inquisitorial court system for sex and child abuse cases.

Very happy this is being considered, it would be nice to have a somewhat less victim on trial system for some cases.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10581348

V.good system.

Justice should be a hunt for the truth.

I didn't think that you were that concerned for the truth vadz.

There is evidence at all that this system is any better at reaching the truth than the tried and trusted adversarial system with a jury. Really, the inquisitorial system is a product of the French, with all their worship of professional elites over the rude empiricism of the Anglo-Saxons.

If you like the idea of handing over the administration of justice, and potentially your fate should you be unfortunate enough to be accused, to a high priest of a self-serving professional elite then fair enough. But I prefer to put my faith in a jury of my peers.

*There is NO evidence at all... Doh!

There is however something to be said for not putting the victim on trial when the accused can maintain silence.

And isn't the American system also somewhat more inquisitorial than ours?

I am glad it is being looked into and i reckon there is potential.

love that

full marks

Consider this scenario. You go to the pub one night and a bunch of girls are there on the prowl. Not unusual these days, as surveys indicate there has been a sea change in female attitude to casual sex, and frequently they like try before they buy bolstered by alcohol. So you pick up, or get picked up, by one of these girls and she decides (for whatever reason) to have a "wake and scream" moment.

You end up in court.

-NOW-

Would you prefer to have your case heard by a sixty year old judge whose last experience of the dating/mating game was around 1978, when women were considerably more demure, or a jury of people drawn from the community you come from?

Judges are just lawyers. Old lawyers. They will bring the attitudes of their youth to the proceedings in an entirely arbitrary way and I am unconvinced that will be any better - and it possibly will be considerably worse given that the inquisitorial system is reliant on an individual who may be completely out of touch with the modern world - than our current system.

An old lawyer will likely be more inclined to look for facts rather than the emotional lottery we sometimes get with juries in the current system.

I also imagine they would put specialist judges in such positions.

If i was accused of something then yeah i would probably prefer the current system as it is likely there is less chance of being convicted, but it also would mean you would be less likely to be cleared in the public eye because few have any confidence in the system. If it was a friend of mine who was attacked then i would hesitate to recommend a complaint under the present system. The victim is often revictimised and the lottery of juries and the emotive and difficult nature of the type of cases means a whole lot of hurt for very little chance of a conviction.

That said, i believe there should be much larger penalties for false complaints.

As i said earlier, im not convinced that any system will be perfect but the current one is far from perfect and looking at ways to improve it is aworthwhile step.

Fishy

You are confusing the philosophy with the personnel involved

Would you rather have a case wherein the process involves a hunt for truth, or one wherein the process involves each side fighting its corner as hard as it can?

Also - video links for sentencing so the crime doesnt need to be transported to court just to be sentenced.

seems like a smart idea to me.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10582761

Juror: system lets us down badly

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/2585906/Juror-system-lets-us-down-badly

I'd trust a judge over a jury any day. Very glad they are looking at bringing in inquisitorial style proceedings, especially for sex cases where the conviction rate is so low. But I doubt we will see a complete overhaul of the adversarial system.

You do know why they brought in juries, right?

You're in England - go study it.

I'm also glad they are looking at shifting the system in cases of sexual violence. About fucking time, the conviction rate for sexual violence cases are shocking.

While Judges are not perfect, at least they hopefully have some preexisting knowledge about the nature of sexual crimes unlike most of the general public hopefully allowing for a less-traumatic process for rape/sexual abuse complainants.

Consider this scenario Fishy: You are a 15 year old girl who after counselling has finally reported being raped by her uncle in her family home. After going through the process of reporting, giving multiple statements to the cops, being examined by a doctor for sexual abuse care, and being shunned/disbelieved by members of your own family...

You go to court to be torn apart by the defense counsel with totally irrelevant information about your private life, which will hopefully sway the jury into thinking that you are a lying vengeful little girl rather than a victim whose behaviour is actually very typical of someone who has experienced sexual abuse/violation.

Neither system will be perfect but I know which one I would prefer.

Pull your head in. Remind yourself of what makes up the majority of sexual violence cases in NZ: Children, with the accused offenders often being from within the family.

Thing is though, there are people who lie about these things, so it is not always 'irrelevant'.

In the Family Court, sometimes parents will actually concoct stories about sexual abuse so that they are in a position of strength when it comes to determining care arrangements.

Granted there are cases when a mother will merely be trying to find a way to rationalise their kid's sexual/sexualised behaviour, and sexual abuse allegations against the father will be made as a result, but there also seem to be situations where parents will completely concoct and fabricate stories which point towards some kind of abuse having taken place, when it is not the case at all.

I don't believe the Family Court involves a jury either Codpiece, rendering your example somewhat irrelevant.

In the background of sexual abuse, which is what we are discussing here, not the self destruction of the family unit, S_Y's example is FAR more prevalant. Should we disadvantage the majority in favour of the unlikely?

many family court cases directly involve issues of sexual abuse. when it comes to testing those allegations in court, there is usually rigorous cross examination of the person making the allegations and any other relevant witnesses (altho not the child). the family court is not jury based though as you say. and it is an inquisitorial process.

i would be interested in stats on the number of sexual abuse claims made in family court as opposed to criminal proceedings.

when those claims are made in the family court, cyf are nearly always involved in some capacity, and there can be parallel criminal proceedings.

i've also known of cases where a parent has influenced a child so much that the child makes up stories about sexual abuse.

but yes, it is a very difficult issue.