but I'm of the view that we have to make some changes."
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/329767/call-to-shift-burden-of-proof-to-rape-accused

To me that sounds as though she wants to move more towards the European inquisitorial approach - a via media between presumption of innocence and presumption of guilt which would indeed mean that the burden of proof would shift more, but not completely, onto the accused than as at present.

[BlackPeter]

A presumption of innocence and protection of the rights of the accused is the bedrock of the adversarial approach taken in NZ criminal law. Perhaps she was trying to encourage debate on whether the adversarial approach, in conjunction with that presumption and protection, is the best way of protecting the victim of rape whilst trying to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused.

Some democratic countries, as in civil code administrations in Europe, take a different approach. Perhaps NZ could learn from their approach.

I have not found anywhere that reports Poto Williams as saying that the accused should be presumed to be guilty. She wants the approach to change to the police believing the rape victim. That is a different emphasis. She has said [FONT="]"Now, I know that runs up against 'innocent until proven guilty', and that would be one of the issues that we'd really have to consider long and hard, but I'm of the view that we have to make some changes." [/FONT]http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/329767/call-to-shift-burden-of-proof-to-rape-accused.
To me that sounds as though she wants to move more towards the European inquisitorial approach.

Well, I grew up in Western Europe and all of the core countries of the EU (probably all) presume the innocence of the accused until proven guilty. Many civilised countries go even much further than NZ does in presuming innocence. For example in Germany a confession (alone) is not sufficient to convict an accused. The state attorney has to find other independent evidence to get an conviction.

What specific country and jurisdiction are you referring to which does not presume innocence? Russia? Turkey? Maybe the US after some more years of Trump.

And no, Poto Williams clearly stated that she wants to shift the burden of proof in rape accusations: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/politi...o-rape-accused

She is clearly does not stand for human rights (freedom is a human right as well, even for people who have been wrongfully accused by a lying woman) and and a fair justice system. Shame on her and Labour for harbouring such a sick mind.

[Bjauck]

Well, I grew up in Western Europe and all of the core countries of the EU (probably all) presume the innocence of the accused until proven guilty. Many civilised countries go even much further than NZ does in presuming innocence. For example in Germany a confession (alone) is not sufficient to convict an accused. The state attorney has to find other independent evidence to get an conviction.

What specific country and jurisdiction are you referring to which does not presume innocence? Russia? Turkey? Maybe the US after some more years of Trump.

I stand corrected on the continental presumption of innocence. However unlike in NZ, the Courts have greater powers to investigate guilt or innocence without reference to prosecutor or defence.

And no, Poto Williams clearly stated that she wants to shift the burden of proof in rape accusations: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/politi...o-rape-accused

The Radio NZ commentary claims that but where does does Poto Williams clearly state that? The article refers to "Labour's sexual violence spokesperson, Mrs Williams has called for radical reform of the sexual justice system which would see rape accusers believed by police as a starting point." However surely today, Police need to, at least initially, presume the truth of a rape accusation prior to committing resources to investigate it.and collect evidence upon which they could determine whether to bring a criminal charge.

Anyway shifting the burden of proof away from the presumption of innocence does not necessarily mean that there will be shift all the way over to a presumption of guilt. I think Williams main aim was to stimulate debate on how cases of rape are handled.

She is clearly does not stand for human rights (freedom is a human right as well, even for people who have been wrongfully accused by a lying woman) and and a fair justice system. Shame on her and Labour for harbouring such a sick mind.

She is trying to find a system under which victims feel more able to bring complaints. She feels crimes are under-reported at present.

[westerly]

Well, I grew up in Western Europe and all of the core countries of the EU (probably all) presume the innocence of the accused until proven guilty. Many civilised countries go even much further than NZ does in presuming innocence. For example in Germany a confession (alone) is not sufficient to convict an accused. The state attorney has to find other independent evidence to get an conviction.

What specific country and jurisdiction are you referring to which does not presume innocence? Russia? Turkey? Maybe the US after some more years of Trump.

And no, Poto Williams clearly stated that she wants to shift the burden of proof in rape accusations: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/politi...o-rape-accused

She is clearly does not stand for human rights (freedom is a human right as well, even for people who have been wrongfully accused by a lying woman) and and a fair justice system. Shame on her and Labour for harbouring such a sick mind.

I am with Bjauck on this one. She possibly has more contact with sexual abuse victims through her work and knows of their reluctance to approach the police for fear of not being believed.
The police themselves are becoming more pro-active in this area.
Every justice system has faults and Germany (which has caused more than its fair share of trouble over the years is probably no better than the others.) Incidently Germany tops the list of the most litigious countries.
I have followed your posts on Trump and Brexit and have been somewhat amused by your continual flow of derogatory comments on the people involved. Maybe you have the sick mind?

westerly

[BlackPeter]

I am with Bjauck on this one. She possibly has more contact with sexual abuse victims through her work and knows of their reluctance to approach the police for fear of not being believed.
The police themselves are becoming more pro-active in this area.
Every justice system has faults and Germany (which has caused more than its fair share of trouble over the years is probably no better than the others.) Incidently Germany tops the list of the most litigious countries.
I have followed your posts on Trump and Brexit and have been somewhat amused by your continual flow of derogatory comments on the people involved. Maybe you have the sick mind?

westerly

OK westerly, not sure, whether your post deserves a response, but I will try it anyway.

See - I realise that our views seem to sit on different positions in the political spectrum. And I think it is good that this country (as well as any other free democracy) allows for these political tensions in the triangle between left, liberal and right. These are in general productive tensions - and the political systems improve thanks to them. In my view neither right nor left have the answer (and even the liberals might need from time to time a wee nudge ).

I don't smear decent democratic political adversaries nor do I run them down ... and there are a lot of politicians of all colours I deeply respect.

You commented on my views towards BREXIT and Trump. Well, both movements have nothing to do with democratic values. The suppression of a majority (or even a large minority) through the other side is in my view not "democratic". Both "movements" are run by ugly minded, selfish and lying individuals - and for some reason do they unfortunately seem to attract a similar minded crowd. Just for clarity ... I do not say that all BREXIT or Trump supporters fall into this category, but there are just too many of them.

Referring to Poto Williams ... o.k., maybe she should pick up the opportunity to set right what she said, but instead I see people I thought as decent lefties now digging in their heels to defend the nonsense she stated. I absolutely accept that sexual violence is a very difficult subject. Even if we assume that all involved in an "alleged rape" are honest (which is highly unlikely - one side is lying), there is a huge grey zone for misunderstandings. And just to make it worse - there are often just two people involved and all what is left are their memories and views.

I don't have a remedy for this problem either - unless we require everybody to wear in any situation a body camera ... but I know that shifting the burden of proof will only result in an increased number of absolutely innocent people (well, mainly men) behind bars. Women are (fortunately) human as well, but this has not just good sides. Some of them like to abuse their power, some of them like to lie (hey Trump has no monopoly on that) and some of them will seize the opportunity to blackmail men (If you don't do .... whatever, I will accuse you of rape) - just as men do.

Poto's proposal is to break the foundations of our justice system to favour one group over another. Men will be guilty until they can proove their innocence. It is at least a very immature proposal unworthy of any democratic politician. If Labour has not the guts to distance themselves from this ridiculous proposal, than she should do the decent thing. Unfortunately - decency seems to have nothing to do with it.

[Bjauck]

...
Poto's proposal is to break the foundations of our justice system to favour one group over another. Men will be guilty until they can proove their innocence. It is at least a very immature proposal unworthy of any democratic politician.

If Labour has not the guts to distance themselves from this ridiculous proposal, than she should do the decent thing. Unfortunately - decency seems to have nothing to do with it.

Not all rapists are men and not all victims are women.

Has Poto actually proposed that the burden switch to a presumption of guilt?

I have only the Radio NZ report to rely on. They have their own commentary on what Williams said.
So, as far as I can see these are the direct quotes from Williams:

"Now, I know that runs up against 'innocent until proven guilty', and that would be one of the issues that we'd really have to consider long and hard, but I'm of the view that we have to make some changes."
She thinks change is needed but accepts that a serious review is needed before any change. It sounds like a considerate and mature approach.

"I don't pretend to have the legal nous in which to do this, but I'm comfortable that there is a way that we can work our way through this.
She accepts her limited legal expertise. She seems to suggest that those with a legal background should conduct the review. She seems optimistic that reform may be possible. Fair enough - the legal system and common law is ever evolving. It is one of the strengths of our legal system. However it does seem to me that she is not suggesting long-standing presumptions be discarded willy-nilly.

"But at the end of the day we cannot, in all good conscience, say to victims of rape and sexual abuse, 'your case will be ignored.'
"One thing we have to do is find out the numbers of false allegations that have been made, because that will be one of the things people will be really concerned about - that someone who's falsely accused of sexual abuse will be put through a process that is completely unfair."
She seems to suggest that both alleged victims and accused should be taken seriously and have rights. This sounds decent and balanced to me.