Tracking to become illegal: Why the Government’s bill could worsen things – the opinion

Tracking is a model of behavior that appears from Stalker’s attempts to exercise power over their victim.

It appears in a variety of relationships, but it is most common during the pursuit or breakdown of intimate relationships. The stalker uses his harassment behavior to develop or maintain the relationship against the victim’s will or to punish the victim for rejecting or leaving them. This, in turn, causes victims to reduce their usual activities and suffer severe health consequences. In the most serious cases, the pursuit escalates to homicide.

For almost 30 years, the closest thing that Aotaoa New Zealand has had a crime for prosecution is the crime of harassing in the 1997 harassment law.

The crime of harassment, as defined in the law of harassment, is too narrow to encompass all forms and pursuit. It has been written more with neighborhood or employment disputes than obsessive or post-seating by former or potential romantic partners.

It is so old that it could not have anticipated the digital tracking forms commonly used today. And, as the news reports look clear, it is often misunderstood or not unused by the police when the victims of the pursuit ask for their help.

To be correct, the Government has obtained a few things even in its new tracking proposal. He moved the crime to pursue the law on harassment to the law on crimes, clarifying Stalking’s status as a crime, rather than a form of peacock.

Updated the list of documents that can be a pursuit to include several modern forms of digital and online harassment. And, it has improved criminal sanctions for prosecution, which represents a more serious and dangerous crime than the sanctions in the law of harassment are reflected.

For an alternative view: The proposed law of anti-parish is a good news-but it must be resistant to the future

andHowever, other ways, the new draft law on the pursuit of the government actually weakens the protections for the victims of the pursuit.

The law of harassment currently defines harassment as when Stalker engages in two or more follow -ups against the victim. The new government legislation inexplicably changes this requirement to three or more follow -up acts.

It is disappointing why the legislation that the Government is meant to help the victims made them to obtain protection (and easier for followers) than the current law, allowing Stalkers an additional act, prosecution bonus before their behavior becomes a crime.

The new draft law of the Government also creates a new defense for prosecution that does not exist as a defense of the criminal harassment at present: the defense “reasonable excuse”.

This new wide defense is useless and risks weakening the tracking protection for victims. Even if a stalker has engaged in three or more pursuit acts, as defined in the new legislation and does this as part of a threatening, harassing behavior, they can still argue the jury that they have a reasonable excuse to do this.

If they manage to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury if their excuse for tracking has been reasonable, the jury should pay them.

Leaving the legality of the purpose of a stalker or the reasonability of a jury stalker’s apology, it makes it too difficult for prosecutors to sue them and too easy for Stalkers to move away from their crimes.

The draft law of the Government does not provide any clue about what could be a reasonable excuse to follow or follow someone, to send them communications, to damage their properties, to undermine their reputation or relationships, or to threaten them as part of a harassment model.

The Government may destroy the police or journalists or protesters of criminal liability. If so, a “reasonable excuse” defense is a poor way to achieve this goal.

We have examined international tracking invoices, in more than 100 jurisdictions and, most, specify certain persons or activities that fall into their prosecution offenses.

For example, Queensland extends its defense to tracking work or political protests. Victoria extends its defense only to official law enforcement actions.

The pursuit is poorly understood by the general public (and honestly, even by some police and prosecutors).

Our cultural tropes often normalize some forms of pursuit as a legitimate yard behavior or intelligible reconciliation attempts by a heartfelt or infatuated. Men must be aggressive in pursuit of women, because women play “hard to obtain.”

Jurors who do not understand the psychology of the prosecution could be careful to impose criminal sanctions for the conduct they consider trivial, benign, normal or even sympathetic.

Stalkers tend to be entitled and justified by themselves. Most possess beliefs and attitudes that minimize their personal behavior and responsibility.

They blame others and justify their behavior, sometimes convincing. Many engage in the pursuit behavior precisely because the right to do so are legally felt. Often they are motivated by resentments to the perceived offenses and to fit their pursuit as an attempt to straighten the wrong and to “protect” themselves against the additional hostile teaching by others.

These beliefs and attitudes lead to post-hoc rationalizations for tracking, which could be reformed as “reasonable” excuses for their behavior.

Criminal statutes are not very often updated. And this problem is unlikely to be visited again soon. So we have this chance to get a pursuit for the next generation of victims.

The government should not waste this opportunity by weakening the protection for the victims. And waiting for the next woman to die.