By - whodoyoucall
That was the worst thing I’ve read in a long while. Poor woman, that must’ve been absolutely terrifying. The parole board must’ve had an idea he was capable of such monstrousness. Sadly, some people are beyond rehabilitation.
As a single woman who lives across the road from a halfway house ... yeesh. I was happier not knowing that a parole board might consider someone to be at "high risk of violent offending" and release them anyway.
I don’t think they had any choice. He was within a few months of having served his whole sentence and then they wouldn’t know where he was going. If they let him out a few months early they can make rules about where he goes, who he associates with etc and at least there’s a chance he’ll stay on that path. That’s all they can do. In this case it was woefully inadequate but not the parole board’s fault.
You are why I sometimes read a few comments before clicking on the link.
I had to read that 3 times to make sure I understood it correctly.
I don't think they'll worry too much if you're single or not.
In what world? Of course a single woman with no man to "protect" her is going to be a bigger target, dickheads definately care if there's a possibility they'll get their head punched in 🤷♀️🤦♀️
I honestly agree some people are absolutely beyond hope
In releasing Brider, the board assessed him as a high risk of violent offending and a moderately high risk of sexual offending.
“It is trite that most offenders pose a risk,” The board decision said. “The test is whether that risk is undue...” “While there is risk, it is the board’s view that the risk is not undue.”
"He is probably gonna rape some more. But other peoples right not to be raped isn't as important as this man's right to be free."
Isn't the NZ justice system proving weekly that being raped is no big deal and the offenders rights matter more than any current or future victims rights?
Pretty much. And they say we don’t live in a rape culture
They could have only kept him locked up for another 86 days. At least when they let him out on parole they got to dictate where he lived and how he lived for an additional 180 days as opposed to letting him out and be as free as the wind.
That being said I hope the judge this time throws the key away and let’s this man rot in prison for the remainder of his life.
>They could have only kept him locked up for another 86 days.
Which further highlights that the NZ justice system holds the offenders rights as more important than victims rights
So what do you suggest? Parole boards being allowed to extend a persons sentencing? That’s a slippery slope to a society I do not want to live in. I’m hind sight the judge should have given longer sentencing but that’s the great thing about hind sight. If this man still gets a light sentence then you can say the system failed us based on this person.
High risk and moderately high risk. Ok so where’s the cutoff?
Christ that's tragic. Out of prison for mere weeks.
A prime example of someone that should be receiving strike conviction sentences. 27 convictions before the rape in 2014. Fuck's sake.
For whatever reason that 3 strikes law was a crock of ineffective shite. I think it may have been ditched by now. It seems to have been made to keep the public happy. Just words, in other words. I believe Preventive Detention is still a thing but possibly only on initial sentencing
That poor woman, what an absolute monster.
Fuck our justice system, fuck the judge, fuck the parole board. They should be made to sit in on the court hearings and hear what he did to the poor woman.
This guy needs preventative detention, he doesn’t deserve to ever breathe the air outside of prison again.
"They should be made to sit in on the court hearings and hear what he did to the poor woman."
>In releasing Brider, the board assessed him as a high risk of violent offending and a moderately high risk of sexual offending.
>“It is trite that most offenders pose a risk,” The board decision said. “The test is whether that risk is undue...” “While there is risk, it is the board’s view that the risk is not undue.”
Trite? They literally wrote that in this decision? Fuck you parole board and half ass judges. The fact some of you will think 7 years he got for the brutal rape is quite high helps show us everything that is wrong with our justice system. Fuckers doing this shit should get life.
This blood is on your hands too.
If you think there is a high risk of offending you don't fucking let them out!
I'd love to see some sort of charges against parole board members who fuck up like this and it costs an innocent human their life. Nothing will happen though, we will get outraged and nothing will change and the people making said awful decisions will keep making them.
The panel that made that decision should 100% have to face consequences. A charge of negligence at the very least. Fucking disgusting.
It's not really the panels fault. They had refused to release him multiple times but the fact was his release date was less than three months away and they imposed multiple restrictions on him.
The real issue is the original sentence. If you commit a violent rape and kidnapping that the judge called "brutal and degrading" along with showing zero regret you should be getting the maximum sentence of 20 years, not 7 years 9 months.
> The real issue is the original sentence. If you commit a violent rape and kidnapping that the judge called "brutal and degrading" along with showing zero regret you should be getting the maximum sentence of 20 years, not 7 years 9 months.
Absolutely. Or at least close to the max, less a reasonable % for a guilty plea etc.
Cultural reports should be irrelevant at that level of offending
They should be castrated, you have one chance to use your bits and if you misuse them then you lose them
I'm against this for the same reason I'm against the death penalty - no justice system is 100% foolproof. I would rather 99 rapists keep their testicles than have one innocent man lose his. I'm just using these numbers as an example; I have no idea how rare wrongful convictions for rape are but I'm sure they are very rare.
I wouldn't. I'm happy for innocent men to get fucked over occasionally cos we already fuckin have that
This was seven years ago too. I imagine the sentence now would be 4 years tops.
The judges and parole board should have to live beside and among the people they release back into the community, until it becomes their problem they won't give a shit.
They would recoil at the suggestion. As if the judge or parole team would live next door to this dangerous scum !
There's no accountability anymore. None. Not even a "We got it wrong, sorry." apology to the family. None.
I'd love to see people not released until they can satisfy the board they're not at risk of reoffending. Even if that means life.
Yup. I'm generally pretty liberal, but I'd be pretty happy with a law that violent or sexual offences always carry a "until you can convince a board that you aren't a threat" sentence. Absolutely rehabilitate people - pour all the money you need into that - but if you are a danger to others you should be under such close scrutiny that you don't have an opportunity to reoffend until that rehabilitation is complete, for as long as that takes.
I think this is something that does need looking at, especially if we're moving to a more rehabilitative sentencing model (which I agree we should be doing).
Some folk are just broken, and society needs protecting from them. A prison sentence is just something they do, it's not a deterrent for them
I think we already have this - "preventative detention". But it's only available for recidivist serious violent offenders, not first timers.
Agreed for certain levels of crime of course.
Lock someone up for life because they mate grow cannabis again? Yeah, nah.
Something like 20 prison sentences for possession only cannabis offices between 2016 and 2020. Somewhere I read the average prison sentences was less than 90 days for those offenses. People are rarely sent to prison for minor cannabis offenses and for short periods of time.
It was just one example of a crime we probably don't want to lock people up forever for "until you prove otherwise".
Possession and cultivation are different offenses. Cultivation - even small amounts - is much more regularly prosecuted than possession.
Pretty absurd that we do so, really.
I mean I get what you're saying but consider the ramifications of how such a system could be abused. I don't want to live in a society where a board of government bureaucrats can decide to imprison you indefinitely regardless of your sentence length.
Okay, but if you've committed a transgression as serious as murder or violent rape, you've fundamentally rejected being a member of society and are just an animal. Of course, it is not impossible for you to find redemption and absolution, and be a better person, but it should take a great deal of proving, early release should not be the default
Edit: Eh I'm being a twat here and in the wrong, retracted.
Human rights aren't even a settled debate in international ethics literature, let alone in the global conscience. He has rejected human rights, has thrown away his dignity, reason and conscience, not I. Food, water, shelter, justice, and the myriad other rights (some of which, like the right to a nationality, are dubious as to what exactly the imply) are not denied. Others we are quite happy to infringe upon, such as freedom of movement in a pandemic or sending anyone to prison (or even house arrest) for anything. A lot of rights are traded off against other rights. Saying that someone is "against human rights" is not the unnuanced silver bullet rebuttle you think it is.
I don't mean to start an argument but to clarify.
If a person is convicted of a crime and upon the end of their sentence is still considered a risk to society by an independent authority, and therefore continues to be incarcerated, do you believe a human right is being infringed unfairly?
What would you suggest should be done in this case?
Note: edited to clarify my own question.
That's a fair question, I guess it'd depend on the severity of the risk and why the risk exists. I'm not sure I can really give a clean answer though because while I strongly favour individual rights a community has the right to not have their rights infringed upon unnecessarily and if a person refuses to accept that then you kind of have to limit their rights. I dunno I was thinking about it and realized I was being a twat and this whole thing is complicated I just get really annoyed at people who start that dehumanizing bullshit because there's just no need for it so I jumped the gun.
Yeah, I mean it is a fair question.
Of course we tend to get upset when we read about awful news such as this and it can lead to a vengeful "cut his balls off and throw away the key" type of thinking. While understandable (and it feels good to type) it's emotional rather than logical thinking and so you're right to question it. So don't be hard on yourself.
Imprisonment, by its nature, is an infringement of human rights. It needs to be balanced against society's need for safety. As with any moral balancing act, opinions will differ.
Anyway, I appreciate your answer!
Cheers mate, appreciate your response. Glad the answer was adequate.
I just want to say that it warms my heart to see someone actually reflect on their opinions on the internet. I'm trying really hard to figure out how to type this without sounding like I'm being sarcastic or unfair, I really mean it genuinely, it's far more mature than average
Cheers mate, I definitely know what you're talking about and I appreciate the sentiment. God knows none of us is perfect, me far from it, but I try to own it when I'm obviously wrong. Don't always succeed but I try!
Human rights correspond with human duties.
A person's ability to enjoy their human rights depends on other people respecting those rights.
This animal didn't have any respect for the woman he slaughtered, much less her human rights.
His own are therefore forfeit.
Yep and unless you think jail shouldn't exist you are too
How we funding that? We're going to spend money on justice that we're not willing to spend on healthcare or education?
This is a false dichotomy. We can fund more than one thing.
It's not a dichotomy.
*We're not funding any of these things!*
Fair enough. But lets fund them all? I dont get what your point is.
It's like coming up with great solutions for how teachers could be more effective, or how we could do better to protect kids. It's pointless when the problem ISN'T a lack of insight into approaches, it's we simply don't want to put funds towards these things.
Funds just get shuffled around to whatever is getting the most attention, which isn't necessarily what's having the most impact.
And politicians cynically exploit this.
The “trite” expression references the statistical evidence that former criminals are more likely to be future criminals than the rest of the population. Even if it’s only 1 in a 100 that re-offends it’s still riskier than, for instance, paroling a random person off the street.
However, I don’t see how the parole board considered that relevant to someone they assessed as having a high risk of violent offending by their own standards.
Trite, huh. Can someone make a meme pls?
Violent reoffending risk? I sleep
Poaching fish? Real shit
Probably just out of touch language. I imagine what they mean if they're writing more accessibly is "we take it as given that most of these folk pose a risk of re-offending".
Its pretty bizarre that they classify the risk as 'high risk' but then say that risk is not undue. What counts as as an undue risk? Does it have to be a very high risk? Super super high risk?
What’s the problem with the word ‘trite’? They’re saying it barely needs repeating that most offenders pose a risk, i.e. it’s trite to say so.
However, yes, they were completely wrong about the risk being not undue.
It makes them sound like "lets not keep talking about that broken record", it's rude and demonstrates I really don't think they comprehend the gravity of their decisions.
cases like this are surely a strong arguement to allow people to have pepperspray. she clearly was prepared (having the app, and sounds like she was awake from the app on her phone) but because you are a criminal for preparing to defend yourself she had little chance against someone stronger than her, especially with a weapon.
criminals will use weapons whether they are illegal or not, because justice and police cant protect the people surely its time to level the playing field a little
Mini impulse spray straight to the eyes burns like fuck. Also oddly enough got this tip from a friend's father who was a cop, keep big hard high heels under the bed, you can beat someone absolutely silly and not be considered keeping a "weapon"
I gather pepper spray is illegal but it's easy to make your own FWIW.
Then you just get criminals pepper spraying people then robbing/raping them.
criminals can just rob people at knifepoint, the fact that its illegal is hardly going to stop someone with no moral sense. the benefit of pepperspray being legal compared to a person using a knife for self defense is a knife requires the person to generally be strong (a strong guy can overpower a weaker person even if they have a knife). you don't have to be particularly strong or skilled to use perpperspray, its also fairly harmless in terms of long term effects as far as i'm aware.
Judges have 3 main choices
Throw away the key
Let them out/or even off
Until we can actually rehabilitate, the answer has to be Throw away the key not let them out
I think this person is beyond rehabilitation. There's only so many you can get through to. Even countries with the best rehabilitation programs don't have a 100% success rate, it's more like 80%.
Then those people stay in forever.
If someone kills and is a very low risk to reoffend, they should be released before someone that only injured and is a moderate risk.
They need new parents at birth. Not the pack of wolves they get delivered too. Their brains are damaged by the 12 - 18 month mark.
Some people are predisposed genetically for this - no matter how good the parents are.
Even if it makes people feel bad there is a genetic factor that separates people. We aren't blank slate babies that absorb only our surroundings.
True pschopathy is ao ultra rare. But indeed it can happen. The case files for this perp shows he had ghe typical shit neglectful upbringing which gave him a grotesque sense of entitlement and complete lack of remorse etc. Same goes for 90+ % of the prison population all in the same boat. True psycopaths are unicorns. If we stamped out abuse and made parents put their off spring frist prisons would be practically empty and all this violent shit would be mostly eradicated in a few generations.
It's really not that rare. Somewhere in the vicinity of 1% of the population.
big eugenics fan i see
edit: aaaand indeed they were
>I mean if there was a way to remove all physical/mental ailments that have negative effects for the individual from birth then yes I would press that button in a heart beat.
Wow, eugenics AND genocide.
Hello, your comment has been removed :
**Rule 4: No hate speech or bigotry**
> Any submission that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity and/or colour, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability and so on may be removed at a mod's discretion and repeat offenders banned
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Guessing you're also a big fan of gas chambers.
No you're saying we need to take "Some kind of drastic action".
Buddy, you want genocide. That's what you're arguing for.
You saying if Hitler had been adopted at birth the holocaust and WW2 wouldn't have happened?
Art school, if he had succeeded at art school.
Judges don’t have any grounds to “throw away the key.” Offences have maximum prison sentences.
They should, though
Yes but they don’t.
Yes. But they should. And the more people who think that, the sooner it might change.
The comment I was replying to said they have that power.
The comment I replied to said they have that power, which they don’t.
No one seems to understand that offences have maximum prison terms and a judge can’t give life imprisonment if the crime doesn’t carry such a tariff.
Rehabilitation doesn’t work….I’m all for the idea on principle, but in reality it doesn’t work. Criminality is a long term behaviour for some people. Sadly they need to be locked up for greater society good.
It doesn’t work here because our justice system isn’t cut out for it. Our prisons aren’t used to rehabilitate people. They lock them up until their sentence is over then let them go and assume prison changed them. It’s a crock of shit.
Have you ever tried to change the behaviour of an adult?
Or even tried to change your own behaviour?
It's not at all easy, and if the person doesn't want to change it's not even possible. You can't just "reprogramme" someone.
Rehab only teaches techniques people use to try to stop their crimes (e.g. think of something bad that might happen whenever you feel attracted to a child)
It reduces incidence of offending, but doesn't stop it. And the person has to want to change.
Where does it work?
I think Greg Newbold might be a good example.
Must be scary being a woman living alone. She knew he was an issue, talked to people about it, but there wasn't really anything to do.
>A man who fatally stabbed a stranger he selected at random on the street had absconded from a mental health hospital after being allowed unsupervised leave.
Zakariye Mohamed Hussein, 37, who on Friday admitted murdering Christchurch mother Laisa Waka, is the same man who went on a stabbing rampage across the city 10 years ago, which ended when police shot him.
I have a couple of friends in common with her, and one of them was in the group that found her.
They're absolutely traumatised. It's utterly horrific.
If it takes the Jayden Meyer case to get people up and protesting against a soft criminal justice system, good. Many other horrible examples like this one.
This is just so awful.
What is particularly mind boggling (beyond the decision to release at all), is that there seems to be no consideration as to where he was going. I mean - releasing him next door to a single woman?! She said she felt threatened and watched, I bet she never once was told the creepy guy next door was a convicted rapist, out of consideration for HIS privacy.
I wonder if the recent school protests will lead to further, larger protests across the Justice System. These stories are hard to process, and the argument of it likely wont affect you unless your cought up in it isn't holding much weight.
Narrator: “It made no difference.”
Personally, I think it was a grave mistake of the Government to repeal Three Strikes. That law probably wouldn’t have changed the outcome in this specific case, but it sends a message that there’s a limit to society’s patience with the rehabilitation route.
This person was sentenced when 3 strikes was a thing so idk if this is a strong argument that it was effective.
Well, he would get life without the possibility of parole under the three strikes law for this (as a second strike). Sounds pretty good to me.
Like I said, less about this specific case and more a message that society will not give you unlimited opportunities to reform. It has to be a combination of carrot and stick.
I always thought that we should have rape sentenced to as longer, or longer than murder.
Murder can be done in rage, in revenge, it can be a human reaction gone wrong. I believe that there can be genuine remorse for killing another human being.
Rape is different. Those motherfuckers can't help themselves, and I genuinely don't believe can be changed without some serious serious psychotherapy (even then, they could relapse).
I'm not a death sentence guy, but fuck, can't we just put them on an island somewhere away from everyone else.
It is better to be raped than to be murdered, which is why it's essential that rape is charged more leniently. It's why kidnapping isn't charged as severely as murder - it helps to get victims back alive.
I mean alive is alive but a sexual assault was pretty close to ending my life. There’s no situation that I would cope with being raped. I genuinely don’t know how a lot of survivors do survive
Make no mistake, I'm not at all trying to minimise rape or sexual assault and I'm sorry that that happened to you. I'm only saying that there's definitely a reason we charge murder more seriously than anything else!
Throw the key away this time.
If convicted the sentence will be 3.5 years, out at 3 year for good behaviour and the NZ rough childhood discount.
I am about to throw up... literally!
Weak "justice " system that only leads to more victims
Another victim of a monster who got a break because our justice system is broken. 7 years for a "brutal" rape? Rape should be an automatic LWOP sentence.
when i say “electric” you say “chair”
(couldn't leave a brother hanging...)
Hanging works too
probably more economical tbh
Tough on Crime? you got my vote.
Our 'lets give them the benefit of the doubt' system is obviously not working, so lets try the 'instill fear through rigorous punishment' system and see if that works.
I understand the frustration but america is tough on crime and yet crime is so much worse there. There isn't going to be a simple solution.
>'instill fear through rigorous punishment'
That system (has) existed for longer than any other system that was ever attempted and proved its own failure at preventing crime from happening so your idea is not a great one.
But has soft on crime actually worked for violent criminals? The recidivism rate for violent criminals is pretty much the same amongst countries no matter if they are given rehabilitation or not (the main thing that reduces recidivism is age). Harsher penalties for violent crimes have shown that they do reduce those sorts of crimes from occurring as they get the offender of the streets.
'Hard' and 'Soft' are just meaningless political buzzwords. What we need to care about is effectiveness, which is likely to be a mix of approaches.
We do need harsher penalties for violent crime, but also more support for at-risk youth. The typical 'hard' approach of tossing juvenile criminals straight into the penitentiary system is proven to only be a gang recruitment pipeline.
"Soft on crime" has never happened. It is nothing more than a meaningless political football buzzword and we all owe it to ourselves not to be influenced by such cynical and low intelligence politicking.
If you want to talk about recidivism specifically - there is good evidence to show that harsher sentencing actually increases it.
"Getting offenders off the streets" as a way to stop crime is such a logically bankrupt argument. There are many people "on the streets" who are not "offenders" who come to commit crimes; no matter how long your 'tough' sentence is, they will always be back "on the streets" again at some point (unless every crime gets life in prison?); and the "streets" themselves are an important determinant of crime anyway.
100% agree that harsher sentences don't deter people from committing crimes in the first place, but keeping them off the streets longer does. They will be back on the streets again at some point, but as I sated previously, age has the biggest impact on recidivism, so they are less likely to offend again when they are older.
The evidence that recidivism increases with harsher sentences is more down to non-violent crimes and less serious violent offences such as robbery, not serious violent crimes.
I'm not one of these people who thinks we should lock up criminals and throw away the key, but there should be much more severe punishments for guys like this, along with better rehabilitation programs. I think maximum sentences should be around 25 years, but the sentence should be able to be continually extended up to 5 years at a time if the offender does not partake in rehabilitation programs and is still deemed a risk.
We are also soft on crime. Even countries with well funded rehabilitative programs would have given this guy a harsher sentence (or that other dude who raped a load of girls).
Less than a month home d for a sex crime. If that's not soft what the fuck do you consider soft
>If you want to talk about recidivism specifically - there is good evidence to show that harsher sentencing actually increases it.
Pretty hard to reoffend if you're locked up for the rest of your hopefully short life.
No, the justice system is certainly soft. If you go from having the prison system on an consistent upward trajectory, to suddenly an over 20% reduction you've changed something. And the fact that it's clear crime hasn't reduced, as every keeps telling it's "the same as it's always been". Even if that's true it doesn't explain the sudden over 20% reduction in prisoners. Someone certainly has gotten softer somewhere, maybe it's the parole board.
>who are not "offenders" who come to commit crime
This is such an oxymoron lol.
Ah so this murder victim was a sacrifice worth making to help rehabilitate the rapist/murderer.
You obviously have a lot of faith in the current system, will you be giving the parole board your address to house the next high risk offender ?
Solid argument, well presented.
Fuck these rehab bullshit policies and feel good crap to let out criminals. I am a firm believer in keeping all these criminals locked up and not parole them at all to keep as many innocent lives as safe as possible.
I’m pro rehab but our system isn’t rehabbing people. We have rehab lengths of sentences but nothing to rehab these people
Kill this animal. Not worth rehabilitation.
We have the weakest judges in the world, they are such an embarrassment. Why let these people out of prison, we are to soft as a country to do what needs to be done, when you have a rabid dog you put it down
It makes pathetic people feel better to take the soft approach. They feel they're smarter than everyone else as "punishment doesn't work" and cite often repeated, never proven, sayings such as "prison just makes someone a better criminal".
And yet those journalistic stars at the Press write articles of what a great place Addington is to live in. It’s not, because of the Salvation Army hostel which houses men like this. Perhaps it should examine whether its woke approach causes innocents like this poor woman to believe they are safe living amongst people like this.
Fuck the judge in that original sentence.
Judge Allan Roberts.
This is what 3 strikes was all about but Labour removed it
God. If you can't be safe in your own home, where can you feel safe? How terrifying for her, what a horrific way to die. And for the people who found her. What a monster. I've always felt safe at home but you never know who can be lurking around.
The system is failing, it's not protecting the people. You can't logically think that one approach will serve all offenders. But it seems to be the way? This happens far too much to be ignored.
I know its unpopular, but can we make castration an option?
How about we just remove "release someone on parole who we consider at high risk of violent reoffending" as an option?
My impression is that doesn't actually do anything except take away the penis as the assault weapon. Rape usually is _not_ about sex. The rage and desire to overpower and cause pain are still there and without the penis the assaults involve other weapons, often with more physically harmful results, including death.
(Not an expert and my impression is based on stuff I read quite a while ago, when I was researching those things. Happy for an expert to show me I'm wrong.)
Yea fair enough, its a dumb idea to be honest.... but damn it would give some satisfaction lol
I know, I really do know.
Only if the cut is made between C1 and C2 vertebrae.
That's not fucking helpful.
How about not releasing violent or sexual offenders until they've served a lengthy sentence, and been shown to be at low risk of reoffending.
Would you support that policy if you'd been wrongly convicted of rape?
This is ultimately why I couldn't support the death penalty even for the most extreme cases. Even one life wrongfully convicted is too many.
Plus I think punishment based policies are stupid and conservative and don't actually improve our safety - which is what I care about most.
Chemical castration is not permanent.
But to be fair if I'd been wrongly convicted of something i wouldn't be happy about prison either, that doesn't mean that prison shouldn't exist.
IIRC it can cause some degree of breast growth that might only be reversible through surgery though, so that's still pretty drastic, and apparently there can be bone density loss. Plus it doesn't necessarily work the same way on women, so that also makes things a bit legally and ethically thorny.
Just to be clear I'm not arguing that we should do it, but I'm not against it if it would work, which is questionable anyway.
Fair points though.
I think there's an ethical argument for long sentences for rape that are partially reduced if the person submits to voluntary anti-androgen therapy.
I mean that's the main issue and fair enough... I dont think im super serious about it being applied, but this guy would be a prime candidate if it was in anyway viable.
A bullet to his head probably will stop him in his track….
Throw the maximum sentence at him. 10 months home detention should do it. /s
These parole officers, psychology experts just get it wrong every time. Need bigger prisons for these evil monsters. Isolation and torment is all they deserve ( hanging would be more appropriate).
The whole situation of both previous offending not being taken into account and rape not being taken seriously needs to change.
The woke pro criminal justice system needs to change.
Our politicians live in legal la la fantasy land where a person gets severe punishments for sending them an email. Real people get this shit.
When people are let out on parole I thought it was common practice to check the area they are being moved to for instance if a person has been convicted of crimes against children then they’re not allowed around schools etc so if a man has been convicted of rape and assault against a female why the fuck did they put him in a flat right next to a woman living on her own? That’s so fucked up. Also the fact he was at high risk of offending, they should have had better protocols in place. This is so fucked. Our justice system is fucked up, this poor woman. Makes me so angry ! Her poor family
Goddamn I wish the death penalty could be imposed sometimes.
Ofc, now the law will smite him down with a staggering 1 year home detention a 150 hour community service
New Zealund just keeping it 3rd world!
I said “tickle my balls” not “chuck me over huka falls”
Ahhhh, classic joke from childhood
This guy will prob get a few hours of home detention after wasting 10s of thousands of taxpayers money at court
Can any lawyers comment on the likelihood of sentencing? Assume it is highly likely to be life or preventative detention. I realise that neither actually mean he would necessarily spend his life in prison, but a least would only ever be released gain into a very highly monitored environment and be recalled at the first sign of strange behaviour and someone feeling uneasy around him again.
I'd say there's a high probability of preventative detention, ESO at a minimum.
Fuck that’s dreadful! Poor woman :(
Wonder what a non-brutal rape is
Well, we will be seeing more of that, won't we?
If only we had something like penal colony, where we could send... Oh, wait...
I am a bit shocked at the lack of coverage of this in NZ. In Aus this would have been wall to wall for weeks. Reminds me of the Jill Meagher case.
Ignore the rapist, and blame some totally unrelated group of people.
Are you his lawyer?