Sex offender earns deportation reprieve..

Today's NZ Herald...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10497370

Without going into the overstayer/criminal aspect of this all... I wonder why, in this entire saga, no-one has asked the wife why she would fight for her husband to stay after he had sex with an underage girl. Twice in fact.

What kind of person would stay with someone in this situation?

R

the sort that perhaps takes their marriage vows seriously perhaps

"for better, for worse"

these threads really belong in the lounge Rob - I'm sure a lynch mob is more likley to form there

Very seriously indeed.

I imagine some level of delusion on her part is involved.

I really don't see why marriage can be such a powerful weapon against deportation - if one person has to be somewhere and the other loves them, then they'll move with them. This case seems to have been decided on the fact that his wife doesn't like the heat on Tonga???

R

probably more the kids Rob... didnt they need medical stuff that wasnt available there.

No. that was the 2nd case in the article, the Samoan guy.

I just wonder what kind of disadvantage you're at in immigration matters simply because you're not married.

R

I'll get it going here first

flog hang castrate

As I've said before, not every "hanging judge" is necessarily emotive.
In fact it's often the bleeding lefties who vote with their heart not their head

There is no reference in the article about his offending and I must say 18 months home d is a pretty light sentence for 2 counts of sexual violation of a 14 year old...perhaps there were strong mitigating factors?

As to why the wife is standing by him, who knows, who cares?

The decision of the Tribunal appears to have been based on the hardship that would be caused to the wife and their 5 NZ born children if he was deported. It didn't extend any leniency to him but rather considered the plight of his family who are innocent in all this. Makes sense to me....

Wait a second.

You can't say the family is innocent and then say that environment is a mitigating factor in youth crime, BG.

Either environment matters, or it doesn't. If it does matter, then the family are not entirely innocent as they have created an environment that facilitates his offending.

Personally I'm sick of reading about immigrants/assylum seekers/overstayers committing crimes here and being allowed to stay, we should be sending them home.
If they really want to be here they should be good contributing citizens to NZ, if they can't be then they forfeit their rights to citizenship, residencey etc

best stop reading threads like this and the NZ Herald then Brit

because people comit crimes... and sometimes if a immigrant they get sent packing and sometimes not as are the laws of our land

weird huh

"The tribunal was also told ... he had a steady job with the support of his employer.
Because there was such a low risk of reoffending, the tribunal said it would not be contrary to the public interest to let him stay."



Conveniently enough, the Herald choose to report these very significant pieces of information right at the very bottom of their article.

Shame on you bloody lynch mob loonies.

What do you mean by the "environment"? Do you mean the immediate family?

don't forget this is biggie, wouldn't be biggie without weekly immigrant-bashing thread!!

Yep. If some guy was brought up in a shitty environment and was a burglar you'd say the environment at home had an effect. So in this case, his family isn't innocent either.

actually that's a fair call there vad-d

I really don't know what this means in NZ. Jailed offenders who have been paroled in NZ are something like five times as likely to be convicted of a further crime than people who haven't.

Anyway, a point I was trying make is: if you get convicted of a crime (in this case, two occurrences) you seem to get more lenient treatment if you are married with children than if you are unmarried.

Say a guy is in the same situation but is engaged to get married... Judge says: Outski on the next plane buddy. Who gives a crap if your bride doesn't like the heat in x.

Honeslty, this isn't an anti migrant thing at all, but a pro-law abiding thing. It's too easy to point the finger and say "migrant basher". If it was someone at your work or your friend was the victim you'd be positively sick about it.

But would you cut the offender some slack because he had five kids? I doubt it very much.

He has given up every right to live in NZ imo.

R

Of course I would say that the environment at home had an effect on a youth becoming an offender. There are many factors which lead to crime, family-related, socio-economic, etc etc. But those are factors which may have been in part causative of the offending, they are not mitigating factors.

We have had this discussion before. Mitigating factors are not the same as factors which may be causative of or explanatory of a crime, though there can be overlap.

If what you're trying to get at is my readiness to point to the family unit as an important causative factor of youth crime and some perceived inconsistency in doing that and not pointing to the family unit in instances of adult crime, then I say there is no inconsistency at all. Youth and adult offenders are quite different and different causative factors operate for each, though there is overlap obviously. But parents have a legal responsibility for and guardianship of their kids whilst they are children and young people, so when I hear that some 14 year old threw a rock of a motorway overbridge after 10pm at night I ask "where were the mother and father?" If the same act was done by a 40 year old, I wouldn't ask that question. Can you not see the logic in that?

So if a 40yo paedophile was subjected to sexual abuse from age say 5-12 by his father, would you not blame the familyt environment?

Not blame entirely. I would think the family environment (ie father) was partly causative of the offending and that is a factor that would be taken into account, not as a mitigating factor but a personal circumstance of the offender which might explain, to some extent, why he engaged in the offending.

Not sure why i should stop reading papers or participating in threads, I always thought it was healthy for people to have their own views and be able to express them, as it leads to healthy debate.

Agreed people do commit crimes, and some get to stay and some get thrown out.
However, there should be some expectations of behaviour in granting citizenship.