Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.


Thursday, August 7, 2014

A Challenge to Judge Winkelmann on her Sentencing for the Death of Stephen Dudley.


The fact Stephen Dudley had an undiagnosed heart condition is irrelevant to the manner of his death at the hands fists of two brothers, one two years older than him, the other the same age:


The 18-year-old, whose name is permanently suppressed, attacked 15-year-old Stephen from the side after a rugby practice - punching him in the neck and continuing the attack while Stephen was on the ground.


Yet the elder brother accused was let off by Judge Helen Winkelmann with no conviction, (the younger brother never went to trial). The reasoning was that because of Stephen’s heart condition this was, apparently, a normal schoolyard assault (her term, a brawl), non-punishable.


When I went to school over three score years ago, two boys - the 17 year old an adult in my reckoning - blindsiding and king hitting an innocent 15 year old, then punching him unconscious, (some reports, such as above, say punching and kicking him on the ground, though that is not in the decision's statement of facts), was not a ‘normal’ schoolyard brawl, not by any means. This was a serious assault: if this had happened at Lincoln High School circa the late 1970’s, not only would normal school life have stopped for the entire school roll on the unimaginable momentousness of it, it would have gripped the nation in a horror that would not have been dissipated by weeks end. And regarding Judge Winkelmann’s concern at how the perpetrator was going to ‘transition into adulthood’ after killing this boy, I have to say that at 18 years old, he is an adult. That there is to be no consequences to the perpetrators’, both of them, for an innocent boy dying in these circumstances, I think I can fairly say, has stunned New Zealand. Judge Winkelmann refused to even give community service, albeit, the important thing would have been for her to have entered a conviction against the assailant's name, confirming the precedent for future teen behaviour that wading in with fists like this is not acceptable. And as bad, the one person this sentencing never considered was victim Stephen Dudley, nor his parents who were consigned to another level of hell by it, which Mr Dudley understandably informed Judge Winkelmann of, loudly, in the hoarse voice left him.


And something else. There’s been a lot about rape culture in New Zealand lately, and good for that discussion, but regarding a woman judge thinking this assault normal, a question (excuse the typo):











Now think on if the victim who died in this brawl had been a girl and the judge a man.


Continuing the depressing news this Thursday evening, what followed on TV 1 news was the repulsive glorification of a biker gangster’s violent death and funeral; the glorification for the only reason that he was dating a celebrity. The whole piece imaging for the young a false heroism of gang life, where in reality it is a dead end life of violent, organised crime; a culture of violence, indeed, of the like that was responsible for stopping the broken heart of Stephen Dudley. The country hit a new low point for me tonight.


Update 1:

Four further points:

a) I have just listened to a lawyer on RNZ justify J. Winkelmann's position that this was a school yard fight in the moderate range of such fights. I don't accept this. A fight is when two individuals knowingly square off against one another, and thus can defend themselves from punches. According to various reports, Stephen did not want a fight, and did not know a fight was coming to him. The older brother had come in from the side and king hit him in the neck. It was not a fight, but a vicious attack against which Stephen had no chance to defend himself; he was never able to even lay a single punch.

b) In Australia, just that original king hit - forget the punches that continued to fall afterwards - was a criminal act, punishable, for adults, with a four year sentence. Ninety individuals have died in Australia since 2004 from king hits. When you throw a punch like that at an unsuspecting person's head/neck area you are always going to cause great harm, with death a possibility, and certainly permanent brain damage.

c) In my mind a criminal justice system is not concerned, in this case, with the welfare of the assailant. It is the role of criminal justice to punish the initiation of force/violence, and create the precedents that protect the innocent from the future use of such violence. With the assailant here suffering no conviction - noting you can have restorative justice, I'm just talking about the legal conviction on one's record - thus a clean slate and a future unhindered by his crime, there is no precedent set to put the consequences of uncontrolled actions or anger into a context for teens to make them think and modify their behaviour. I do not accept that we are animals who work off blind, uncontrollable rage: we all have choices in cases like this, but for some they will change their behaviour only where they understand from historical precedent there are long term legal consequences for resorting to this type of instant extreme violence, that is becoming the norm not the exception. J. Winkelmann is wrong in every respect with this decision, but not just the Judge, our law itself.

d) I wrote the above post in anger on the decision being delivered yesterday, without reading the full decision. On reading it, no important principle espoused changes for me, though I have corrected some of the facts regarding age, etc. I also understand how in many ways Judge Winkelmann's hands were tied by deficient law in her decision, however, my beef is in her judgement that this was normal schoolyard brawling - it wasn't - and thus to enter no conviction on record. If you want to compare what I have written against J. Winkelmann's decision it can be read here: click on High Court decisions R V. M.

17 comments:

  1. Mark, I'm sure you thoughts about judge Winkelmann's manifestly inadequate response is reflected in the hearts and minds of most New Zealanders today.

    Didn't know you went to Lincoln High - I was there a decade before you. Those were probably my initials carved on your desk. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What part of the countryside did you hail from?

      Delete
    2. Jeez, half the people you know, I probably know :)

      Delete
    3. So where were you living at the time of your HS education?

      Delete
    4. Yes reasonably close. We played rugby against greenpark primary school. Used to thrash you from memory, but I could just be making that up. :-)

      Delete
  2. Does this mean I can punch Winkelman in the neck, render her senseless, continue the attack and get off scotfree because I too have very good prospects for the future?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Punch her? She should be put in prison.

      Delete
    2. Publish your name and make that comment buddy

      Delete
    3. I reckon you're all way off track on this thread :)

      Delete
  3. This ruling is made even worse by the full rationale released today. Judge Winkelman seems to be telling us that violence in or around school activities is acceptable. Rubbish lady - assault is assault no matter where it happens. Talk about mixed messages when we see excellent campaigns against domestic violence and how society should not be turning a blind eye when we see it BUT this Judge says throwing king hit punches to the neck and more is just normal school yard violence. We must find a way to challenge this disturbing precedent. It is so wrong on so many levels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, this is the principle I think she has got so wrong by entering no conviction.

      Delete
  4. In the late 80s i was at school in chch. i got beaten up, called police, they arrested the 16 year old, he went to court, was charged with assault and fined $1500. half of which went to me. When i went to the bank to deposit the cheque, my attacker was writing out a withdrawal slip at one of the small leaner desks the bank had for people to use. so i went to the leaner desk thing next to him and happily filled in the deposit slip. he always kept clear of me after that and everyone else found out too so i never had anymore problems with anyone. In stephen dudleys instance i dont believe the judges hands were tied at all. I have read the full decision and there was nothing from stopping her from imposing a fine or community service.I have sent an email to the human rights commission and to unicef and the office of the high commissioner for human rights overseas noting my disgust at this failure of the justice system to protect children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's great when people speak out. I'd love it if you posted the response you get. Just add as a comment to this thread if you get a chance.

      And yes, at the very least, as well as the conviction which should have been a given, Judge Winkelmann could've imposed community service, and if for no other purpose than a solidarity with the Dudley family, that Stephen's 'killing' had a price, and so his life value.

      Delete
  5. If the father of the Dudley family decided to mete out his own justice on the attackers (or on Judge Winkelmann), *who* could blame him? I wouldn't.

    If he did so (and I were on the jury in his case), I would *refuse* to convict him. More than that - I would recommend him for a *medal*.

    The judiciary in this country sicken me beyond words.

    I hope that Judge Winkelmann suffers some appalling misfortune in her life so that (when it becomes public knowledge) she will then understand what it is like to be on the receiving end and we can at least take some measure of much-deserved schadenfreude at her misfortune.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Thor, I *don't* hope Judge Winkelmann 'suffers some appalling misfortune' but she did get this badly wrong and it's important we know why, and that police legal appeal the sentencing.

      Delete