a teacher found guilty of assault can no longer be a teacher, why make it into something as convoluted as someone who falsely accuses someone of rape, a rare occurance indeed, and not actually acrime per se, where being found guilty a few times of assualt is a crime.

I agree with DRaco, people need to differentiate between being punished twice and the consequeences of the original choice or lack of judgment.

Playing for or representing your country is a privilege not a right. An organsation can put any restrictions/limitations it wants to. A person prevented from playing for the All Blacks is not prevented from earning their living as a rugby player, they simply cannot achieve or continue to have the highest honour

Stuart – as you’ve defended your use of trusts for your family home, it’s possibly of interest to know if the invite was to Stuart Nash MP or the trustees of the Stuart Nash Family trust?

If we’re going to support additional penalties for certain categories of offender for certain crimes then lets have a definitive list of all the offences that are affected, and of the additional penalites that apply.

This sort of ‘one sort of justice for some, another for others’ doesn’t seem to fit into the type of debate held here everytime a proper Law and Order discussion is held. In fact it’s very much the opposite.

Dot, perhaps enraged by the idea that anyone dare express admiration for toughie rugby players, was just getting onto a soapbox and engaging in a bit of verbal man-bashing. I only sought to suggest that there are other similar situations.

If we don’t think that the penalites imposed under the law for specific offences are sufficient then by all means let’s raise our voices to campaign for them to be increased. But it seems to me that whenever the topic of sentencing is considered the balance of opinion in this place is that only the ultra-right wing hangers and floggers think this is necessary or effective.

The only one notable difference seems to be when a certain type of left wing woman talks about a certain type of offence committed by a man on a woman. In that case nothing seems to be too great a penalty.

Okay – we all love the AB’s.

No, really, we don’t. Some of us couldn’t care less about the All Blacks. It is, after all, just a pointless game.

@ George:
They wouldn’t be being punished twice though. They would be just taking the natural consequences of their actions same as a drink driver who loses their driving license that’s needed for his job. Justice needs to be seen to be effective and hiding the criminals behind anonymity just helps the criminals and not society. An All Black who is found guilty of assault or rape etc, shouldn’t stay as an All Black. A teacher found guilty of a similar crime shouldn’t stay a teacher.

What Dot is saying is that a specific type of person (a rugby player) who is merely arrested for a specific offence (domestic violence), should suffer an additional punishment to any doled out by the court that is connected to his employment.

The thread was originally to do with the suitablilty of ABs as role models. In such circumstances an AB certainly wouldn’t be a suitable role model.

The analogy is that I asked whether another sort of person, found guilt of another sort of offence should also be punished twice – once by the court and then in terms of their employment prospects?

The specific employment I mentioned – teachers and social workers – are professions where we should reasonably expect practitioners to be role models to the young. Isn’t it the same sort of thing to suggest that (say) a young woman who makes a malicious and false allegation of rape against someone is held to be unsuitable as a role model and should therefore be ineligible for employment in these sectors?

George I dont think i get your analogy.

The majority of sexual assault(ers) don’t get charged and I’m pretty sure a majority charged, are found not guilty…not the same as a false charge laid of course.

And if being convicted of making false allegations of rape or assult automatically means a person cannot be employed in any role associated with children, such as teacher, social worker, perhaps?

Just to be equitable, of course.