Nats fear flood of justice

Written By: - Date published: 2:31 pm, August 11th, 2010 - 14 comments
Categories: crime, law and "order", national, police, scoundrels - Tags: ,

Finlayson says that paying compo to women abused by cops would “open the floodgates”. In other words, he reckons it would cost too much because of all the other claims that would come out of the woodwork.

Let’s apply Finlayson’s floodgates argument to some other issues of justice:

  • Treaty breaches: ‘We can’t give back the Raglan Golf Course or Maori will want back all the other land we stole’
  • Voting rights: ‘We can’t let the Catholics vote, who will be next – blacks, Jews, women, the working class?’
  • Work rights: ’12 hour work days for children? Ridiculous. Give them that and before you know it, the workers will be wanting living wages, holidays, and safe conditions’

What’s right is right.

The floodgates argument is just an admission that the hundreds of people have been harmed. And this government doesn’t have the guts to do the right thing by them.

14 comments on “Nats fear flood of justice ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. nic 1
    11 August 2010 at 5:47 pm

    If any policeman were tried before a court, and found to be guilty of rape connected in any way to his duty as an officer of the law, then of course the state owes the victim compensation. A lot of compensation. Particularily (as I suspect) the Police Force were in any way implicit in covering up or failing to fully investigate the crime.

    But – as noted in a previous thread – these cases appear to be made up of allegations only. In such a case I think a similar model should be followed as to cases of false imprisonment. The alleged offence should be investigated, and should the crime be proved on the balance of probabilities, then compensation should follow. And think a statutory duty on the part of the government is much preferable to any of this ex gratia nonsense.

    However – while I’m sure that the NZ Police Force contains rapists, I am equally certain that NZ contains people who would be potentially willing to falsely allege rape on the hope of a payout. If the only standard for compensation is an allegation, then the government would be providing a strong incentive for this behaviour. False allegations don’t just cost money. They also unjustly undermine confidence in the NZ Police.

    This is where the floodgate argument comes in. It makes sense, to a point. But the correct response to demands for a payout isn’t “It’s too expensive”.

    What Finlayson should have said is, “We will investigate each and every claim of police abuse to the very limits of our power. Any accusations found to be grounded in reality will be fully and fairly redressed. All perpetrators will be punished to the very limit of the law. And any accusers found to be deliberately dishonest will be similarily punished.”

    • lprent 1.1
      11 August 2010 at 10:34 pm

      Ummm and who would have to lay the charges?

      Oh thats right – the police force…… And you wonder why the police investigating the police hasn’t worked all that well? Up until recently even the police complaints authority investigated the police using the police, and guess what – almost all of the time they found there wasn’t a case to answer.

      Basically, the only way to get anything to happen against the police for anything except the most clear-cut and obnoxious cases (the only ones the police will take against their own) is to sue the police and the government in civil court. That is a very long and very expensive procedure. The floodgates being referred to are those of precedent.

      So frankly your suggestion clearly marks you as a f*cking moron without any understanding of how the police work.

      • joe90 1.1.1
        12 August 2010 at 12:44 pm

        for anything except the most clear-cut and obnoxious cases

        Or if they’re caught on surveillance video and you’ll be eligible for a $30,000 settlement.

      • Dom 1.1.2
        12 August 2010 at 2:56 pm

        Lprent: That last remark was clearly out of line and unconstructive. The Standard should have higher standards than Kiwiblog.

        • lprent 1.1.2.1
          12 August 2010 at 8:31 pm

          It was an accurate statement about nic’s ‘theory’ of how things should happen with the police. Ask anyone who has had a complaint against the police. They will tell you that what I described is exactly what happens.

          For that matter look at the compensation of mislaid charges by the police. You go through a year of hell, spend a lot of money ($30,000), get the charge thrown out by the high court, and there is really no way to get the moronic police who laid the stupid charge of loitering?

          BTW: We do have higher standards. We don’t care about language particularly, but we do insist that insulting comments have a point. Talking of which what is your actual point – you slimey snivelling little git?

          • Dom 1.1.2.1.1
            15 August 2010 at 5:43 pm

            Ha ha, wow. Was that last insult at me? Years of blogging have made you belligerent. Umm, I’m a Labour and Greens supporter who wants higher standards than I see amongst National and Act. I’ve commented with you constructively before under a variant of my name. I wasn’t commenting on the substance of the blog. I suppose my point was just that it would be more constructive if you didn’t hurl abuse around but rather pointed out the flaws in the other persons argument or enlighten them on where they went wrong. No need to bite everybody’s head off.

    • bbfloyd 1.2
      12 August 2010 at 11:56 am

      nic… one thing i learnt about having a bet both ways is that you never really win.. good attempt to sound intelligent, but that’s a fail, sorry try harder next time

  2. Ed 2
    11 August 2010 at 6:03 pm

    Is any compensation due for this ‘accident’ through ACC?

  3. loota 3
    11 August 2010 at 6:12 pm

    What Finlayson should have said is, “We will investigate each and every claim of police abuse to the very limits of our power. Any accusations found to be grounded in reality will be fully and fairly redressed. All perpetrators will be punished to the very limit of the law. And any accusers found to be deliberately dishonest will be similarily punished.’

    Sounds suspiciously like due process but also a lot of work for Finlayson to oversee, the outcomes of which are hard to predict, and not something he was too bothered about investing himself in. Having something like this drag into an election year? No wonder they weren’t keen.

    Labour should be making hay out of this; women swung strongly to the NATs the last time around thanks to the PR image of Gentle John.

  4. Marty G 4
    12 August 2010 at 12:56 am

    raising the floodgates argument is an admission by Finlayson that these womened were wronged. He just doesn’t want to pay,

  5. Treetop 5
    13 August 2010 at 1:23 pm

    OMG stop and think. Dame Bazley’s inquiry excluded Louise Nicholas and Judith Garretts complaint from being part of her inquiry into police conduct.

    Just last week The head of the IPCA Justice Goddard was critised for allowing too many decisions to go against the police.

    Cops who look the other way when one of their own are crossing the line are as bad as people who look the other way when a child is being sexually, physically or psychologically abused.

    Sexual assault always leaves its presence known. If a person dissociates (this is a symptom of PTSD) and another major trauma occurs (some times years down the track), believe me when I say, full blowen PTSD can be triggered.

  6. Ari 6
    14 August 2010 at 1:19 am

    I still maintain compensation is useless when it is given instead of accountability for the person responsible.

Links to post