Open mike 28/12/2024

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 28th, 2024 - 18 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

18 comments on “Open mike 28/12/2024 ”

  1. Tony Veitch 1
    28 December 2024 at 6:12 am

    An interesting situation in the Luigi Mangioni / CEO of HealthCare killing: the State could have a hard case finding a truly impartial jury and if they manage to, that jury could find Mangioni not guilty!

    They could say, as a jury, “We know he did it, but we’re okay with that!” [4.30mins long]

    Which could open up a real can of worms for the Justice system in the States and have all the billionaires/CEOs wearing extra (and hopefully, uncomfortable) protection!

    Reply
    • adam 1.1
      28 December 2024 at 9:11 pm

      They are already crying in their milk and getting hand outs

      Reply
    • mikesh 1.2
      28 December 2024 at 9:37 pm

      They would have to find him not guilty by dint of extreme provocaztion or something. The jury saying they were OK with murder wouldn't really work. I'm pretty sure the judge will want to impose the maximum penalty to deter other similar crimes; and to protect CEO’s.

      Reply
      • Descendant Of Smith 1.2.1
        29 December 2024 at 10:58 am

        Scare mongering by the right who are trying to suggest the public has no commonsense and that the right to juries should be diminished.

        Just part of a continuing attack on democratic rights.

        The fact is it is up to the prosecutors to build a case and provide evidence – guilty people going free because of insufficient evidence or a poor case or falsifying evidence or omitting evidence is fine by me. The alternative as we have seen in many countries is large numbers of innocent people going to jail.

        Alwyn draws a rather long bow as does those in the video – particularly after Trump has recently been found guilty by a jury of 34 felony charges. Sigghh if only we had our paternalistic (I'm sorted landlord class) betters to make decisions for us like it was in the 1600's.

        He probably would have been found not guilty by a jury either.

        Reply
    • Jenny 1.3
      28 December 2024 at 11:23 pm

      '

      The little parliament

      Could Luigi Mangione walk free?

      Strangely enough, it is legally possible.

      The use of the US Presidential pardon, can't be questioned. Less well known, outside legal circles, is that the Little Parliament also have the right to exercise clemency.

      Big Parliament

      President Obama pardoned US Army Intelligence Analyst, Chelsea Manning convicted of exposing US war crimes in Iraq.

      President Trump pardoned US Navy Seal, Eddie Gallagher convicted of committing war crimes in Iraq.

      And President Biden has issued pardons for more than 8,000 Americans

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/claims-biden-number-pardons-commutations-183353196.html?

      ……Biden has issued more than 8,000 pardons and commutations since taking office in 2021, more than four times the number granted by President Barack Obama, and about 34 times more than President Donald Trump issued.

      The legal US Presidential right to exercise clemency, is a legal right that also belongs to juries, and is in fact enshrined in precedent and law, in most democracies, including New Zealand.

      Urewera decision fans the flame

      …..“the ancient institution of trial by jury” brings a democratic element to court proceedings that makes it “the best forum for the trial of almost all serious criminal cases in New Zealand”.

      In his covering note to ministers, Law Commission president Justice David Baragwanath noted, “The virtual absence of criticism of the conduct of juries, in even the most controversial cases, is striking.

      “The essentially anonymous verdict of ordinary citizens chosen at random give to the process the legitimacy of total independence; they are indeed the ‘little parliament’ to which community decision making is delegated.”

      In the report, the commission underlines that “the core value underlying the functions of the jury is its democratic nature”.

      ……to a layman, brought up on the sanctity of the jury system as one of the bedrocks of our liberty and our democratic system,….

      “the lamp that shows that freedom lives” and “the bulwark of liberty.”

      “……trial by jury is vigorously defended as an ancient right, a bastion of liberty, and a means whereby the ordinary person’s common sense views can inform decisions and contain the powers of government.

      This article points out the significance and importance of jury trials in many history making, political cases. Soldiers and civil servants who have gone public to oppose the government, leafleteers against the Monarchy, anti- nuclear protesters who damaged jet bombers and missile silos.

      One of the first and most significant of these political cases which established the primacy of jury verdicts in law, was the 1670 Bushell case where the jury gave a verdict strongly opposed by the presiding judge.

      Twelve jurymen refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead of seditious assembly. The judge responded by locking them up for two nights without food, water, fire, tobacco, or chamber pot. When this failed to force them to retract their not guilty verdict, the jurors were sentenced to prison until they paid a fine. Four of the jurors, led by Bushell, refused to pay the fine and challenged their incarceration by writ of habeas corpus. The Lord Chief Justice released them in a landmark decision establishing the jury as the sole judgement of fact. The jury could give a decision according to its conscience, and jurors could not be penalised for taking a view of the facts which was at odds with the judge.

      It is under the principles established in Bushell that the jury has been acclaimed as “the lamp that shows that freedom lives” and “the bulwark of liberty.”

      The right of a jury to exercise judgement according to conscience continued to generate controversy over the next three centuries as juries continued to acquit with impunity even though the law and the evidence clearly indicated the defendant’s guilt.

      Waihopai three walk free

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3468003/Waihopai-three-walk-free

      Reply
      • alwyn 1.3.1
        29 December 2024 at 10:43 am

        Back in January 2016 Trump, while campaigning in Iowa said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

        He probably would have been found not guilty by a jury either. I'm in favour of the right of a jury to make a decision being final but it would probably mean that someone like Trump would benefit as well.

        Reply
  2. Stephen D 2
    28 December 2024 at 7:57 am

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/27/centre-right-extremism-the-west-moderates-populist?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Although very Eurocentric this does describe the situation our current government is in quite well.

    “It was once known as the “centre right”, and this was the year it definitively perished. It never had a coherent political philosophy, but it tended to blend deference to the perceived needs of large business interests, the championing of so-called traditional values that were actually longstanding prejudices, and admiration for established institutions. Above all else, it supposedly offered a cordon sanitaire, preventing anything further to the right from acquiring political legitimacy”

    Reply
  3. Sanctuary 3
    28 December 2024 at 9:43 am

    Vivek Ramaswamy seems to think migrants lecturing the MAGA locals on how how lazy they all are is a winning strategy? Wow.

    Reply
  4. georgecom 4
    28 December 2024 at 8:18 pm

    a 12 year old kid arrested and had his boxing club t-shirt confiscated because it looked like a black power t-shirt. mark mitchell, getting tough on 12 year olds

    Reply
    • adam 4.1
      28 December 2024 at 9:14 pm

      Says a lot about the deep seated lack of real human engagement of the minister, that attacks 12 year olds make him feel tough.

      Maybe he should just have a laugh at being tough like the rest of us…

      Reply
    • thinker 4.2
      28 December 2024 at 10:46 pm

      A nice, safe pick up. They've let the kid off but don't admit to a mistake AFAIK so he will still be a notch on someone's truncheon and another piece of fried egg on the police commissioner's cap.

      The tv showed the Labour police spokesperson but the office of the Minister said it was an operational matter. I can't see that. Surely, it's about the legislation, whether the cops got it wrong and if they didn't then did the government draft the legislation wrong. Or, Heaven forbid, is picking up 12 year olds with no gang connections part of the strategy?

      Reply
      • georgecom 4.2.1
        29 December 2024 at 12:10 pm

        if nothing else it shows how dumb the policy is when it comes downs to operationalising it. I am sure people in Auckland were thrilled police were having to spend their time taking a t-shirt off a 12 year old rather than deal with ram raids, drink drivers, burglary, assaults etc

        Reply

Leave a Comment