Once again the capitalist justice system has served the interests of a well known, white, middle-class celebrity - this time of a musician convicted of committing indecent acts against two young women.

While the offender has acknowledged his crime, the justice system has refused to let him be named. In effect, his name will get out there by word of mouth, text and private email, thereby circumventing the name suppression laws and that is good. But what is not good is that all members of the public should know as not everyone has internet or mobile access and nor do they have connections to the Auckland-based celebrity circuit.

We deserve to know his name on the basis that he has committed a serious offence against two teenage women. Furthermore, as one sexual abuse survivor network has commented today, this person may likely reoffend if the public don't know of his identity. In their argument, enabling the public to effectively keep tabs on him will mean that he may not have the chance to carry out similar offending against other women in the future. Also his chances of re-offending might have been reduced if he had been directed to attend a community-based sexual offender rehabilitation programme.

Moreover, the refusal of the judge to enter a conviction on the basis that it would be too severe and impact upon this muso's career is crap. It all smacks, once again, of the Tony Veitch case where, if a person is well-known enough and well-off to boot, they can hire the best lawyers in town to argue their way out of a tight spot. From what I saw of the offender's blurred image on television last night, I could make out that he was European/Pakeha and impeccably dressed.

But what if the offender had been an unknown Maori or Pacific Islander or a person of other ethnicity? What if he (irrespective of race) had come from a working class neighbourhood, say in South Auckland? What if he were a complete un-known?

With all those factors in mind, I would say that he would have ended up with a conviction and then imprisoned or severely fined. He would have been sentenced to a community-based rehabilitation programme and his name would have appeared in every media outlet in the country. Their anonymity (and rightly so) would have disappeared upon conviction.

However, this will not be the fate for the unknown entertainer who (according to the judge) still needs to earn an income from concert and ticket sales. My only hope is that word of mouth will help to expose this person and then people can make up their own minds about whether to buy this person's music or attend their concerts.

In the meantime, a law change is needed so that lawyers can't argue for name suppression on behalf of any future celebrity or well-off defendant's. Similar rules regarding name suppression should apply for all, irrespective of their class or other status.

Justice demands it!

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Reddit
• Facebook
• Google
• Technorati

Do you like this post?

+33

179 votes