May 14, 2011

Poll Result - Name Suppression

A Poll taken on K1W1Jax asked: "Name Suppression for 'convicted' child sex offenders be:

  1. Automatically Given - No votes
  2. Never Given - 29%
  3. Up to the Victim - 77%

Currently, New Zealand has one national database for convicted sex offenders - the Sensible Sentencing Trust run on a voluntary basis and founded by Garth McVicar. This is a formidable site and extremely useful to those concerned, moreover, about these offenders once they're released. However, I dare anyone to try and locate a single convicted offender whose victim was related to them. In other words, you won't find any incest offenders because the Law, as it stands, grants them automatic name suppression, and in some cases, in spite of the victim's wishes - and that, as you can see, goes against what people think should happen. 


  1. Loving your new poll now too Jax :)

  2. Let the victims decide.

    I'd also like to see doctors/and any form of psychotherapists subject to complusory lifting of name suppression if they are found guiltly of sexually exploiting clients (well, ok I call it rape but the law hasn't caught up with me yet even though "transference" IMHO is by definition a state of impairment).

    This would prevent cross migration into the alternative healthcare field where further abuse can occur with potiential victims unable to discriminate between practitioners.

    Associations are a case of all care, no responsibility so this isn't a useful input for decision making.

    Overseas sexual exploitation by psychotherapists (incl. counsellors) is a statutory rape and if found guilty therapists become registered sex offenders. It's an incest dynamic NOT AN AFFAIR!

    Here in NZ we declare it illegal then abandon the victims, suppress names thereby allowing further sexual abuse to take place with other clients. It is often softly framed as "unethical" minimising the serious impact upon victims.

  3. A problem with allowing an incest survivor to decide on naming the offender is that in many cases there may well be other survivors (who might not have come forward) who do not want publicity.

    I have no idea what is the right thing in that situation.

  4. Re your latest poll - where's the "No, he should be fired before he gets a chance to resign" option?


For troubleshooting, email: