MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Sentencing Trust a Misandrist Organisation

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 3:15 pm Thu 12th July 2012

I’m interested in others’ thoughts on this. I say It’s time we officially recognize the so-called ‘Sensible’ Sentencing Trust as an anti-male group. Garth McVicker will become another nominee for the 2012 Miss Andry Male Bashing Award.

McVicker’s latest campaign is to reduce or remove the right to silence, following the Scott Guy homicide case in which his brother-in-law chose not to speak and was found not guilty. In a Radio NZ interview on Monday (find it here) McVicker spoke positively about recent changes in England allowing judges to treat silence as evidence of guilt.

As usual, McVicker failed to acknowledge that such changes designed to increase convictions would impact equally on the truly guilty and the truly innocent. Convicting and punishing an innocent person has always been seen as a worse injustice than failing to convict a guilty person, but the Sentencing Trust policies would tend to increase wrongful conviction and punishment and pay lip service at best to any concern about this. For McVicker and his group, all accused are assumed to be guilty and any findings of ‘not guilty’ show that defendants have too many rights.

Of course, the Sentencing Trust’s proposed changes will apply to both men and women. However, men are more likely to be charged with crimes so we really do need to be vigilant about any change that makes convictions easier to achieve in the absence of better evidence. That men may actually commit more such crimes is irrelevant to the importance of protecting innocent defendants. And the pussy pass contributes to some extent to the gender difference, women being much less likely to be charged for misbehaviour. For example, in domestic disputes if both parties have committed violence against each other and even when the female initiated that violence, the man is usually the only one charged.

Further, McVickers’ Sentencing Trust seems to show much more interest in women than men. He routinely gallops to the side of grieving or aggrieved people from high-profile cases and turns them into his Trust’s poster models, more often females who of course will be more effective in attracting empathy. McVicker has now announced plans to conduct his own investigation into the Scott Guy murder, apparently hoping to expose the defendant-favouring factors from the police detective work through to the trial process. Well, we have seldom heard anything sensible from the Sentencing Trust but this latest dragon-slaying quest suggests it may be flying further into the realm of fantastic delusions of grandeur.

In Monday’s interview McVicker also made it clear that his Trust supported the removal of the partial defence of provocation in murder prosecutions. Men are more often charged with murder so will be more impacted. Also, the pussy pass applies at all stages so female killers are more likely to be charged initially only with manslaughter or to have provocation recognized in reduced sentences when murder is proven. I have seen no indication that men are being given the kind of discount for provocation that they would previously have received under the partial defence law, even in this crime of passion in the news yesterday in which a man killed a friend who had repaid his extensive generosity by having sex with his wife while he was away, indeed was claimed (initially by the lying wife) to have raped her.

Other threats to justice for accused parties include the Trust’s previous calls for juries under certain circumstances to be informed about a defendant’s previous convictions. This witch-hunting idea would make it simple for police to pin crimes on previous offenders knowing they are highly likely to be found guilty on the strength of their past behaviour rather than the strength of evidence they have actually committed the present offence.

The Sentencing Trust also:
– called for increased removal of children from their parents even for minor issues and no proven harm;
– follows the silly habit of labelling ‘victims’ and ‘offenders’ in domestic cases when it is rare for either party not to be both a victim and an offender in all respects;
– supports the sexual abuse industry with no concern for those falsely accused; and
– to my knowledge has never focused its lynch-mob demands on any female offender, defendant or false accuser; for example, why has it not challenged the consistently shorter sentences given to women than men for the same crimes, the rarity with which any female murderer ever gets more than the standard 10-year minimum sentence even for prolonged, cruel or sadistic murders while men almost always get more than 10 years minimum even for quick, relatively humane murders.

McVicker’s Sentencing Trust constantly lobbies in directions that would see mainly men treated less fairly and more harshly. Its ideas are based largely on slogans and shallow reasoning with general disregard for the criminological research. Perhaps unintentionally it has become another misandrist force in our society. Unless and until it shows some concern for falsely accused men and tries to counter the disproportional gender impact of its policies and statements, it deserves to be seen as part of NZ’s misandrist network.


  1. He gets my vote for being brain dead.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 12th July 2012 @ 4:39 pm

  2. McVicker is a classic White Knight betrayer of men.

    He was all over the student guy who murdered his gf at Otago, and the defense of provocation was overturned literally overnight, but only a month before an Auckland prostitute murdered her boyfriend in a similar manner (ie multiple stabbing with jealousy as motive) and there wasn’t a squeak out of him. She got 10 years, the student guy got 17 – and we all know she’ll be out in much less than that, and released quietly while the media looks the other way, whereas the guy will get hounded till his dying day.

    Comment by rc — Thu 12th July 2012 @ 6:05 pm

  3. Hi, reading all this has confirmed my realization that I have no hope. My wife hates me and I hate her, and from the above I know right or wrong I have no hope of a fair deal in a divorce. I think there is no purpose of putting up a fight, as it’s better my teenage kids get on without me and the bickering here at home. I don’t know where to go, or who to see…. whats the purpose, when one is in the wrong no matter what. Men have gone through so many stages here in NZ, as a result of being discriminated against. They stopped having real marriages and went de-facto, now the law has caught up with men and nails them even in de-facto relationships… so men go gay looking for love and comfort, and that has so many hooks it’s not worth it…. so where to next?

    Comment by Bertie — Thu 12th July 2012 @ 7:09 pm

  4. #3..stay single bertie and buy whores..cheaper than a wife and you dont have to tell them to fuck off..they leave and dont play hgames

    Comment by Ford — Thu 12th July 2012 @ 9:48 pm

  5. The basic platform of Westminister law is Innocent until proven guilty, The right to remain silent, a case against an accused person MUST be proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT!

    The parallel principal is no accused person has to prove their innocence. These foundations date back to King John and the Magna Carte.

    Is McVicar attempting to undo 800 years of legal process? I suggest he is on perilous ground!

    Comment by Gwaihir — Fri 13th July 2012 @ 10:27 am

  6. Hi Gwaihir,
    Obviously you know nothing about our Domestic Violence legislation then.
    Without Notice application and an order is granted.
    After that every copper in the Country can arrest on complaint or sight, must hold you overnight, take you before Copurt in the morning or on Monday morning (assuming it is not a holiday) if it happens on a weekend.
    A charge of Breach of Protection Order is virtually impossible to defend.
    For example, she and you happen to be at the same supermarket then you are guilty. You respond to an e-mail from her and you are guilty. She calls you and you ask her to cease the call and then hang up on her and you are guilty for speaking to her. You toot at your kids as you drive past them coming home from school and you are guilty.
    All under our so called “Westminister” system.
    Doesn’t matter about your silence or protestations of innocence it is her word as a victim against your word as a perpetrator of violence.
    I say under my breath (F**king B**ch) and whoops even though she didn’t hear what I didn’t say she still reads my vibe and makes a complaint and I’m in the pookey overnight and obtaining another charge for my trouble.

    Little wonder guys just head offshore and leave their kids!

    Comment by The Esteemed Order of Protection — Fri 13th July 2012 @ 12:33 pm

  7. Thank you The Esteemed Order of Protection. I was stating the theoretical position. I am totally aware of the reality.Even the so called “Place of Safety” warrant is a breach of these rights! At the insistence of the Refuge and their Sycophants Men are automatically guilty. The safest thing for you is walk away, preferably overseas, not Australia. (To close CS Links) Asia sounds good!

    Comment by Gwaihir — Fri 13th July 2012 @ 7:45 pm

  8. Jim Bagnall described our justice system as the “Axminster” system, under which inconvenient facts are swept under the carpet.

    Comment by John Brett — Mon 16th July 2012 @ 2:48 pm

  9. Hi Gwaihir and post #7,
    I have no idea what a “Place of Safety” warrant is but if you are talking Police Safety Orders then these are better than sliced bread. Yes it tramples all over a parents (read father) civil rights and everthing to do with “natural” justice BUT very few orders proceeding automatically to the Estemmed Order of Protection. One treats a man like s**t for up to 5 days the other for 3-5 months before matters reach family court. One allows for calming down, the other removes a father from his children for months at a time and then insists on supervision and potentially a lifetime of looking over his shoulder for the ever present blue army to enforce her whims and tantrums.
    I wondered what planet Union of Fathers were on when they supported that legislation but the reality on the ground has been very positive for blokes and their children. In Nelson the coppers even provide information to thoise they process with safety orders and refer chaps to a PC chap who provides a free bed for the night if needed (and it isn’t a cell).

    Comment by The esteemed Order of Protection — Mon 16th July 2012 @ 4:20 pm

  10. I Confused 2 Acts, I take it you are talking about Section 6a of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 my term comes from the Children Young Persons and their families act 1989 clause 39 Place of Safety Warrants. Both are equally horrific! The latter authorises effectively ANY (Singular) to obtain a warrant authorising break and entry to a premises.

    Should the Police order be used I also believe the combatants Should move to conciliation immediately.

    While you have the CYPF act out, have a read and see the almost draconian power a CYF social worker has, coupled with the majority of front line staff are not registered, that is they carry no evidence of any qualification!

    Comment by Gwaihir — Mon 16th July 2012 @ 5:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar