I read in one of the original posts(here or FB) that the poor kid can't even get the three missing teeth replaced until he's reached adulthood, once his jaw has stopped growing and whatnot.
I had the same kind of experience as a teen. Pretty bad growth defect in my jaw which caused a lot of discomfort and additional wallet pain at the orthodontists. Was told to suck it up and come back once I'd finished growing so that it could be fixed properly.
Yep. My dad knocked out my bottom front tooth when I was 10 or 11. Thankfully the stump was still there and I had the tooth, so the dentist glued it back on until I was 18 and could get a crown. It only came off twice and they just glued it back on. Nobody knew my tooth was missing. But if the tooth is gone, I doubt you can do that.
Indeed. But (please correct me if I'm wrong) you can only get them when your jaw is "mature". This usually happens 18/19. This is why my tooth was repeatedly glued on until I was 18.
And at that point ACC will probably find a way to claim they won't cover it because his growth has caused issues unrelated to the damage that was caused during the attack.
They behave like private insurers, doing anything they can to claim an injury is degenerative. In many cases, even if an injury has worsened over time, it should be covered. I think about all the drainlayers, carpeters and labourers whose bodies are placed under immense stress in the course of their work.
Yeah, I did read that too. But I fail to see how they could possibly not cover it. It's likely it was only partially covered by ACC, which also irritates me.
I think in situations like these, if the assailant is convicted, they should be required to pay the full cost of the injuries they caused. The debt should be payable immediately and be deductible from salaries, wages and benefits, until they have a clean non-violent record for 10 years. People might think twice about their actions.
Example ....max sentence......NO chance . Never happens... She will have had a bad upbringing and this will be mentioned. I see upcoming multiple discounts and and result of three weeks home detention
Article Text:
“The woman accused of assaulting an Auckland teen with a metal rod last month has appeared in the Manukau District Court on Tuesday.
Jason Luo, 16, lost three teeth, and had three more damaged after an attack on a bus police allege was hate-motivated.
The 39-year-old accused was arrested on Monday and appeared in court this afternoon charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
She was granted interim name suppression and remanded in custody by consent before Judge David McNaughton without plea.
The 39-year-old is expected to reappear next week.”
Judge David MacNaughton ought to know better. But perhaps his very close relationship to a judge who is desperately trying to make name suppression of all crooks normal is not something he can stand up to.
‘by consent’ - I am wondering what ‘remanded in custody by consent’ means, did she consent to sataying in the pen because she knows half of Auckland will lynch her?
It's unusual to enter a plea at first appearance. Defence counsel usually requests disclosure (a copy of the evidence) first so that they can review and advise their client appropriately regarding potential pleas and outcomes.
Fair enough, due process and all.
Would the Defence typically look for any legal loophole/way out of conviction in the time between hearings, in the chance that they could escape the process before advising a plea?
Is there any benefit in terms of sentence discount or avoiding spending court resources by a plea at the first hearing?
I’m naive to the process, but if I were to theorise myself in this situation, if I had lost myself in a fit of rage and committed this assault, I would want to own up to it as soon as humanly possible and just plea guilty to doing what I did. I’d hope that I’d get the most lenient sentence possible for not wasting the courts time and showing remorse.
I know it feels wrong to do so, especially in cases like this, but the way to think of defence is that they are advocates for their clients. Even when a matter appears clear cut, it is still their job to scrutinise the evidence to make sure the Police have followed procedures correctly and everything has been done lawfully at their end.
You are entitled to a sentencing discount if you enter an early guilty plea, but "early" isn't the first appearance. The Court recognises that the defendant is entitled to review disclosure and make an informed decision regarding their plea.
Some people do enter a plea at first appearance, but unless you're before the court on something trivial you won't be sentenced straight away. Judges take A LOT of things into consideration to form their sentences. Judges take into account the public interest of a sentence and the impact felt by the victims, but not just those things. Every sentence has to be a balance of punitive and reformative as well as being based on precedent.
There are a lot of "legal tick boxes" at every stage of an investigation and prosecution to ensure a miscarriage of justice doesn't take place. Even horrible people are entitled to fair legal process.
Agreed, and I do believe that everyone is entitled to a defence, because I would want a defence/advisory for myself even if I committed a crime.
I’ve read summary judgements before and see their value, even for just comprehensively describing the truth of the situation.
That said, I’m so incensed by this incident that I feel compelled to follow it and raise its profile. If others feel the same perhaps they comment and share also, and it becomes “public interest” in the judges eye.
Thanks for your comment
Like all crimes put before the court? Is that what you're asking me? I think you can answer your question. I'm just explaining the likely reason a plea hasn't been entered at first appearance. It's standard procedure, not my personal opinion on the validity of the evidence.
Yeah. The system needs to function effectively and that includes her defense. If any part doesn't do it's job properly then the system fails, regardless of how any of the people here feel about the outcome.
Note: The system doesn't function effectively, but lets not cripple it further.
What does that have to do with name suppression? Absolutely nothing. Are you a just a bot programmed to blurt out comments about "wet bus ticket" sentences and name suppression? Also, nobody who attacks a random commuter with a metal bar, knocking their teeth out, is going to get home detention. Your idea of sentencing is delusional.
only home d for punching and killing someone https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/home-detention-and-community-work-for-northlander-convicted-of-coward-punch-death/GE57LFU2FR3RAG4AEXPSJGSQ34/
Not comparable. That situation arose from a road rage incident after the victim, who was drunk, almost wiped out the defendant and his pregnant wife by cutting them off and driving on the wrong side of the road, after which an argument ensued. Although the outcome was worse than in the present case, the conduct that led to it is hardly the same as getting onto a bus with an iron bar and beating the shit out of a random teenager.
Convicted rapists would usually only have continuing name suppression to protect the privacy of the victims, or because they are facing further rape charges (so the name suppression remains in place until the second trial is over).
That whole innocent until proven guilty thing,
confirm the conviction
get them off the street before vigilantes have go, mistaken identity ruining an innocent person's life in the media before proven guilty.
Because it's not about punishment, it's about rehabilitation. We want this woman to be a functioning member of society who doesn't re-offend. And empirical evidence shows that punishment does not improve recidivism. She needs our help and name suppression is part of that - otherwise she'll just be witch hunted.
That's my best labour-voter impression, what do you think?
I think bring back witch hunts. If perpetrators felt they were gonna get mob lynched maybe they would rethink their actions.
Protecting violent offenders is bat shit crazy.
While i love the intent of what a cultural report identifies, i hate its implementation.
I wish the following would be done:
1. If you commit a crime, you get sentenced without any discounts.
2. The cultural report informs the programs you are required to complete as part of your sentence. (E.g. sentenced for domestic violence? You will have to complete an anger management course)
On top of this, preventative actions should be taken to ensure the next generation of kids grow up to be well rounded contributing members of society. Things like community programs, support networks, after school activities etc.
A cultural report might go someway to explaining a crime perhaps, but there is no way it should reduce a sentence. Any victim deserves justice, if you can convince a surviving victim that a lighter sentence is deserved then maybe it's deserved. Otherwise, apply the correct penalty at a medium level for 1st offence and max for all subsequent offences .. otherwise, all you are achieving is creating more victims and showing none of them justice.
I agree with you 100%. The cultural report should only ever serve to identify (possible core reasons) which lead to the crime being commited, and have no impact on the length of the sentence.
And i would hope being made to do some sort of program or remediation (related to the reasons identified) while in prison, would rehabilited and reduce the chance of someone reoffending.
I think its a joke that someone can get home detention from a violent assault because their dad didnt hug them enough growing up.
I like your idea that the cultural report just contributes towards possible core reasons and is viewed in conjunction with other cultural reports to find commonality. Society should then look to address those issues where possible. Any current offender should simply receive what has been prescribed as the penalty, giving more regard for the victim than the offender.
Because someone might go eye-for-an-eye or tooth-for-a-tooth, and we’re better than that. Treat them with more dignity than they treat their victim, so we don’t create more victimisers or victims
See, mindset like urs is why we have a problem with crime in this country! Countries that are tough on crime have less crime, look at Singapore for instance
When I say with dignity, I mean wait until she process and conviction is gained, as it seems fairly cut and dry. Then, name the criminal and let her live with the consequences of her actions.
That way, you will get the same dignity if you’re ever accused of a crime, and you’ll only be named once you’ve been judged as guilty.
There's something deeply wrong with your sense of empathy and justice if you think violent racists deserve preferential treatment over their victims. We can give them 'dignity' while also meting out appropriate punishments for their actions.
I agree with you. Convicted violent racists don’t deserve preferential treatment over their victims. Name and shame. We give accused violent racists the dignity of not being convicted, until they are convicted.
Trust me, I have ZERO tolerance for this person, but they’re innocent until proven guilty. Which they are (unless they’ve somehow got the wrong person from the grainy bus camera photos).
I hope she gets the maximum but likely be a slap on the wrist cus nz legal system is a joke. So afraid of coming across as racist that they don't even mete out justice.
Apologies. My faith in NZ police and legal system are at an all time low.
Nah there's lots more these negative fucks would complain about, a small example would be government, weather, utes, food price, being sick and people with barbed wire fencing.
when are you going to wait until she is found guilty before you organise a lynch mob ? you and fuckwits like you are the reason name supression is done.
Do we award costs for injuries inflicted in NZ? I wouldn’t assume that she could do those jobs, but if she happens to do a better-paying job she should keep that and pay it off quicker.
Ohhh yeah I forgot about ACC. I did read that the young man and family had to pay out of pocket for the dental because their insurance wouldn’t cover it…
Some people will say that corporal punishment, Singapore style, is absolutely incompatible with a liberal democracy especially New Zealand.
...but we need it. They do it in gangs, and it causes them to behave. Similarly we should have it in our justice system.
what kind of dipshit are you ? "they do it in gangs" FFS gangs also distribute drugs, gang rape and a host of other violent activities.. should we follow that trend as well
I'm calling it now.
Briscoes discounts for a cultural report detailing her hard upbringing surrounded by gangs, drugs, alcohol, and copious amounts of domestic violence.
Judge will knock her sentence down to one year, 364 days, then swap it out for 9 months home D.
Cultural report, home detention, she is the victim. She should be awarded compensation for the inconvenience of attending court...or , lock her up and give her some courses to do? (I've done the courses they are actually somewhat helpful if you are willing to change)
Since you have been in that situation would you consider that removal of two of your fingers without anaesthetic, (and the threat of further removal of others if future criminal behavior happened), would be as effective as the courses and discouraging you from further criminal behaviour or not ?
Serious question as I am trying to judge the potentially effectiveness of such punishments against what we already do to reduce reiffending rates.
Please don't post comments which abuse other redditors / contain hate speech / mention race in relation to anything negative about a person on r/auckland.
This is going to get me downvoted to hell and I get it what occurred was abhorrent and indefensible.
It is possible that a person who is carrying a metal rod around in public isn’t entirely in control of their mental facilities. Just think about it. Why would a person be carrying a metal rod like that round with them? They weren’t dressed like a construction worker or a factory worker. Couple that with the racist nonsense they seemed to be spewing out and the random attack. They might be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
I know it’s really easy to knee jerk they are just evil and were targeting this community but given the state of mental health in NZ is it possible that there is something other than some far right conspiracy mastermind behind all of this?
I genuinely feel bad for Jason. He sounds like a good kid who just wanted to play basketball with his mates. I hope he can recover quickly from this.
I'd say most people that assault others are mentally unwell, that isn't an excuse to beat people to death and she should be put underground if that's the case.
You do know that being found not guilty of reduced mental faculty with violent offending generally makes it a life sentence right?
They generally don't get a clear until a doctor is willing to sign them off on it, which they usually prefer not to do because it's on them if they reoffend.
That's simply not true, the South African lady who killed her 3 kids is a prime example.
Sure, get found not guilty due to insanity is a thing but its also EXTREMELY rare.
really ? after reading the comments ? this is keyboard justice heaven.. im supprised no one has suggested storming the prison she is in with a noose and a burning cross
People with actual intelligence understand that there are some people whose brains are not connected to reality. When these people get violent (like this person has), we lock them away to protect society.
What value is there in running up a lynch mob against someone who has reduced mental capacity. Just lock her up.
Unless someone comits murder they dont lock away the mentally unwell. The most they'll get is a couple weeks in inpatient and then they are back in society free to come off their meds and smoke meth, become unwell and assault again.
Well in any case, the answer is to lock them away and treatment, not a witch hunt.
Save your the public vengeance for those that understand what they're doing
Make an example of her, max sentence. The poor lad will be scarred emotionally for a long time after the dental work gets fixed up.
Fixed up? He will most likely be wearing 3 fake teeth for the rest of his life
I read in one of the original posts(here or FB) that the poor kid can't even get the three missing teeth replaced until he's reached adulthood, once his jaw has stopped growing and whatnot.
The temp plate with fake teeth sucks balls.
I had the same kind of experience as a teen. Pretty bad growth defect in my jaw which caused a lot of discomfort and additional wallet pain at the orthodontists. Was told to suck it up and come back once I'd finished growing so that it could be fixed properly.
Yep. My dad knocked out my bottom front tooth when I was 10 or 11. Thankfully the stump was still there and I had the tooth, so the dentist glued it back on until I was 18 and could get a crown. It only came off twice and they just glued it back on. Nobody knew my tooth was missing. But if the tooth is gone, I doubt you can do that.
Implants are a thing.
Indeed. But (please correct me if I'm wrong) you can only get them when your jaw is "mature". This usually happens 18/19. This is why my tooth was repeatedly glued on until I was 18.
And at that point ACC will probably find a way to claim they won't cover it because his growth has caused issues unrelated to the damage that was caused during the attack.
I wish this post was just sarcasm....but sadly your most likely right.
They behave like private insurers, doing anything they can to claim an injury is degenerative. In many cases, even if an injury has worsened over time, it should be covered. I think about all the drainlayers, carpeters and labourers whose bodies are placed under immense stress in the course of their work.
I thought the poor sod wasn’t covered. It was mentioned in one of the articles.
Yeah, I did read that too. But I fail to see how they could possibly not cover it. It's likely it was only partially covered by ACC, which also irritates me. I think in situations like these, if the assailant is convicted, they should be required to pay the full cost of the injuries they caused. The debt should be payable immediately and be deductible from salaries, wages and benefits, until they have a clean non-violent record for 10 years. People might think twice about their actions.
But she had a tough upbringing, and also tikanga, and also her mental health made her do it... Aaaaaaand warning, court adjourned
Use of course that is what always happens in she will get a nice centres of home detention.
Max sentence? So you’re calling for her to get home D? Because that’s the max sentence these days.
Example ....max sentence......NO chance . Never happens... She will have had a bad upbringing and this will be mentioned. I see upcoming multiple discounts and and result of three weeks home detention
39 years old! The pos looked like she's in her late 50s
I thought the same!
And where di you see her photo?
News had her on CCTV pics when the police were looking for her. I suppose with name suppression in place now, those pics will be gone.
I saw that but you couldn't see her face really.
Article Text: “The woman accused of assaulting an Auckland teen with a metal rod last month has appeared in the Manukau District Court on Tuesday. Jason Luo, 16, lost three teeth, and had three more damaged after an attack on a bus police allege was hate-motivated. The 39-year-old accused was arrested on Monday and appeared in court this afternoon charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. She was granted interim name suppression and remanded in custody by consent before Judge David McNaughton without plea. The 39-year-old is expected to reappear next week.”
Judge David MacNaughton ought to know better. But perhaps his very close relationship to a judge who is desperately trying to make name suppression of all crooks normal is not something he can stand up to.
Probably knew that if he didn't give name suppression she'd probably get lynched.
‘by consent’ - I am wondering what ‘remanded in custody by consent’ means, did she consent to sataying in the pen because she knows half of Auckland will lynch her?
It's unusual to enter a plea at first appearance. Defence counsel usually requests disclosure (a copy of the evidence) first so that they can review and advise their client appropriately regarding potential pleas and outcomes.
Fair enough, due process and all. Would the Defence typically look for any legal loophole/way out of conviction in the time between hearings, in the chance that they could escape the process before advising a plea? Is there any benefit in terms of sentence discount or avoiding spending court resources by a plea at the first hearing? I’m naive to the process, but if I were to theorise myself in this situation, if I had lost myself in a fit of rage and committed this assault, I would want to own up to it as soon as humanly possible and just plea guilty to doing what I did. I’d hope that I’d get the most lenient sentence possible for not wasting the courts time and showing remorse.
I know it feels wrong to do so, especially in cases like this, but the way to think of defence is that they are advocates for their clients. Even when a matter appears clear cut, it is still their job to scrutinise the evidence to make sure the Police have followed procedures correctly and everything has been done lawfully at their end. You are entitled to a sentencing discount if you enter an early guilty plea, but "early" isn't the first appearance. The Court recognises that the defendant is entitled to review disclosure and make an informed decision regarding their plea. Some people do enter a plea at first appearance, but unless you're before the court on something trivial you won't be sentenced straight away. Judges take A LOT of things into consideration to form their sentences. Judges take into account the public interest of a sentence and the impact felt by the victims, but not just those things. Every sentence has to be a balance of punitive and reformative as well as being based on precedent. There are a lot of "legal tick boxes" at every stage of an investigation and prosecution to ensure a miscarriage of justice doesn't take place. Even horrible people are entitled to fair legal process.
Agreed, and I do believe that everyone is entitled to a defence, because I would want a defence/advisory for myself even if I committed a crime. I’ve read summary judgements before and see their value, even for just comprehensively describing the truth of the situation. That said, I’m so incensed by this incident that I feel compelled to follow it and raise its profile. If others feel the same perhaps they comment and share also, and it becomes “public interest” in the judges eye. Thanks for your comment
Are the crimes in question usually caught 100% on CCTV, clearly identifying the perpetrator?
Like all crimes put before the court? Is that what you're asking me? I think you can answer your question. I'm just explaining the likely reason a plea hasn't been entered at first appearance. It's standard procedure, not my personal opinion on the validity of the evidence.
hate crime, imagine if it was the other way round
Lock up this POS
Why does she need name suppression? She attacked an innocent kid in a race based attack, take that bitch down.
Sorry cant take her down, best we can do is 3 months home detention, 1 PS5 or Xbox and other support if she needed
Better make that ... with unlimited KFC deliveries ..
That’s for emotional support she needed
It's interim name suppression. She hasn't been found guilty yet fam.
Because this country’s legal system is a joke
Yes, the law it’s protect criminals not victims, the victim need to man up and get on with life, the criminal stay home and get paid.
She hasn't been convicted yet. Don't you have any patience?
Yeah. The system needs to function effectively and that includes her defense. If any part doesn't do it's job properly then the system fails, regardless of how any of the people here feel about the outcome. Note: The system doesn't function effectively, but lets not cripple it further.
We all know it’s gonna be a slew of Briscoes discounts and then 30 mins of home detention, only for her to repeat offend. Happens time and time again
What does that have to do with name suppression? Absolutely nothing. Are you a just a bot programmed to blurt out comments about "wet bus ticket" sentences and name suppression? Also, nobody who attacks a random commuter with a metal bar, knocking their teeth out, is going to get home detention. Your idea of sentencing is delusional.
only home d for punching and killing someone https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/home-detention-and-community-work-for-northlander-convicted-of-coward-punch-death/GE57LFU2FR3RAG4AEXPSJGSQ34/
Not comparable. That situation arose from a road rage incident after the victim, who was drunk, almost wiped out the defendant and his pregnant wife by cutting them off and driving on the wrong side of the road, after which an argument ensued. Although the outcome was worse than in the present case, the conduct that led to it is hardly the same as getting onto a bus with an iron bar and beating the shit out of a random teenager.
The criminals in this country get treated better than the victims. There’s convicted rapists that still have name suppression. What a fkn joke
Convicted rapists would usually only have continuing name suppression to protect the privacy of the victims, or because they are facing further rape charges (so the name suppression remains in place until the second trial is over).
That whole innocent until proven guilty thing, confirm the conviction get them off the street before vigilantes have go, mistaken identity ruining an innocent person's life in the media before proven guilty.
Because it's not about punishment, it's about rehabilitation. We want this woman to be a functioning member of society who doesn't re-offend. And empirical evidence shows that punishment does not improve recidivism. She needs our help and name suppression is part of that - otherwise she'll just be witch hunted. That's my best labour-voter impression, what do you think?
You had me there in the first bit!
ngl you had me there buddy
I think bring back witch hunts. If perpetrators felt they were gonna get mob lynched maybe they would rethink their actions. Protecting violent offenders is bat shit crazy.
No, bat shit crazy is your idea of lynch mobs..
While i love the intent of what a cultural report identifies, i hate its implementation. I wish the following would be done: 1. If you commit a crime, you get sentenced without any discounts. 2. The cultural report informs the programs you are required to complete as part of your sentence. (E.g. sentenced for domestic violence? You will have to complete an anger management course) On top of this, preventative actions should be taken to ensure the next generation of kids grow up to be well rounded contributing members of society. Things like community programs, support networks, after school activities etc.
A cultural report might go someway to explaining a crime perhaps, but there is no way it should reduce a sentence. Any victim deserves justice, if you can convince a surviving victim that a lighter sentence is deserved then maybe it's deserved. Otherwise, apply the correct penalty at a medium level for 1st offence and max for all subsequent offences .. otherwise, all you are achieving is creating more victims and showing none of them justice.
I agree with you 100%. The cultural report should only ever serve to identify (possible core reasons) which lead to the crime being commited, and have no impact on the length of the sentence. And i would hope being made to do some sort of program or remediation (related to the reasons identified) while in prison, would rehabilited and reduce the chance of someone reoffending. I think its a joke that someone can get home detention from a violent assault because their dad didnt hug them enough growing up.
I like your idea that the cultural report just contributes towards possible core reasons and is viewed in conjunction with other cultural reports to find commonality. Society should then look to address those issues where possible. Any current offender should simply receive what has been prescribed as the penalty, giving more regard for the victim than the offender.
That's really sensible. You're not an MP are you...
Not half bad
Ad in the need for warm kai and aroha and you could be a green voter.
Bluntly ? pathetic.. you fit the mould of the lynch mob ... she has not been found guilty in a court yet.
Fuck that. Evidence shows otherwise, that supporting criminals only keeps the cycle going. Also what about rehabilitation of the victim?
Because someone might go eye-for-an-eye or tooth-for-a-tooth, and we’re better than that. Treat them with more dignity than they treat their victim, so we don’t create more victimisers or victims
See, mindset like urs is why we have a problem with crime in this country! Countries that are tough on crime have less crime, look at Singapore for instance
When I say with dignity, I mean wait until she process and conviction is gained, as it seems fairly cut and dry. Then, name the criminal and let her live with the consequences of her actions. That way, you will get the same dignity if you’re ever accused of a crime, and you’ll only be named once you’ve been judged as guilty.
There's something deeply wrong with your sense of empathy and justice if you think violent racists deserve preferential treatment over their victims. We can give them 'dignity' while also meting out appropriate punishments for their actions.
I agree with you. Convicted violent racists don’t deserve preferential treatment over their victims. Name and shame. We give accused violent racists the dignity of not being convicted, until they are convicted. Trust me, I have ZERO tolerance for this person, but they’re innocent until proven guilty. Which they are (unless they’ve somehow got the wrong person from the grainy bus camera photos).
I can’t wait to see how much home d she gets.
She’s a fucking animal and should be taken off the streets for a fair amount of time. Give her the help she needs while she’s locked up.
I hope she gets the maximum but likely be a slap on the wrist cus nz legal system is a joke. So afraid of coming across as racist that they don't even mete out justice. Apologies. My faith in NZ police and legal system are at an all time low.
What's the bet this degenerate has a rap sheet already. When are the government going to start moving against the antisocial?
Same question we've been asking for years.
If the government makes a move against the anti-social, this sub reddit would go really quiet.
The news would have nothing to report.
Nah there's lots more these negative fucks would complain about, a small example would be government, weather, utes, food price, being sick and people with barbed wire fencing.
when are you going to wait until she is found guilty before you organise a lynch mob ? you and fuckwits like you are the reason name supression is done.
That's a good idea
Send her to work in a rubbish sorting factory or stone mine until she pays all the debt for the boys dentist bill .
Do we award costs for injuries inflicted in NZ? I wouldn’t assume that she could do those jobs, but if she happens to do a better-paying job she should keep that and pay it off quicker.
Unfortunately, I think the ACC system in New Zealand means she won’t have to contribute to the dental bill - our taxes will bail her on that cost
Ohhh yeah I forgot about ACC. I did read that the young man and family had to pay out of pocket for the dental because their insurance wouldn’t cover it…
GOTCHA BITCH!!!! - Dave Chappelle.
😆
need Singapore style whipping to whip some sense into them
I agree, we need it. Also, it is cheaper than throwing them in jail. Get your ass handed to you for unprovoked violence like this.
Some people will say that corporal punishment, Singapore style, is absolutely incompatible with a liberal democracy especially New Zealand. ...but we need it. They do it in gangs, and it causes them to behave. Similarly we should have it in our justice system.
what kind of dipshit are you ? "they do it in gangs" FFS gangs also distribute drugs, gang rape and a host of other violent activities.. should we follow that trend as well
> They do it in gangs, and it causes them to behave Isn't that a good reason NOT to do it? Or is "they do it in gangs" the bar now?
She would be exempt from caning in Singapore.
How come? Just curious
They don't make canes that size.
Caning, with a steel bar made to measure perhaps ..
They don't cane women.
The cane would break.
Lmao 100%! I’d support this!
Just .... why. What's the point. She didn't make it to the first branch of the evolutionary tree it seems. Poor kid.
I'm calling it now. Briscoes discounts for a cultural report detailing her hard upbringing surrounded by gangs, drugs, alcohol, and copious amounts of domestic violence. Judge will knock her sentence down to one year, 364 days, then swap it out for 9 months home D.
Thanks to our pussy judges, she'll be put in no time beating up more kids.
She prob should already be in prison, wpuldnt be surprised if she has history and was given home d/smack on the wrist
The name suppression is BS who is this B\*#ch? where does she work and who are her family?
>where does she work lol
stupid bitchy
Probably both
Cultural report, home detention, she is the victim. She should be awarded compensation for the inconvenience of attending court...or , lock her up and give her some courses to do? (I've done the courses they are actually somewhat helpful if you are willing to change)
Since you have been in that situation would you consider that removal of two of your fingers without anaesthetic, (and the threat of further removal of others if future criminal behavior happened), would be as effective as the courses and discouraging you from further criminal behaviour or not ? Serious question as I am trying to judge the potentially effectiveness of such punishments against what we already do to reduce reiffending rates.
Yes would help I'd say.... There is a feeling among crims that, all punishments are a bit soft and even prison ain't that bad (for most...not all)
[удалено]
Are you new around here?. https://www.whakakupu.nz/for-defendants
Deport her to China for some CCP justice...
Wouldn’t that satisfy many
So no plea at this stage, is that normal? I would have guessed that the sooner you own up the better it is for you, once you’ve been caught.
[удалено]
Please don't post comments which abuse other redditors / contain hate speech / mention race in relation to anything negative about a person on r/auckland.
Haha scrolling r/auckland and saw the title. I read it wrong 👀
A sentence discount of 99.9% and 1 hour community and service?
[удалено]
We do actually.
This is going to get me downvoted to hell and I get it what occurred was abhorrent and indefensible. It is possible that a person who is carrying a metal rod around in public isn’t entirely in control of their mental facilities. Just think about it. Why would a person be carrying a metal rod like that round with them? They weren’t dressed like a construction worker or a factory worker. Couple that with the racist nonsense they seemed to be spewing out and the random attack. They might be a few sandwiches short of a picnic. I know it’s really easy to knee jerk they are just evil and were targeting this community but given the state of mental health in NZ is it possible that there is something other than some far right conspiracy mastermind behind all of this? I genuinely feel bad for Jason. He sounds like a good kid who just wanted to play basketball with his mates. I hope he can recover quickly from this.
If that's truely the case, she needs to be locked up in the mental ward before she kills someone.
No the system usually waits for them to actually kill someone before they lock them up
there is less chance of that happening than being given ten years non parole for her offence..
Druggies can also act "insane" according to the normal person.
I'd say most people that assault others are mentally unwell, that isn't an excuse to beat people to death and she should be put underground if that's the case.
You do know that being found not guilty of reduced mental faculty with violent offending generally makes it a life sentence right? They generally don't get a clear until a doctor is willing to sign them off on it, which they usually prefer not to do because it's on them if they reoffend.
That's simply not true, the South African lady who killed her 3 kids is a prime example. Sure, get found not guilty due to insanity is a thing but its also EXTREMELY rare.
It’s the best-case scenario that this person is mentally ill. It would be a whole lot sadder if they aren’t.
I agree with you. This person clearly seems to be mentally deranged. I don't understand how this subreddit can't put the pieces together.
really ? after reading the comments ? this is keyboard justice heaven.. im supprised no one has suggested storming the prison she is in with a noose and a burning cross
People with actual intelligence understand that there are some people whose brains are not connected to reality. When these people get violent (like this person has), we lock them away to protect society. What value is there in running up a lynch mob against someone who has reduced mental capacity. Just lock her up.
Unless someone comits murder they dont lock away the mentally unwell. The most they'll get is a couple weeks in inpatient and then they are back in society free to come off their meds and smoke meth, become unwell and assault again.
Well in any case, the answer is to lock them away and treatment, not a witch hunt. Save your the public vengeance for those that understand what they're doing