Too horrific for words - Moko Rangitoheriri case
-
<p>I didn't watch the news thing, but how did the kid come to be in the care of the two who killed him? Were they CYFS foster parents or was it just an informal kind of arrangement?</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="580327" data-time="1463450126">
<div>
<p>I didn't watch the news thing, but how did the kid come to be in the care of the two who killed him? Were they CYFS foster parents or was it just an informal kind of arrangement?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>According to this: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11640777'>http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11640777</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p></p><p></p><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">Moko's mother left him in the care of her friends Tania Shailer and David Haerewa in Taupo while she was caring for her older son at Auckland's Starship hospital for two months.</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Informal arrangement with the mother.</p> -
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/faces-of-innocents/80123514/murder-charges-in-child-homicides-a-risky-bet-data-shows'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/faces-of-innocents/80123514/murder-charges-in-child-homicides-a-risky-bet-data-shows</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>An informative article by Stuff on murder vs manslaughter charges for these types of cases including some data on court case outcomes and the factors involved in the decisions around which charges to lay and when to change them. Apparently, changing murder charges requires the Solicitor-General's permission.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's also an interesting point about Moko's case - one of the factors in changing to manslaughter was that the precise cause of death could not be established. Clearly, Moko died because of illegal acts, hence why manslaughter easily sticks, but if you can't point to which specific act caused the death, getting a murder charge to stick becomes a lot harder.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see where sentencing falls here - I can see life imprisonment, or a lengthy term of imprisonment, and either could be legally justifiable (there is no legal limit for manslaughter, but they tend to top out around 15-20 years).</p> -
Good article but what shits me is lawyers declaring at they are getting around problems when those problems and high burdens of proof were not the intent of the law in the first place, they have become that way through legal argument. <br>
This shit is like saying we aren't going to charge someone with dangerous driving causing death because that is harder to prove than speeding. <br>
The law once written becomes a self feeding beast. The law is written and passed by the representatives of the people but then becomes something that doesn't reflect what people wanted. <br>
When deliberate callous actions result in the death of an innocent child most citizens of our country call that murder. <br>
What's that line?" This isn't a court of justice son, this is a court of law" -
Any of the 3 main charges of driving (careless, dangerous and reckless -in that order) can have causing injury or death attached.<br><br>
Police would often reduce it from reckless to dangerous as the latter is easier to prove and in terms of the conviction, was very little difference, which was the bit that confused me. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="581710" data-time="1463943360"><p>
Any of the 3 main charges of driving (careless, dangerous and reckless -in that order) can have causing injury or death attached.<br><br>
Police would often reduce it from reckless to dangerous as the latter is easier to prove and in terms of the conviction, was very little difference, which was the bit that confused me.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I'll come back to this thread when I have more time, but reckless and dangerous driving are covered in the same section of the Land Transport Act and have the same penalties so it's not a downgrade, legally speaking. Dangerous driving includes speeding if it's dangerous in the conditions, so that's probably why the police switch charges to that. -
If that's the case, then they are rarely enforced like that. <br><br>
Police always told us that they were 'only' charging someone with dangerous as it had an easier threshold to prove than reckless with the same penalty, as if reckless was the higher charge.<br><br>
Insurers have a clause that includes reckless/willful that would likely see them deny a claim if a charge of reckless were successful.<br><br>
My last job was somewhere that I saw people with these charges (and their story) cross my desk almost daily, and speed was rarely the determining factor between dangerous and reckless...in fact I think I only saw 1 or 2 reckless in 7 years (guy that fled from the police) yet a guy doing 205km an hour that flew off a motorway and rolled several times, walked out of the lounge of the house he crashed into got off with a 6 month suspension under dangerous driving... -
<p>The prosecutors see the desire for an easier conviction (fair enough) and in reality the punishments are not dissimilar. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Problem is the message that is conveyed is that we don't take killing an innocent child by numerous beatings and starving as seriously as, say a gang member stabbing another gang member.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Laws are meant to be in place to form the society that the members of that society want.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I would think that 'we' want people who kill innocent children held to the highest possible account.</p> -
<p>another example I saw was a couple of young fellas were racing, plenty of witness accounts for well over an hour on a main stretch of road, one of them crossed the centre line and hit another vehicle killing the person driving.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He got dangerous driving causing death or injury...reading the judges summary of facts made me so angry.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lost his licence, but then given he was on Home Detention for 6 of those months, he wasn't going anywhere anyway...judge also said Home detention is in fact harder for a person than going to prison, because you are a prisoner in your own home....</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="582002" data-time="1464038596"><p>
In cases like this, why can't they be charged with both murder and manslaughter and let the judge/jury decide whether thresholds are met?</p></blockquote>
<br>
I thought you could? Lawyers??!!??<br><br>
It may be ignorance but I thought manslaughter was an automatic default option if not guilty of murder you COULD be found guilty of manslaughter. If not it should be. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="582027" data-time="1464042218">
<div>
<p>I thought you could? Lawyers??!!??<br><br>
It may be ignorance but I thought manslaughter was an automatic default option if not guilty of murder you COULD be found guilty of manslaughter. If not it should be.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Me too. But, if that's the case, why would the prosecutors stop at manslaughter for this one?</p> -
<p>If they try to charge you with murder, and fail, not sure they can go oh well manslaughter it is? Would that mean they walk free if they fail on the murder count?</p>
-
<p>My better half informs me that you cannot be charged with both manslaughter and murder for the same act against one person. However if you are charged with a more serious offense, then you can be found guilty of a lesser offense. E.G. an individual is charged with murder, but the Judge then finds him guilty of manslaughter instead.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On this case, she says it is likely they are going for manslaughter in exchange for a guilty plea to ensure they are put away as they may not have had enough evidence to get the murder conviction (I.E. the specific act that led to the death). There is a far higher burden of proof to get a murder conviction. However it really comes down to the specific facts and circumstances of the case, and it's very difficult to make a judgement by reading what is written in the media.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>She has made an effort not to read about this case though as it will just infuriate her... She also doesn't specialise in criminal Law but thought I'd get her take on it.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="582053" data-time="1464046004"><p>
If they try to charge you with murder, and fail, not sure they can go oh well manslaughter it is? Would that mean they walk free if they fail on the murder count?</p></blockquote>
<br>
Yes, a second charge would be double jeopardy and would be thrown out. <br><br>
Re Reckless vs Dangerous Driving, the legislation is crystal clear that they are the same weighting - they are covered in the same sections, same maximum punishments. If the police say something else, that's fine, but the legislation disagrees with their position. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="581573" data-time="1463892843">
<div>
<p>Good article but what shits me is lawyers declaring at they are getting around problems when those problems and high burdens of proof were not the intent of the law in the first place, they have become that way through legal argument.<br>
This shit is like saying we aren't going to charge someone with dangerous driving causing death because that is harder to prove than speeding.<br>
The law once written becomes a self feeding beast. The law is written and passed by the representatives of the people but then becomes something that doesn't reflect what people wanted.<br>
When deliberate callous actions result in the death of an innocent child most citizens of our country call that murder.<br>
What's that line?" This isn't a court of justice son, this is a court of law"</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The main issue with blaming lawyers and judges, though, is that murder definitions in NZ are heavily based on murder definitions in the UK, which in turn are based on Common Law definitions built up over 900+ years. Judges created most of the classic crimes as currently recognised (Common Law predates statutory law by 300-odd years), even if we've since codified them in legislation, and precedent still heavily informs much of how the law actually applies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To give an example of that in practice, the Treason Act 1351 (still current law in the UK, albeit heavily modified since it was originally enacted) had provision for Treason (obviously), but also originally included petit treason, which was, effectively, aggravated murder, but didn't actually define murder as such, it just specified certain types of murder as receiving more serious punishment than the usual death by hanging (burning at the stake for women, hanging, drawing and quartering for men).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Another example of Common Law in practice in NZ is defamation - there is legislation regarding defences to an action, but very little actually defining what it is, or that someone can sue someone else for it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If we want this to be murder (fine by me), we can add it to the Crimes Act, or we can add it as an aggravating factor when sentencing for manslaughter, so they get longer inside, or are presumptively sentenced to life imprisonment, for example.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="592196" data-time="1466990990">
<div>
<p>Both sentenced to 17 years - longest manslaughter sentence imposed in NZ for the killing of a child.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Good. May those two sacks of shit rot (and learn exactly what other inmates think of child killers.)</p>