Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Grope and go to jail

Today we have stories about a couple of creeps who both need a good kick where it hurts most.

The first is the re-telling of an incident that has probably happened thousands of times to thousands of people. Unwanted sex after too much imbibing. Wouldn't a person with a shred of morality realise they had played a part in encouraging what was later to become a problem? She and Brooke has previously had consensual sex and she pursued him. Then her 'friend' decided to exploit the situation by extracting money from Brooke as some sort of compensation (or was it hush money?) So sorry. Robin Brooke is a creep. But the friend is an even bigger creep who should have been done for blackmail.

Then we have...drum roll... New Zealand's 'first striker'. Well this is a joke. Another first class creep who can't handle alcohol makes a drunken pass at his friend's missus. This astoundingly qualifies as a strike on the list of very bad crimes. There must be a lot of people ringing 111 these days getting the police to sort out their dysfunctional private lives.

Good lord. At this rate the prisons will be full of randy reprobates (gagging for a smoke). And we will all be much safer - not.

Update: The 'blackmailer' was in fact the friend so I have adjusted the post to reflect that.

6 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

Indecent assault is a serious crime. People with a history of violence when pissed should have the fact they were pissed treated as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.

Re Brooke, according to the article it was the witness who blackmailed him, not the victim. He can count himself lucky not to have got a jail term out of it. The creepiest thing in the story is that the NZRFU considers one of its players raping someone to be an incident best dealt with "internally."

Inventory2 said...

Lindsay - read down the sory a bit further, and you will find that Mercer was also convicted of assaulting his mother (while drunk), and at 32, has a 16-year history of offending (while drunk). If the first strike serves as a wake-up call to him to sort out his drinking, we will all be better for it.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

PM, Thank you for setting me right re the friend. That does put a different complexion on matters. But my overriding feeling is still that often a female encourages the very thing she later decides was unwanted. The pair had previously had consensual sex and she pursued him again. There is no excusing Brooke's behaviour but the friend's actions are also reprehensible.

And if indecent assault is a serious crime I wouldn't put a 'grope' in that category. It's an insult to victims of real violent crime. The term 'assault' has become increasingly broad. So broad is risks miscarriage of justice. That is already happening in the case of so-called 'assault' on children.

I realise the second creep has a history and he 'assaulted' his mother hence my comment about people ringing 111 to sort out their dysfunctional lives. If a grope is an assault who knows what he did to his mother. But I note his wife says "he is not a bad person".

The poster boys for the three strikes law were the likes of Graham Burton.

Inventory2 said...

With respect Lindsay, what would you expect his wife to say?

And let's not forget; the second and third strikes will only be an issue if and when Mercer reoffends. The first strike is a warning shot across his bows. It's up to him to make good choices now, knowing that there will be consequences if he doesn't. Is that a bad thing?

Inventory2 said...

Interesting point Milt. As I said in the post above, the first strike will only mean anything IF someone reoffends. I guess it's a bit like a first written warning in an employment situation. If you expose yourself to the risk of getting a second or final written warning by virute of having ignored the first one, it's probably well-deserved.

The first strike should definitely get the attention of anyone to whom it is dished out.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.