NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I think the Pitcairn Island lawsuits have been much more interesting than the constant coverage of a certain election in which I cannot vote. The verdicts came back yesterday in the first lot of trials, there were guilty counts on 36 of the 51 charges.
What's so interesting is the argument they tried to run about not being subject to British law. Do you think that they should be still subject under Britain's laws?

And even if they are, do you think that the fact that the underage sex was just the way they did things, that it was customary is a justification?

I don't even know why the media even reports on that.

The island has a population of what....50?

49

Because it's fascinating and because they're direct descendants of the Bounty mutineers...I think the media only cares because of the mutiny thing :)

Oh yeah, it's got a cool history and all. But really. Theres plenty of other filler articles newspapers could use :p

England has this. America has a double murder trial that would normal never be known by more than a hundred or so people.

What I find interesting is that there were more charges laid than there are people on the island.

Well, you can be charged with 4 counts of assault, 3 counts of rape, etc, etc.

"more charges laid than there were people on the island"....


The charges were historical: the convictions to date involved more than one offence per offender.

As someone who is part Polynesian (NZ Maori), I find the selfserving plea of the accused men
(and indeed, sad collaboration from some of the women)
that this was something their ancestors agreed with,
utterly mad.
My ancestors ate people.
If I ever engaged in this practise, I wouldnt be so stupid as to run this as a line of defence.
Cheers, kia ora, The Far Strelso

As someone who is part Polynesian (NZ Maori), I find the selfserving plea of the accused men
(and indeed, sad collaboration from some of the women)
that this was something their ancestors agreed with,
utterly mad.
My ancestors ate people.
If I ever engaged in this practise, I wouldnt be so stupid as to run this as a line of defence.
Cheers, kia ora, The Far Strelso

It wasn't about ancestors, but that that is the way their culture works. That women accept that they will be subject to sex whether or not they want it and at a young age.

I abhor the idea of a cultural defence. They know it's not right, whether or not it is culturally accepted, to force oneself on a 12 year old girl...she doesn't even get the chance to consent because she doesn't believe she has the ability to say no precisely because it is the done thing.

England has this. America has a double murder trial that would normal never be known by more than a hundred or so people.

Psh, double murder. That's so passe.

Well, it involves more than just England and frankly, we get so much stuff from the States anyway that it's a nice reprieve to hear about things closer to home.

Psh, double murder. That's so passe.

Well, it involves more than just England and frankly, we get so much stuff from the States anyway that it's a nice reprieve to hear about things closer to home.

Well, it is considered a double murder because the woman was pregnant. But abortion is legal. Therefore, the American justice system is completely insane.

I found the case interesting myself, probably because I too am British and it provided a welcome breather from the Bush-Kerry election race. But there are a few facts I think must be considered. Firstly, the islands are under English - rather than British - law, and there is a distinction between the two, given that "British criminal law" simply does not exist.

Secondly, in English law, the ignorance of the law is no defence. It is not enough to say "I didn't know it was illegal" and be acquitted. This ratio follows the case of Bailey (1800) where the defendant committed an act whilst at sea but wasn't aware that the act had been made illegal during his absence. Therefore, the islanders' assertions that they didn't know (or that they rejected the fact that) they were governed by English law will not get them off.

Thirdly, an honest belief in a certain state of affairs does not act as a defence insofar as rape is concerned. It wouldn't be enough to say "I thought it was ok for me to rape girls/women because the law isn't very clear on that". It (loosely) follows Barrett v Barrett (1980) (which actually refers to murder as opposed to rape, but the same principle applies).

Finally, the implication that the rapes could have been "customary" suggests that the men could argue that they had a "right" to do what they did. In criminal law, a "claim of right" can serve as a defence, but not insofar as rape is concerned. But an important distinction can be made here: if the Pitcairn Islands had their own legal system and rape was legal, technically speaking, it wouldn't have been a problem. It is the fact that English law prevails that has caused such a sensation.

I think that the case symbolises something about human nature that can often be overlooked: we are "social" creatures and only feel bound by the rule of law when the threat of sanctions (prison/fines etc) and enforcement (police/army etc) is within reach. If not, it is within our nature to become laws unto ourselves; with varying consequences...

. Firstly, the islands are under English - rather than British - law, and there is a distinction between the two, given that "British criminal law" simply does not exist.

Sorry my bad, I have a habit of using those two words interchangeably...


Secondly, in English law, the ignorance of the law is no defence. It is not enough to say "I didn't know it was illegal" and be acquitted. This ratio follows the case of Bailey (1800) where the defendant committed an act whilst at sea but wasn't aware that the act had been made illegal during his absence. Therefore, the islanders' assertions that they didn't know (or that they rejected the fact that) they were governed by English law will not get them off.

Ah, well it's not so much that they didn't know it as that they actually had their own laws defining the age of consent. There was a possibility that if their 'law' applied, then the age of consent was 12, meaning consent rules would apply.


Finally, the implication that the rapes could have been "customary" suggests that the men could argue that they had a "right" to do what they did. In criminal law, a "claim of right" can serve as a defence, but not insofar as rape is concerned. But an important distinction can be made here: if the Pitcairn Islands had their own legal system and rape was legal, technically speaking, it wouldn't have been a problem. It is the fact that English law prevails that has caused such a sensation.

No, no I mean they could have raised the defence that what they did was right according to their culture and therefore should not be fully accountable to the contrary law. However, in R v Adesanya (an English case involving a Nigerian mother who gave her sons traditional scars), it was held that no such defence could exist. Though it can be applicable as mitigation in sentencing. Though it has been applied in some states of the US, nice ones where husbands get to kill their wives for adultery and get away with it... :rolleyes:



I think that the case symbolises something about human nature that can often be overlooked: we are "social" creatures and only feel bound by the rule of law when the threat of sanctions (prison/fines etc) and enforcement (police/army etc) is within reach. If not, it is within our nature to become laws unto ourselves; with varying consequences...

Good point. The whole Lord of the Flies scenario...

Though I also wonder that if the victims had never left the Islands, or had not gone to places and discovered that they did not have to be subjected to what they were, that it was unlawful, whether the actions of the men would ever have been brought to light. Is this really a case of us trying to civilise the barbarians???

I find the case interesting, but hear nothing here in the States. I would just about trade my left nut for a week without the media reporting on some BS trial, whether the person is guilty or not.

OJ, Kobe, Peterson, etc. It just never ends.

Well, it is considered a double murder because the woman was pregnant. But abortion is legal. Therefore, the American justice system is completely insane.

Ah well, you see England, and by extension New Zealand, as we did adopt the particular case, has already had their "can you murder/manslaughter a baby not yet born?" case. They had the Thalydomide babies.

Here in New Zealand, you can't be responsible for the death of the unborn child as they're not yet 'human beings' as defined by the Crimes Act and homicide can only be committed against human beings.

By the way, you'll find that the legality of abortion comes with many requirements.

But all justice systems are insane. :) Or atleast the justice systems that go for the adversarial style. Thanks England... ;)

49 inhabitants.. so if i move there, i only have to bribe 26 ppl to be elected dictator? Cool!! :D

49 inhabitants.. so if i move there, i only have to bribe 26 ppl to be elected dictator? Cool!! :D

You could probably quite easily. I doubt the brits would care much. New Zealand would quickly annex you though.

They got sentenced today:
Steve Christian - 3 years on five counts of raping a 12 year old
His son, Randy Christian - 6 years for four rapes and five indecent assaults
Len Brown - 2 years for 2 rapes, though he can apply for home detention
Terry Young - 5 years for 1 rape and 6 indecent assaults

Dave Brown and Dennis Christian who plead guilty to their charges were sentenced to 400 and 300 hours of community service respectively

Ofcourse, these sentences won't start until the legal challenge to Britain's jurisdiction is heard in the Privy Council next year.

They got sentenced today:
Steve Christian - 3 years on five counts of raping a 12 year old
His son, Randy Christian - 6 years for four rapes and five indecent assaults
Len Brown - 2 years for 2 rapes, though he can apply for home detention
Terry Young - 5 years for 1 rape and 6 indecent assaults

Dave Brown and Dennis Christian who plead guilty to their charges were sentenced to 400 and 300 hours of community service respectively

Ofcourse, these sentences won't start until the legal challenge to Britain's jurisdiction is heard in the Privy Council next year.
And 6 others who have moved away are still waiting for their trial to begin in Australia.
A nice bunch of men.

And 6 others who have moved away are still waiting for their trial to begin in Australia.
A nice bunch of men.

I think there's another 2 awaiting trial in New Zealand too...

Yeah, they are lovely fellers aren't they, hey, it's what they do apparently.
Pitcairn Islanders, their lives are filled with three f's food, fishing, and well...

The ancestral defence was actually raised here in A-NZ by some Pitcairn women (non-complainants.)
It is historically true that very young Tahitian girls -in the 18th century - were sexually used (I personally dont think 10-11-12 year olds can make informed choices but I wasnt alive in the 18th century.) My point was/is - in certain matters, historical cultural precedent doesnt count. The law has found thus.

There's been much made of the fact that, without sufficient adult males around, Pitcairn will die.

So?

Many many small - Pitcairn is below small, it's tiny, and not paticularly interesting or productive- Polynesian settlements have died over the last millennium.

Haere ra e Pitcairn. Your sexually abusive nasty late-religious culture has sunk you.
Good riddance.