• Full Story

Lawyer rejects petition to try Turangi accused as adult

Email
Print

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 5:51a.m.

Scene of the attack

Scene of the attack

A petition to have a 16-year-old sentenced as an adult has been criticised by a leading barrister.

A Turangi teen is charged with the rape and assault of a five-year-old girl in a holiday park, and petition organisers Citizens Against Violent Crimes say he needs to serve the maximum adult sentence.

Queen's counsel and spokesman for the Prison Reform Society Peter Williams: "There is no validity in such a petition. The rule of law must be consistent, and cannot be altered merely by public pressure."

Mr Williams says a Parliamentary bill would be the only way to charge the teen as an adult, and he doubts it will happen.

RadioLIVE

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

18 Jan 2012 03:58p.m.

Ross wrote:

Yehhhh? I'm having a Tui moment with this. Only a year ago the local Cops (Invercargill) made an attempt or at the least threatened my 16 yr old son with being tried (although still a minor) as an adult, in the district court. There's obviously a precident for them to do this. Happy to say my lad's case dissolved (due only in part to his total innocence I should add) This awful boy needs locked away for more than a very long time

18 Jan 2012 03:37p.m.

Gosh wrote:

Evil has no excuse, but is capable of creating many. If this criminal is 15 or 50 there is no justification.

18 Jan 2012 09:15a.m.

Dan wrote:

@ Phred: I would imagine most teens would recognize that raping a 5 year old is an unlawful act but that's hardly the point. The question is whether they can be held fully culpable for their actions and if so at what age precisely? We draw the line at 17 in New Zealand and of course one could argue why not 16? One could equally argue why not 18 since, as pondering points out, this is the age we can vote, join the army, obtain credit, drink alcohol and marry without parental consent.

18 Jan 2012 09:15a.m.

Dan wrote:

@ Phred: I would imagine most teens would recognize that raping a 5 year old is an unlawful act but that's hardly the point. The question is whether they can be held fully culpable for their actions and if so at what age precisely? We draw the line at 17 in New Zealand and of course one could argue why not 16? One could equally argue why not 18 since, as pondering points out, this is the age we can vote, join the army, obtain credit, drink alcohol and marry without parental consent.

18 Jan 2012 08:10a.m.

pondering wrote:

@ Phred: I was not suggesting youth offenders be excused their crimes due to lack of adult experience or wisdom. But that the laws of the land require to be consistent regarding age to ensure there is no loop holes or extenuating circumstances for offenders to weasel out of their crimes and punishments; further to that end that there is no convenient way for lawyers to make work for themselves with a lengthy vexatious appeal process . It is also vital that legislation not be constantly swayed and changed by a braying vocal minority of constantly widely swinging opinion. The law requires to be firm and consistent to remain fair.

17 Jan 2012 11:09p.m.

Phred wrote:

re Pondering thread - I wonder if Mr Williams states an age at which a youth should be old enough to understand that raping a five year old is unlawful? If the law has to 'remain consistant for it to be just', why does the law in NZ consistently favour criminals at the expense of victims. But then every crim out on the street again is possible, and frequently, future income for Mr Williams.

17 Jan 2012 02:16p.m.

pondering wrote:

As the very experienced Mr Williams says the "There is no validity in such a petition. "The rule of law must be consistent, and cannot be altered merely by public pressure." The braying masses must not be able to alter law at whim. The law does require for it to remain consistent for it to be just. The offender no matter how heinous his crime, is a youth. He does not have the full reasoning capacity of an adult . While that has no bearing on the trauma of the victim , it does have bearing on the offender's capacity to fully comprehend his actions as an adult would. This does not excuse or minimise his crime but it must be taken into account and a line on age has to be drawn. After all he is considered not old enough to handle alcohol consumption, signing legal contracts, joining the army, obtain credit, marrying with out parental consent. There can be no double standard for him to squirm out of in the appeal process. That is get off on a technicality. Him or other offenders of a young age.

17 Jan 2012 01:30p.m.

WHAT! wrote:

He needs to pay. He even smashed out her little teeth.

17 Jan 2012 11:58a.m.

Gosh wrote:

A sociopath to the tenth degree. This animal has forever forfeited his rights within society. When you are in the presence of a five year old and think of this person’s crime, there can only be one answer for him.

17 Jan 2012 10:18a.m.

Erm... wrote:

He committed an adult crime, so he should be punished as an adult. Society needs to be protected from scum like this.