Corrections Policy Called Corrupt
A men’s group has labelled a new policy announced this week by Corrections Minister Louise Upston as “corrupt”. The new policy aims to reduce the likelihood that female criminals will be sent to prison.
Spokesman Kerry Bevin for community group The Ministry of Men’s Affairs said the policy was an abandonment of the principle of equal justice for all under the law.
Under the policy, probation officers will be required to provide pre-sentence reports that show more understanding for female offenders and their circumstances, to reduce female imprisonment rates.
“Male offenders will not get the same understanding or compassion” Mr Bevin said.
He was appalled at the claim that women are more important than men in New Zealand families, one of the reasons Ms Upston offered for the new gender policy.
Mr Bevin also disputed the notion that discrimination favouring female criminals would achieve any outcome of reduced female offending. Instead, he predicted it would have the opposite effect of encouraging female crime.
Previous New Zealand research showed that women received lighter sentences than men for the same crimes.
“This increase of gender inequality in our justice system reflects a callous disregard for the rights and welfare of men and their children. While men have been imprisoned in increasing numbers for longer durations under this National government, Ms Upston now seeks to protect women from that same punishment.”
Mr Bevin announced that the Ministry of Men’s Affairs intends to take a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, describing the Upston policy as a breach of New Zealand’s commitments under the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.
It is a joke.
Corrections under Ann Tolley were going to reduce re-offending by 25% as part of the better public service initiative. We have more in prisons than ever. Women make up a small percentage of the muster and so they seek to target that group and just don’t care that NZ penal policy locks up Maori, Pacfifc Islanders, new NZers, and young men. Corrections is about male imprisonment and unless they address that then they should be voted out of office.
Comment by allan harvey — Thu 31st August 2017 @ 6:37 pm
I ma glad it is not only me who feels confused by this women first at any cost modern times.
I am under temporary protection order. The other day we were supposed to have court hearing . Me self represented, the woman aslo self represented .The Judge adjourned the hearing becasue ” quote – The victim, pointing to teh woman , will be under unnecessary stress wwhen i will have to cross examin her . The woman said it is Ok but no the Judge said it id not OK .
I was to giver the Judge my cross examination quiestions , so if the Judge finds them innapropriate , The Judge can ban them but no , she can cross examine me but I am not allowed to cross examine her .
Comment by George — Thu 31st August 2017 @ 10:57 pm
It is incredible to see how politicians dish up such crap and sell it as a free rock concert and everyone should stand up with a 5 minute non stop applause.
When will the deception and deceit stop!!!! Even a halfwit can see through this one.
My questions to the minister are;
1. Has there been any consideration to the victims of crime that woman have done?
2. Will the programs put forward by Louise Upston be offered to the men in prison?
3. How many male voters have decided to change to a third party like Winston Peters NZ First Party, Gareth Morgans TOP party?
I think Louise Upston has slipped into such delusion beyond rational argument it simply beggars disbelief.
And for the senior party members who worry about not being team players – Grow a pair and stand up.
The deepest concern I have is that anyone could hold such a view and manage to get themselves into position to decide the fate of just so many others.
I urge the National Party members to put this double talking foolish nutter back in her place or cut her lose before she takes you down with her.
Comment by Lukenz — Thu 31st August 2017 @ 11:15 pm
#2 above. Kia ora George, welcome to the amendments to the Evidence Act. You have an order against you and are the respondent in a DV matter thus perpetrator. She is the applicant thus victim. Perpetrators are not allowed to cross-examine victims, that is the new rules.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 1st September 2017 @ 5:01 pm
It’s undesirable for justice to call either applicants or complainants ‘victims’ until it has been established that any victimization has occurred. Beyond reasonable doubt is the only acceptable standard for making that finding. When the word ‘victim’ is used for a without-notice temporary protection order in which no evidence beyond allegation is likely to have been produced, this is ridiculous and a grave corruption of anything that could be called justice.
Not allowing an accused to cross-examine his accuser is simply a further development of the same kind of unjust thinking in the service of female special treatment. Aside from anything else it requires lawyers to be paid large amounts to represent an accused who nevertheless can have no hope of receiving fairness or justice through the process.
I would encourage any man subject to terms such as ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ associated with protection orders, especially without-notice ones, clearly and firmly.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 1st September 2017 @ 7:08 pm
Thank you for noticing my post.
Some days I think why i feel outraged by all of these unfair treatment , I am man so i should just accept the applicant ( woman ) feelings and be done with that instead of fighting back . By the way the allegaitions are only of emotional abuse without and I mean without any proof, believe or not.
Some days I feel mad how can a Court / system allow unsubstantiated claims to be brought up against me .
Why I am fighting tooth a and the nail . I am slowly resigning my self to my fate .
By the way, the applicant , my e3x applied for PO the very first day she saw me with my new girl friend dancing and smiling . I hate injusticies . If I had offended her or did anything untoward I would gladly accept the the punishment . I did not and I ma having a problem becasue of that
Comment by George — Fri 1st September 2017 @ 7:48 pm
Sorry, I accidentally erased some of my last sentence in reply #5. It should have read “I would encourage any man subject to terms such as ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ associated with protection orders, especially without-notice ones, to challenge the accuracy of that terminology clearly and firmly in Court. You will be ignored and possibly persecuted but at least the truth will be heard.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 2nd September 2017 @ 9:07 am
Like your last sentence ” You will be ignored and possibly persecuted but at least the truth will be heard ”
does anyone have experience with trying to ask the Court for psychological assessment of the woman applicant ?
thanks
Comment by George — Sat 2nd September 2017 @ 11:31 am
8, Hang in there George, She is undiagnosed, asking for assesment by the courts probably won’t help. If you know of people that are willing to give you a letter that questions her mental condition, they would need to take it to a JP for verification then you could submit the letter to the courts. It might help. Its up to the judge to consider if she is a ‘secure witness’.
She is a crazy bitch.. probably BPD,NPD or HPD. But this doesn’t mean she is not a secure witness.
You can also do some homework and find out more about which disorder you are up against,researching this stuff will also help you recognise and avoid these nutters in future.
By suggesting in your defence her behavior is typical- “gaslighting” or “projecting” etc (terms that shrinks use) you can drop the hint. But don’t push it because courts consider anything beyond that to be offensive.
Remember they are only there to consider what they can blame you for, dont feed them.
Courts don’t question Mental health of witnesses,(complaintants). Why would they cut off the lawyers most valuble scource of bread and butter?
A few of us know what your going through here mate, we know its frustrating, the best you can do is prepare your questions for the Judge to ask her as well as you can, Make sure its submitted on time to the court registra.
Try and stay positive, Defend everything! Don’t give up!
Comment by voices back from the bush — Sat 2nd September 2017 @ 1:00 pm
Thank you for the friendly and comforting letter. I ma still thinking should I hire a lawyer or go my self . If I go my self , the cross examination will loose its edge because the Court appointed lawyer will not be well acquainted with the details it shows she is lying.
Does anyone has experience with the Court appointed lawyer just to ask her my questions during the cross examination. How motivated are they ?
Comment by George — Sat 2nd September 2017 @ 5:54 pm
George #10: Unfortunately the ‘Lawyer for Child’ and any ‘Lawyer to Support the Court’ usually end up being extra Lawyers for Mummy. However, if you can’t ask questions without using a lawyer then it would be better to use one, but insist that the core questions are worked out with you and asked exactly as agreed. And ask for enough preparation time with that lawyer, explaining that the case is especially complex.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 3rd September 2017 @ 10:02 pm
Thank you for the reply .Hmmmm, I think I shall sacrifice $ 4000 and pay a real lawyer . Altough there were no physical/sexual abuses ( only emotional) absolutely fake by the way , I still think i shall not be able to discharge the temporary protection ordre against me . that is my gut feeling
Comment by George — Mon 4th September 2017 @ 8:12 pm
I would like to invite an exxperinced person from this forum to join me for alunch as I would like personaly to clarify few details about my forthcoming cPO court hearing
My dilema is to pay $ 4000 for a lawyer than can at its best obtaion only legal undertaking not to contact etc the applicant or to go my self witha court appointed lawyer who can cross examine the applicant on my quetsions
Thank you
George 022 153 7591
Comment by George — Mon 4th September 2017 @ 9:56 pm
and I can ask my self for legal undretakings
Comment by George — Mon 4th September 2017 @ 10:01 pm
Here’s a case of a violent woman found guilty of murder. You might notice her apparent level of remorse in her expression on the photo presumably taken in Court. Far from remorse or responsibility for her violence, she through her lawyer blamed it on anything apart from herself: alcohol, her drink must have been spiked, she was in an automaton state.
We await the pussy pass of something close to the minimum possible sentence despite the facts that the stabbing was deep into the face then pulled back out, would always have been seriously disfiguring if it had not been fatal, and she left her victim to die without making any effort to help or to call for help.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 10th September 2017 @ 10:45 am
@15
she was in an automatisic state?
or
she was in an automaton state on the day?
Comment by Downunder — Sun 10th September 2017 @ 11:13 am
Actually, an automatous state would be correct but we’re sure the meaning was clear, probably clearer by using the term ‘automaton state’ than the word ‘automatous state’ the meaning of which might not be as instantly recognizable for some people.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 10th September 2017 @ 1:13 pm
Quantum physics in action agian.
This offender had 17 convictions for violence and threats agianst the victim who is now dead.
The offender originally lied to police.
Made the cliam that the push that caused the death was in self defence.
The 17.43 month prison term was changed to 11 months home detention. (New ‘discounted’ value of a man)
The internets version of a chocolate fish for anybody that can guess the gender of the offender.
This Corrections policy seems to be working.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/97772827/from-push-to-conviction-how-susan-mouat-was-sentenced-for-her-husbands-death-six-years-later
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 13th October 2017 @ 9:16 pm
I wish to thank you everyone who supported me through my temporary PO terrible time. The ordre had been discharged the very first moment whne I belive the Judge took my comments about the Applicant mental condition, due to the fact she entered the Court room with a 10 years old boy as a support.
That boy should have been at school instead of being in Court listening to not very pleasant adult conversations . Can you believe that? 10 years old boy asa support.
I believe that was a crucial moment for the PO to be discharged.
now the woman is engaged ina vicious smear campaign gainst the court and me. Will prepare my own application for PO against her.I will do that definetely
Again thank you evryone. If someone is in the middle fo ongoing PO please conatct me I might help
Comment by George — Sat 14th October 2017 @ 2:37 pm