If National wins ...

[Bjauck]

Reviewing our justice system might be "part of being a civilised society". Proposing to change the onus of proof clearly is not. Interesting as well that you talk about the right of "victims". In the stage of the process we are talking about would this be "alleged victims". It is people who claim that they are victims of a crime and they may or may not be liars. I don't want to see a system where people alleging to be victims of a non existing crime get the right to throw others for 20 years behind bars, and exactly this is what some Labour candidates (including Little) asked for.

Yep...alleged victims and accused (alleged perpetrators).

But do you want to see a system where actual victims of rape do not report their rape as they think there is little point in doing so. They do not wish to subject themselves to the trauma of having to be subject to police questioning followed by lack of action as Police do not think a conviction is likely, or if it does get to court, having to relive the crime under an intrusive cross-examination in Court, at the end of which their attacker is likely to walk free anyway?

The least we could do is to conduct an enquiry under the guidance of experts. I think Labour wishes to review how these crimes are handled and pursued. All aspects of the process, legal and investigative, should be examined by a commission.

[elZorro]

Twenty-four years is probably about long enough to think hard about the ramifications, one of which is to finally ease one's conscience?

What about the Todd Barclay or Paula Bennett sagas? Despite the possibility of evidence out there, they can just deny and have a cover-up done for them by the Party. Two inept people brought through as leading lights by National. I can only stand so much of this rubbish.

[fungus pudding]

What about the Todd Barclay or Paula Bennett sagas? Despite the possibility of evidence out there, they can just deny and have a cover-up done for them by the Party. Two inept people brought through as leading lights by National. I can only stand so much of this rubbish.

Well, stop devoting your every waking moment searching every avenue for such details.

[craic]

Two inept people brought through as leading lights by National. I can only stand so much of this rubbish.

Have you considered that nobody really gives a stuff about what you can and "cannot stand"? The only person suffering is you and if you cannot push a positive Labour barrow and can only resort to perceived negatives in the opposition you deserve to be on the losing side - again.

[BlackPeter]

Yep...alleged victims and accused (alleged perpetrators).

But do you want to see a system where actual victims of rape do not report their rape as they think there is little point in doing so. They do not wish to subject themselves to the trauma of having to be subject to police questioning followed by lack of action as Police do not think a conviction is likely, or if it does get to court, having to relive the crime under an intrusive cross-examination in Court, at the end of which their attacker is likely to walk free anyway?

The least we could do is to conduct an enquiry under the guidance of experts. I think Labour wishes to review how these crimes are handled and pursued. All aspects of the process, legal and investigative, should be examined by a commission.

Bjauck, you will get no arguments from me that it is often difficult for a victim of a rape to provide evidence for the "missing consent", particularly if the offender is somebody they had already previously consensual sex with, like an Ex or a spouse or similar. And sure - if there is a sensible and fair way to make this easier for the victim (which is still fair to the alleged offender), than let's evaluate it.

However, this is not what Labour asked for. They (well, several high ranking MP's including Little) proposed to change the onus of proof. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that this proposal (guilty until proven innocent) is not just unjust, but dumb. It would mean that anybody who ever had a sexual encounter would be at risk that their sexual partner at that time could change their mind and say "it was not consensual". They would need no proof to bring their partner behind bars. Their word would be enough - guilty until proven innocent. Sure - most intimate partners we trust wouldn't do that ... but some would. Even intimate partners you trust can be liars and crooks.

No need to tell me how a sensible Labour policy could look like if they would have decent politicians. They don't (well, not enough) - and this is a discussion about what they said instead of about what you think they should have asked for. These politicians (including Little) clearly need to be kept away from power. They are not fit to govern the country, and they provided the evidence for this themselves.

However - what's the point to worry about Little - I am pretty sure he will be gone in 3 months from now ... well, make this 2 months plus whatever time the party needs to replace him with another pet of the union movement, but unloved even by the own party.

[Bjauck]

...

However, this is not what Labour asked for. They (well, several high ranking MP's including Little) proposed to change the onus of proof. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that this proposal (guilty until proven innocent) is not just unjust, but dumb....

A proposal...as part of a review....

"Ms Williams said many victims of rape do not report it because they have little faith in the justice system.She said the country needed to have a discussion about how to address that power imbalance."

[BlackPeter]

A proposal...as part of a review....

"Ms Williams said many victims of rape do not report it because they have little faith in the justice system.She said the country needed to have a discussion about how to address that power imbalance."

from my earlier posted link (highlights added by me):

Associate justice spokesperson for sexual and domestic violence Poto Williams said only 13 per cent of the sexual assault cases reported to police ended in a conviction and something needed to be done to address the “power imbalance”.

Labour would change the system so that a victim was believed as a starting point, and that an accused would have to prove consent

[Major von Tempsky]

However BlackPeter if there are no witnesses and no compelling DNA evidence then I think you have to revise what you have just said.

[BlackPeter]

However BlackPeter if there are no witnesses and no compelling DNA evidence then I think you have to revise what you have just said.

Not at all. If there was sexual contact and the question is about consent - How are you going to prove that with DNA evidence either way? Sure - a witness might help, but how many couples would be happy to regularly employ a witness to make sure they can afterwards prove consent?

Ah yes ... and just in case you missed the start of the discussion - we are not talking here about current NZ law, we are talking about a proposal from Labour (supported by Little and Williams). Another good reason to keep them out of parliament.

[Bjauck]

from my earlier posted link (highlights added by me):

If Labour introduce " the need to prove consent" without its being part of other reforms within a comprehensive review of process, thoroughly vetted by legal professionals, then I do agree that would be a step backwards.

I have read they are looking at more comprehensive and thorough proposals.

The approach described by Little in this 2013 item is more "nuanced" with emphasis to changes in the meaning of consent, the point of view from which consent is determined, and to court procedures when a defendant intends to introduce certain evidence.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...t-rape-consent