Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

[EHocking]

That is the very basis of mental health defenses. And what are they for if not major crimes.

It's kind of like saying " they can find him innocent but he better get thrown in jail".

This is not a defence strategy to set up an insanity plea.

This was ordered by the judge in order to determine that he is currently capable to communicate with his legal representative and participate meaningfully in the court proceedings.

This has nothing to do with his alleged mental state at the time of the shootings.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

In a case where a bloke has videotaped and identified himself shooting people I don't see the need for the right to plead not guilty.

Are you suggesting no trial? Because if the only outcome of a trial is the defendant pleading guilty or no contest, there's no point to having a trial. Just bring him into court for sentencing and be done with it.

 

[The Atheist]

Are you suggesting no trial?

Sure, as long as he's pronounced fit to plead. I see no point whatsoever. There isn't any need to prove doubt, because he gleefully proved his guilt himself during the massacre. Whatever trial takes place will be a farce.

I know the law doesn't work like that, but it has been said a time or two that the law is an ass.

Bring him court, sentence him to life without parole, send an invoice to Scott Morrison for the first 10 years.

 

[Roboramma]

Not that I've noticed, no.

The question was whether or not he was right that you wouldn't be okay with giving up the right to travel. Or rather, that the reason you wouldn't be okay with giving up that right is that you tend to travel frequently.

No is an odd answer to that question.

But I guess jokes are more important than having a constructive conversation.

 

[cullennz]

There was no rumour about representing himself. He fired his lawyer and said he would represent himself.

Then he realised he wasn't going to be able to speak, so has got himself a lawyer. No doubt these guys are being paid by legal aid, and they are not at the cheap end of the scale.

And I presume you have evidence for this insider tit bit you are just about to post?

 

[cullennz]

Sure, as long as he's pronounced fit to plead. I see no point whatsoever. There isn't any need to prove doubt, because he gleefully proved his guilt himself during the massacre. Whatever trial takes place will be a farce.

I know the law doesn't work like that, but it has been said a time or two that the law is an ass.

Bring him court, sentence him to life without parole, send an invoice to Scott Morrison for the first 10 years.

Yeehah!!

Bring me me hang'n noose!

Get a blimmin grip

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Sure, as long as he's pronounced fit to plead. I see no point whatsoever. There isn't any need to prove doubt, because he gleefully proved his guilt himself during the massacre. Whatever trial takes place will be a farce.

What would happen if he is not pronounced fit to plead?

 

[The Atheist]

And I presume you have evidence for this insider tit bit you are just about to post?

Insider?

It's common knowledge, provided by the duty lawyer he fired, telling him he wanted to represent himself: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213752

Bring me me hang'n noose!

What doubt do you think exists in this case?

Note also that I specifically stated the death penalty would be a very poor option.

 

[cullennz]

Insider?

It's common knowledge, provided by the duty lawyer he fired, telling him he wanted to represent himself: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213752



What doubt do you think exists in this case?

Note also that I specifically stated the death penalty would be a very poor option.

None

But everyone is entitled to a trial

To do with this is less a slippery slope and more a cliff face

 

[lionking]

What would happen if he is not pronounced fit to plead?

What normally happens. He would be confined to a facility for the criminally insane for the rest of his life without doubt and in conditions little different to jail.

Of course it’s highly likely this will happen. He will face trial.

 

[cullennz]

Pretty hard to get away with insanity these days I think.

Took me ages.

Wibble

 

[Steve]

Pretty hard to get away with insanity these days I think.

Took me ages.

Wibble

Are you suggesting there are posters here who think you may be sane?

 

[The Atheist]

But everyone is entitled to a trial

Even worse, everyone is entitled to a trial by a jury. I hope this bloke doesn't get drawn again: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10649592

Our justice system is so weak that I don't really see a slippery slope being advanced if we waived trials for people streaming themselves committing a crime.

 

[rjh01]

<snip>

He should be refused the right to plead not guilty - he filmed himself doing it for Zarquon's sake.

I think that this shows there is a problem with the court system. I suggest it needs reforming in cases where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Show the defence this evidence and they need to show there a massive hole in it. Maybe it was not the defendant who did the filming and was not in the film. Do that and either the defendant goes free or is allowed to plead not guilty. Otherwise he pleads guilty and the trial discusses mostly the sentence. Though in this case it is a matter of is it life or life?

 

[The Atheist]

Though in this case it is a matter of is it life or life?

"Life" in NZ only means a prisoner can be recalled to jail at any time after parole. Minimum periods are set at sentencing, and the record right now is 32 years for a 3-murder robbery.

I'm not sure how they'll handle Tarrant. If they decide to place a non-parole period, I imagine it has to be life without parole.

Another option would be to deport him to his homeland. That's the option I like - Aussie have sent us enough of their problems, they're due some back.

 

[cullennz]

"Life" in NZ only means a prisoner can be recalled to jail at any time after parole. Minimum periods are set at sentencing, and the record right now is 32 years for a 3-murder robbery.

I'm not sure how they'll handle Tarrant. If they decide to place a non-parole period, I imagine it has to be life without parole.

Another option would be to deport him to his homeland. That's the option I like - Aussie have sent us enough of their problems, they're due some back.

Agree it will be the first ever life without parole.

Personally think put him in whatever country between us and Aus has the worst prison conditions.

If it is ours, I can live with paying for it

 

[smartcooky]

"Life" in NZ only means a prisoner can be recalled to jail at any time after parole. Minimum periods are set at sentencing, and the record right now is 32 years for a 3-murder robbery.

I'm not sure how they'll handle Tarrant. If they decide to place a non-parole period, I imagine it has to be life without parole.

Another option would be to deport him to his homeland. That's the option I like - Aussie have sent us enough of their problems, they're due some back.

We also have the sentence of "Preventive Detention". Its what we use when the court considers the person will always be a danger to the public.

Alfred Thomas Vincent (a serial, recidivist paedophile) has been in prison on preventive detention since 1968.

 

[The Atheist]

We also have the sentence of "Preventive Detention". Its what we use when the court considers the person will always be a danger to the public.

Not for murder though, which must be given a life sentence.

The sections where preventive detention can apply are here, and as you can check for yourself, murder isn't included.

The only question is the non-parole period.

 

[rjh01]

<snip>

Another option would be to deport him to his homeland. That's the option I like - Aussie have sent us enough of their problems, they're due some back.

As an Australian I will vote for that. Even better do this before the trial. Let Australia put him on trial. It would be similar to what Australia has done to others and other countries.

Save NZ plenty of money. But yes I can see any NZ politician who suggests the above would very likely be thrown out at the next election, if not before. A case of a great idea that not many people will agree with.

 

[Darat]

I think that this shows there is a problem with the court system. I suggest it needs reforming in cases where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Show the defence this evidence and they need to show there a massive hole in it. Maybe it was not the defendant who did the filming and was not in the film. Do that and either the defendant goes free or is allowed to plead not guilty. Otherwise he pleads guilty and the trial discusses mostly the sentence. Though in this case it is a matter of is it life or life?

You've just described what pretty much happens in a trial!