International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Just notice this at NRT.

It does nothing of the sort. What it has done is prevent parents who punch their children in the face or beat them with a soup ladle from claiming a defence of “reasonable force”

Unfortunately, we first must deal with the lies.

1. Jimmy Mason would never have claimed a defense of “reasonable force” for punching his child in the face. His defense for that claim was one of innocence.

2. The idea that the soup ladle assault could ever claim reasonable force is absurd.

Her son “writhed on the floor” attempting to shield himself but she repeatedly struck him with both the ladle and her hands, he said.

The boy, who received both external and internal bruising all over his body, has since been taken into the care of Child Youth and Family but the mother is still caring for several of his siblings.

There is no suggestion of reasonabeness, either in the conduct or the results. No one on the “no” side of this debate has ever or will ever condoned beatings that result in internal injuries.

But the main point I would make is this.

Claiming a defense is only the first step.

The old Section 59 let you argue that what you did was reasonable in the circumstances.

But making  an arguement is one thing. I could claim on this blog to have won yesterday’s Big Wednesday draw. Could I prove it? Never, because it didn’t happen. In the case of S59, those charged had to prove their case.

Studies show in fact, that 2/3 of those who claimed the defense of “reasonable force” could not prove it.

The others did so to the satisfaction of 12 randomly picked members of society, otherwise known as a “jury”. (Emphasis mine)

Juries exist for two reasons. The first is to examine the facts, on the grounds that twelve pairs of eyes are better than one. The second is to ensure that the police and prosecution have done their job properly and prevent abuses of power. They are there essentially as a bullshit-detectora vital protection in a democratic society. Limiting the right to trial by jury is thus a fundamental assault on our human rights. And no amount of money can justify it.

Three guesses who said that.

Makes you sick, doesn’t it?

Comments on: "Claiming a defense is only the first step" (3)

  1. This claiming a defence thing is up there with not understanding that the Crimes Act criminalises certain actions…

    Someone please tell these idiots that there is a world of difference between claiming a defence and succeeding in doing so.

    Further, removing the defence doesn’t just prevent people who seriously abuse children from raising the defence, it also prevents the wrongly accused from being able to raise it. The problem is that without defences there is no way of separating the two.

  2. […] Idiot/Savant should change his name. Hat Tip: HalfDone […]

  3. […] from people innocent of child abuse to ensure that the net catches everyone is wrong. Hat Tip: HalfDone [1] William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clarendon Press: Oxford, […]

Comments are closed.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: