The Riverman Reports - Inc. Huttz World : Law

Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts

Sunday, October 03, 2010

A zero tolerance for all smoking in New Zealand...

(Newser) – California residents caught holding small amounts of marijuana are now barely criminals in the eyes of the law. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into effect a measure that downgrades possession of less than an ounce from a misdemeanor to a lowly infraction, on par with a speeding ticket, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The move comes a month ahead of a proposition to legalize recreational use altogether.

Schwarzenegger, who opposes the proposition to legalize, explained his surprising support for the new law as a cost-cutting move for police and prosecutors. Those caught with pot face a fine of $100, but they won't be arrested or face trial. Nor will the mark show up on a criminal record. "It's one more small victory," says the originator of Prop 19.

I can't say I support Schwarzenegger, but thats California's decision. New Zealand won't be following suit any time soon. Smoking dope is still illegal here and dope smokers will cop it if they persist in smoking or are in possession of marijuana in public. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. We are battling cigarette smoking in NZ and going soft on dope and dope smokers will not help our society at all. Smoking in bars, restaurants and other places has been illegal for a number of years, as has smoking at work and in public buildings.

A zero tolerance for all types of smoking should be taken. Opposition groups have made no inroads here, despite having a left of centre government for nine years. They will not overcome!

http://huttriver.blog.co.uk/

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Image via Wikipedia

A former NZ National Government introduced a bill in 1999 to reform drinking:

by Peter Petterson

When a former New Zealand National Party Government introduced a bill in 1999 to reform the drinking laws in NZ, and allowed a Parliamentary conscience vote, they did not do New Zealand society a favour. The drinking age was reduced to 18 years, off-licences were introduced and as a consequence younger drinkers were given greater access to alcohol.

Quite frankly it has become a disaster to society as a whole and has also affected driving on our streets and highways. Drink- driving and other driving offences have also skyrocketed as alcohol has become more accessable to younger teens and children.Youth drunkenness in the CBD areas of our cities has become a problem for our police and a public nuisance to other citizens. And there has been a proliferation of alcohol outlets in our cities and suburbs - they have sprung up like mushrooms, and robberies and deaths have ensued from them.

So what has the Key National Party - led administration done about it? Apart from the rhetoric a big fat zero! There is now a social cost to New Zealand society. Mores lives are being lost annually as the government delays action and a further reform of our drinking laws.

The Government has allegedly turned its back on hundreds of pages of official advice to increase the drinking age and reduce the numbers of alcohol outlets, and a claim that the refusal to lower the drink-driving limitt was costing an extra 33 lives and a saving of NZ$238 million a year. These pages have been released under the Official Information Act and showed that lowering the alcohol limit was the best possible action it could take to reduce the number of road injuries and deaths caused by drunk drivers. It is obvious that the current approach to drink-driving will not reduce the the level of fatalities.

The government was told that data based on 300 overseas studies showed that 33 lives and 686 injuries could be prevented. A social saving of up to $238 million ayear could be made, and ACC could save an extra $95 million in claims each year.

But the government wants to sit on its heads and do more studies. Why? Because they are obviously coming under pressure from the alcohol industry lobby, despite denials from those involved. The government refuses to reduce the blood alcohol limit (BAC) from 0.08 down to 0.05 as recommended by experts. This National Government wants to have a further two years of research before they revisit the limit; there has been years of public discussion and official advice on the matter. They want a good range of public submissions, ministers have claimed. Like Nero they will fiddle while Rome burns - the Rome in this particular scenario being hundreds of more deaths and thousands of maimed New Zealanders, including babies and elderly people.

So let me halt my rhetoric and produce some facts for readers to consider:

What a lower limit would do:

1/ Save up to 33 lives a year.

2/Prevent up to 686 injuries a year.

3/ Save social costs of up to $238 million a year

4/ACC would save up to $95 million in claims each year.

5/The financial gain would be 173 times the cost.

Knowing your limit:

!/ The current blood alcohol content of 0.08 of alcohol per 100 ml of blood allows a man of average height and weight to drink six standard drinks within 90 mins. For an average woman, it allows four standard drinks.

2/ A BAC of of 0.05 would allow an average height and weight man to drink two standard drinks in the first hour and one an hour thereafter. For an average woman it allows one standard drink an hour.

What the Governments opponents say:

Innocent people will continue to be killed on our roads by drinking drivers while Minister Steven Joyce and his fellow National cabinet ministers say the can't yet make up their minds about lowering the alcohol limit for drivers on NZ roads.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment

Image via WikipediaKiwi blogger may appeal his conviction for breaching suppression orders...

Kiwi blogger Cameron Slater is likely to appeal his conviction and fines and costs of nearly $8000 for breaching suppression orders.

Slater was convicted of nine of the 10 charges he faced -- eight of breaching non-publication orders for several high-profile offenders and one of naming a victim in a sexual abuse case. The tenth case was thrown out.

Judge David Harvey fined Slater $750 and ordered him top pay court costs of $130 on each of the nine cases after rejecting submissions from his lawyer, Gregory Thwaite, that there was no case to answer.

He told Slater the internet allowed everyone to become a publisher but with that came an obligation to be accountable and responsible.

"The silent majority is no longer silent."

He said Slater had been using the internet to mount a political campaign to change the law regarding suppression orders and had deliberately published names knowing the suppression orders existed.

"You stepped over the line when you chose to publish names that were the subject of non-publication orders."

He said Slater set himself up on his blog site as judge and jury and knowing the non-publication order had been issued, he was willing to flout the law.

"There was no remorse, it was carefully planned and he knew exactly what he was doing."

During the hearing earlier today Judge Harvey and Mr Thwaite had a long legal debate over the validity of suppression orders.

Mr Thwaite said there was no case to answer because the suppression orders were invalid for a number of reasons. These included that Slater had not used the exact names of the accused as they appeared on court documents.

He also submitted Judge Harvey had the right to overturn another judge's suppression orders although the judge rejected that.

"I can't revisit what another judge has done.

"I can't say the order should not have been made -- not guilty".

He said if he did that he would be "bringing the entire system of justice into disrepute."

In his finding Judge Harvey said it was about whether a person breached the law using the internet.

"It is not a case about whether or not the law should allow non-publication orders. That debate must take place in another forum," he said.

Outside court Slater said he had "copped a flogging as best they can with a wet bus ticket."

He said he was not remorseful and had no regrets, but when asked if he would continue to flout the law, replied: "We'll see."

He said he had a few people who would underwrite his fines.

He said he did not qualify for legal aid because he had been charged under the Summary Proceedings Act.

His lawyer had advised him to appeal and he would discuss that with him."

This not a case of a blogger breaching the law for ethical reasons. Slater has his own agenda, whatever it may be.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

National emblem of the People's Republic of China

Image via WikipediaChina may drop death penalty for economic

crimes...

BEIJING – China, which executes more people each year than any other country, said Monday it is considering dropping capital punishment for economic crimes.

A draft amendment to the country's criminal code proposes cutting 13 "economy-related, non-violent offenses" from the list of 68 crimes punishable by the death penalty, the official Xinhua New Agency said.

International rights groups have criticized China for its heavy use of the death penalty, saying it is excessive.

It is not known when the draft will become law. Xinhua said it was submitted for a first reading to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. A draft usually has two or three readings before it is voted on.

The website of the NPC confirmed the draft is being considered but did not give any details.

Xinhua said the crimes to be dropped from the list of those punishable by death included carrying out fraudulent activities with financial bills and letters of credit, and forging and selling invoices to avoid taxes. Others included smuggling cultural relics and precious metals such as gold out of the country.

It quoted Li Shishi, director of legislative affairs of the NPC Standing Committee, as saying that because of China's economic development, dropping the death penalty from some economic-related crimes would not hurt social stability or public security.

In recent years China has made several changes to how it decides and carries out the death penalty.

In May, new rules were issued saying evidence obtained through torture and threats cannot be used in criminal prosecutions and said such evidence would be thrown out in death penalty cases that are under appeal.

Those new regulations made it clear that evidence with unclear origins, confessions obtained through torture, and testimony acquired through violence and threats are invalid. It was the first time Beijing had explicitly stated that evidence obtained under torture or duress was illegal and inadmissible in court.

The rulings are important for death penalty cases, where a flawed system has led to the deaths of several criminal suspects by torture in detention centers.

In 2008, China's top court said about 15 percent of death sentence verdicts by lower courts were found to have problems, the official China Daily newspaper reported in May.

__

On the Net: http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/syxw/2010-08/16/content_1587905.htm (in Chinese)

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

Cannabis is another commonly used recreational...

Image via Wikipedia

Switched on Gardener gone to pot - police now need to put forward a strong case...

"Switched on Gardener" gone to pot - police now need to put forward a strong case...

Warren Brookbanks, Auck Uni, says cannabis case involving 250 people will be complex but police have taken time to gather enough evidence

A law expert says the criminal case against a nationwide garden store chain facing more than 700 drugs charges will be complex when it gets to court.

Police raided 16 branches of the "Switched on Gardener", charging 250 people with a raft of drugs charges. Directors and managers of the companies have been arrested and will be facing charges including cultivating cannabis and participating in an organised criminal group. It is alleged that cannabis growing equipment was sold at the stores to commercial growers. The arrests follow a two year investigation.

Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope says the bust will break the cornerstone of the illicit cannabis cultivation industry.

"Cannabis is the most abused controlled drug in New Zealand. The harm that this drug causes New Zealand communities can be conservatively estimated at $430 million a year. It hurts every community in every part of the country.?

Mr Pope says undercover officers purchased equipment, were given advice on how to grow cannabis and even purchased cannabis clones and other drugs over the counter. Police also seized methamphetamine, LSD, ecstasy and firearms.

Prof Warren Brookbanks from Auckland University says even though the case will be complex, it is not unknown territory for police.

"I imagine there will be a lot of criminal litigation arising out of this as the individuals defend the charges. They will be charged with a wide range of different offences under the Drugs Act."

Mr Brookbanks believes police have taken their time to gain sufficient evidence.

The Police Minister is praising good old fashion detective work for the exposure of the ring. Judith Collins says it has been a long hard slog for those involved.

"I'm very pleased with the fact that police have been able to bring the matter to such a successful conclusion in terms of the investigation, which involved a lot of undercover work."

Ms Collins says the number of arrests and charges shows how deeply these activities have affected communities.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Image via Wikipedia

New Zealand starvation case raises ethicacy issues - your opinion readers.

Phillipa Malpas, Auck Univ, says care home staff face ethical dilemma with Margaret Page's decision to starve herself to death

The actions of medical staff at Wellington's St John of God Hospital in allowing a woman to starve herself to death, are raising questions of medical ethicacy.

Margaret Page is disabled and terminally ill after suffering a cerebral haemorrhage 20 years ago. She has been living at the St John of God care home since 2006 and has not eaten for 11 days and has drunk only a small amount of water, because she no longer wants to live. Her separated husband has urged staff to force feed her, but the care home says it is her right to decide her fate. Three psychiatric assessments have found the 60-year-old is capable of making her own decisions.

Dr Malpas says it is a difficult situation.

"One of the principles that would come to mind would be the principle of do no harm and I guess you could ask the question, well, is it harmful in this situation to force her to eat? Is it harmful to allow her to do this?"

However, Dr Malpas says the law is very clear.

"Nobody who is competent can be forced to eat and drink or accept any medical treatment that they don't want even if that will end up hastening their death."

Dr Malpas says a competent person who forces another to eat or drink could be prosecuted for criminal assault, however an argument could be made that failing to force feed Mrs Page is assisting her suicide.

Ms Malpas says the ethical dilemma for staff in such situations is secondary to their obligations to the patient's will.

But aren't health professionals bound to take all care to ensure she is kept in the best of health? Do doctors till swear a hippocratical oath to do EVERYTHING in their power to ensure the woman's health?

Acknowledgements:

© 2010 NZCity, NewsTalkZB

Sunday, October 03, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta